REPORTS OF TRIALS

FOR

MURDER BY POISONING.

[iii]

REPORTS OF TRIALS
FOR
MURDER BY POISONING;

BY

PRUSSIC ACID, STRYCHNIA, ANTIMONY,
ARSENIC, AND ACONITIA.

INCLUDING THE

TRIALS OF TAWELL, W. PALMER, DOVE, MADELINE SMITH,
Dr. PRITCHARD, SMETHURST, AND Dr. LAMSON,

WITH

CHEMICAL INTRODUCTION AND NOTES ON
THE POISONS USED.

BY

G. LATHOM BROWNE,

OF THE MIDLAND CIRCUIT, BARRISTER-AT-LAW, AUTHOR OF “NARRATIVES OF
STATE TRIALS IN THE 19TH CENTURY,”

AND

C. G. STEWART,

SENIOR ASSISTANT IN THE LABORATORY OF ST. THOMAS’S HOSPITAL;
ASSOCIATE OF THE ROYAL COLLEGE OF SCIENCE, DUBLIN;
AND OF THE SOCIETY OF PUBLIC ANALYSTS.

LONDON:

STEVENS AND SONS, 119, CHANCERY LANE,

Law Publishers and Booksellers.

1883.

[iv]

LONDON:
BRADBURY, AGNEW, & CO., PRINTERS, WHITEFRIARS.

PREFACES.

This volume of selected reports of the most remarkable trials for murder by poisoning, which have been held during the past half century, with essays and notes explanatory of the nature, and operation, and methods of detecting the various poisons supposed to have been employed, will it is hoped prove useful to the medical, as well as the legal profession. With this object the evidence of the medical and chemical witnesses has been given in detail, especially in those cases in which a conflict of scientific testimony arose, between experts of the highest professional character and reputation. Care has also been taken to state the scientific nomenclature of this class of witness correctly, a point on which the shorthand writers, otherwise so reliable, are naturally liable to fail, catching as they do only the sounds of a language unknown to them, in reporting which the error even in a single letter is often most important. My colleague, besides furnishing the latest information obtainable with reference to the various poisons, has offered from recent experiments, made specially for this purpose, explanations of those points in the several trials about which the rival experts disputed, bringing to bear on them the latest discoveries in chemical science.

In preparing these reports, I have followed the form adopted by the late Mr. Townsend, the Recorder of Macclesfield,[vi] in his valuable volumes of trials—now I believe quite out of print—grouping the witnesses under the heads of the case to which their evidence specially applied, dividing the scientific from the moral testimony, and wherever a conflict arose between the experts called for the prosecution and those for the defence, giving the evidence of the latter immediately after that of the former, so as to place the points at issue more clearly before the reader.

It would have been impossible, within reasonable limits, to have reported in detail the elaborate speeches of counsel (most of them models of argument, criticism, and eloquence), or the minute and exhaustive charges of many of the presiding judges. The abstracts which have been given will, however, serve to perpetuate the most important and notable parts of both. In some of the cases the immediate application of these either to certain points in the evidence, or to the arguments adduced on either side, has been shown by quotations in the notes. With these exceptions, and a few notes pointing out errors or discrepancies in the evidence, I have generally forborne to express an opinion on the verdict, preferring to present such reports of the evidence as may enable the student to form his own conclusions.

With the progress of chemical science the field of the poisoner is constantly extending. New poisons are yearly discovered, each succeeding one apparently more difficult of detection than the former. Death lurks in many unsuspected forms, and but for the parallel march of the science of detection, the poisoner would more often escape. A grave danger to society, too, lies in the patent medicines, so popular and so perilous; in the vermin killers, loaded with deadly poison, which can be bought without let or[vii] hindrance by any one; and the use of preparations for animals—not so deleterious to the latter, as they are death-dealing—if either intentionally or by accident given to a human being. Stringent as the regulations of the Poisons Act appear on paper, the facility with which Lamson purchased aconitia, merely on the credit of his name appearing in the Medical Directory, and the really unrestricted sale of patent medicines and vermin-killers, mark the practical inutility of the Act. A new Act, dealing with these points, has been promised by the Government, but there seems little probability of its passing this session.

G. L. B.

In the compilation of these chemical notes it has been found very difficult to be sufficiently simple and complete in explanation for non-scientific readers, without either sacrificing many important details, or exceeding the limited space available. I have attempted as far as possible not only to solve the questions that arose in the trials, but to look forward to many that might occur in future cases. No claim is laid to originality except in a few experiments; but the search through existing authorities has involved so much labour, that I must plead a very limited leisure as an excuse for any incompleteness. In such portions as touched on medicine I have been guided by the later text-books, and by living advice. It has been thought preferable to give references in the text, at the very passage quoted, instead of in foot-notes.

[viii]

With regard to the proposed new Poisons Act one or two considerations should not be forgotten. There are hundreds of ways of taking life: the poisoner’s is only one. Even in his method the number of fatal agents he may use is almost unlimited. To make a schedule of certain poisons that are not to be sold without restriction, seems like prohibiting knives, while allowing stilettos—the latter are certainly less usual, but quite as fatal. Moreover, the Act of 1868 only affects one channel by which poisons may reach the public—viz., through the retail chemists. It secures a record of ordinary shop purchases, and thus facilitates the tracing of crime. But the channels of trade are still open: hundred-weights of arsenic are obtained, where ounces could not be purchased; and these large stocks are often carelessly kept, and left open to servants, workmen, or even children. The result is that the supposed restrictions on obtaining poisons are almost illusory: these substances are sown broadcast among ignorant people, and are placed in cupboards unlabelled among articles of food. The following are recent illustrations:—

In the schedule of the 1868 Act, among the less dangerous poisons, to be obtained without restriction beyond proper labelling, appears, “Almonds, Essential Oil of (unless deprived of prussic acid).” Yet this preparation is[ix] one of the most perilous, as has been shown by numbers of deaths, and lately by the West Malling case (not yet ripe enough for reporting). There are also other faults in the schedule.

Remembering, then, that legislation on the sale of poisons is utterly unable to prevent poisoning, that all it can do is to make the means a little difficult, and the detection more easy, how can we approve the proposal at this moment made, to tack on a few, very tentative clauses to an unsuccessful Act, and four more names to a very defective schedule? Why insert chloride of antimony, and omit nitrate of silver, sulphate of copper, and chloride of tin? The essence of a “poison” is quantity; and no Act which does not specify the maximum quantity that may be sold, can be effective. Beyond this, why should it be more criminal to sell a dangerous substance to a poisoner than to give it to him, or by culpable negligence to allow him to take possession of it? If such neglect were made punishable, if people who left arsenic, &c., about in cupboards without precaution, had to suffer for the consequences, we should hear less of such “accidents.”

I am deeply indebted to Dr. Bernays, Professor of Chemistry at St. Thomas’s Hospital, for kind advice and facilities of consultation and experiment; to Doctors Harley, Ord, Acland, and to my namesake, Mr. Charles Stewart, F.L.S., for many valuable suggestions; and especially to Mr. E. G. Clayton, F.C.S., who contributed the main part of the chapter on Aconitia, and helped me materially in other portions of the chemical notes.

The main authorities drawn upon have been:—

Taylor’s Medical Jurisprudence, 1873.
[x]Taylor on Poisons.
Woodman and Tidy’s Handy-Book of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology, 1877.
Blyth’s Manual of Practical Chemistry, 1879.
Guy and Ferrier’s Forensic Medicine, 1881.
Allen’s Commercial Organic Analysis, 1879.
Royle’s Materia Medica, edited by Dr. J. Harley, 1876.
Christison on Poisons, 1829.
Fresenius’ Qual. and Quant. Analysis.
Watt’s Dictionary of Chemistry.
Chemical Society’s Journal.
Chemical News, Lancet, &c.
Farquharson’s Therapeutics.
Mohr’s Toxicologie, trans. by Gautier, 1876.
Casper’s Handbook of Forensic Medicine, trans. by Balfour, 1861-5.
Beilstein’s Organische Chemie, 1882.
Year Book of Pharmacy.
British and other Pharmacopœias.
Squire’s Companion.

In conclusion, it has been obviously impossible in the limited space to explain elementary facts or principles. These may be ascertained from any of the standard textbooks.

C. G. S.

CONTENTS.

ADDENDA.

A.

The following is my own experience of the differences between strychnia and morphia.—C. G. S.

[xvi]

B.

The chlorine used in the separation of arsenic (p. 385) must be pure. The best process for making it is to heat pure potass. dichromate with pure hydrochloric acid. The latter may be obtained by heating the “pure” acid of commerce in a retort until a portion of the distillate gives no indication of arsenic by the tests. The remainder in the retort is then arsenic-free.

ERRATUM.

Page 397, line 11, for “Waislow,” read, “Winslow.”

TRIALS FOR POISONING.

CHAPTER I.

CHEMICAL INTRODUCTION.

Summary of symptoms exhibited by various poisons: (1) Sudden death—(2) Insensibility—(3) Vomiting—(4) Action on the eye—(5) Convulsions—(6) Chronic poisoning. Alkaloids, chemically and physiologically—Processes for their detection—Necessity for keeping the extracts separate—Dragendorff’s process—Dr. Guy’s sublimation process—Effects on animals—Doubtful value of this test—Preparation and effects of reagents: (1) Mayer’s—(2) Potassium tri-iodide—(3) Sonnenschein’s test—(4) Bismuth—(5) Phosphotungstic acid—(6) Picric acid—(7) Animal charcoal—(8) Platinic chloride—(9) Tannin or tannic acid—(10) Phospho-antimonic acid—(11) Silico-tungstic acid—(11) Auric, palladium and mercuric chlorides—Ptomaines or cadaveric alkaloids; difficulties raised by their discovery—Principles to be observed in analysing.

Before proceeding to a separate examination of the poisons used in the following trials, it will be advisable to take a general view of poisons, specially noticing those that we have selected as the most important legally. They do not admit, perhaps, of accurate classification, but inasmuch as the manner of death and symptoms are usually the most available indication as to the nature of the poison that has acted, the following arrangement will be serviceable. The heads indicate the most prominent symptom:

I. Sudden Death.—Large quantities of any poison might be rapid in fatal result, but the sudden poisons proper are:—concentrated sulphuric, nitric, and hydrochloric acids; poisonous gases and vapours, such as carbonic acid and sulphuretted hydrogen (see Casper’s Forensic Medicine, Case CCXLI.), carbonic oxide, arseniuretted and antimoniuretted[2] hydrogen, and certain rare organic compounds, as kakodyl, &c.; strychnia sometimes, oxalic acid in large doses, chloroform under certain circumstances. But beyond all others, the quickest of poisons is hydrocyanic or prussic acid.

II. Insensibility, generally following nervous excitement. Morphia and opium; henbane (Hyoscyamus); stramonium; belladonna; nicotine (tobacco); darnel (lolium temulentum); hemlock (Conium maculatum); water hemlock (Œnanthe crocata); fool’s parsley (Æthusa cynapium), [Dr. J. Harley shows that this is not so poisonous as believed: see St. Thomas’s Hospital Reports, x. 25]; Indian hemp (Cannabis indica); Woody Nightshade (Solanum dulcamara); Solanum nigrum; the berries of Potato (Solanum tuberosum); Lobelia inflata: Foxglove (Digitalis); cocculus indicus; certain fungi (notably Amanita muscaria); chloroform; chloral; butylchloral —“croton chloral”): amylene; methylene dichloride; sulphuretted hydrogen; carbonic oxide; and many other substances usually classed as narcotics.

III. Vomiting.—Irritant poisons, such as acids, alkalies, alkaline salts in considerable doses (even common salt has proved fatal: see Christison[1]); most soluble compounds of the heavy metals (especially antimony, arsenic, zinc, and copper); certain vegetal alkaloids (from colchicum, laburnum, yew, savin, ipecacuanha, capsicum, pepper, ergot, many species of Ranunculaceæ, the Hellebores, and some fungi); cantharides, turpentine, and essential oils, &c. Pain in the digestive organs, purging, and general inflammation are commonly present. Most of the medicinal purgatives will produce sickness and vomiting if given in overdoses; of course unwholesome food or disease may frequently be the cause.

IV. Action on the Eye.—Opium and morphia, calabar bean, aconite (?), and strychnia, contract the pupil: belladonna, henbane, tobacco, stramonium, digitalis and hemlock, dilate the pupil. The effect is often temporary, and sometimes[3] is reversed after a time. It is a valuable indication in after-experiments on animals.

V. Convulsions.—Strychnia, brucia, and some fungi: but this symptom is by no means confined to these, and may even result as tetanus, from disease or irritants (see Trial of Palmer). Morphia, in rare cases, has also caused it.

VI. Chronic Poisoning, prostration and wasting. Antimony, mercury, and lead in small repeated doses. With the two latter, but more especially with lead, there is a blue line at the edge of the gums; constipation and colic, paralysis and trembling of the limbs. As lead frequently occurs as an impurity in food, and also may be absorbed by those working with it, these symptoms may be often accidental. Mercury also is given, less than of old, it is true, but still systematically by some, as a regular course in syphilis, &c.: also to children in teething powders. Antimony has been almost abandoned in medicine, from its depressant effect. In these cases, motive, amount, and necessity of dose, and right to administer, must be considered before wilful poisoning can be proved. The analysis, therefore, must be strictly quantitative, which is fortunately tolerably easy.

The above summary is by no means perfect, since there are minor differences in each class, which may sometimes rise into such prominence as to confuse the classification. But in medical evidence on the individual poisons of which we treat, those physiologically resembling them in action are always most heard of at the trial, and questions are asked whether this or that may not produce the same symptoms; and hence it is well to direct attention to the analogues of our types.

The primary idea of an alkaloid is derived from its resemblance to an alkali. Alkaloids are often called also “Organic Bases.” Their names terminate in—ia or ine.[2] They are more or less alkaline to test paper, and combine with acids to form salts which are neutral in reaction and often crystallizable.[4] Only a few of the alkaloids are liquid and easily volatile, but almost all can be volatilized by careful heating at definite temperatures, giving in many cases a sublimate of characteristic appearance under the microscope, either of crystals, globules, or a mere film. In a free state, the alkaloids are very slightly soluble in water, but soluble in alcohol, and generally in ether and chloroform. Some are soluble in benzine, others in amylic alcohol, petroleum spirit, acetic ether, &c. On a judicious use of these various solvents depend the different processes of isolation, among which Dragendorff’s is the most complete, but so complicated that it is rarely used in its entirety. Fortunately there is generally a clue more or less definite to the probable poison administered, enabling a shorter and quicker method to be adopted. For further details as to these processes see Blyth’s Manual of Practical Chemistry. The sulphates, chlorides, and acetates of the alkaloids are generally soluble in water; if ammonia or potash be added to the solution, a precipitate (usually crystalline) of the free alkaloid occurs if the solution be of moderate strength.

Chemically, the alkaloids are derived from ammonia (NH₃) by substituting various organic groups or “compound radicles” (compounds of carbon and hydrogen), for the hydrogen of the ammonia. They are therefore “compound ammonias,” or “amines.” Nitrogen, carbon, and hydrogen, are always present in natural alkaloids, the non-volatile ones, including the greater number, also contain oxygen.

Physiologically, alkaloids as a class have a powerful action on the human and animal frame. The medicinal properties of plants are generally due to these substances, though many are still undiscovered or imperfectly known. They exist in the plant combined with vegetal acids, some of which are characteristic, as aconitic acid in aconite, meconic in opium, igasuric (?) in nux vomica, &c. The very small quantity which may sometimes be fatal (a fraction of a grain of the pure alkaloid), the indefiniteness of many of their chemical reactions, and the facility with which they decompose if too high[5] a heat, or too strong reagents, be employed in their extraction, render the detection often a difficult, and sometimes an impossible matter. Fortunately, however, fresh tests and better processes develop from every case, and other indications, from symptoms and collateral circumstances, rarely fail to bring home the guilt even to the most ingenious and scientific of poisoners.

For extracting the alkaloids from animal matters the following process has been used by the author. Mince finely, digest with rectified spirit and enough acetic acid to just acidify, warm to blood-heat for 15 minutes, filter: this is the first extract. Warm the insoluble matters with more alcohol and filter again: this is the second extract. Repeat the extraction a third time. Keep the three extracts separate. Each should be evaporated at as low a temperature as possible, not exceeding 50° C., and preferably in a vacuum at the ordinary temperature, if this can be done fairly quickly. The syrupy residues must be treated with water and a drop of acetic acid, passed through wet filters to separate fat, rendered just alkaline with ammonia, and shaken with a moderate quantity of a mixture of equal volumes of ether and chloroform (Allen). By a stoppered funnel or burette the ethereal layer is separated, the shaking with ether and chloroform and the separation repeated a second and a third time, the ethereal extracts mixed, transferred to a large porcelain dish, and evaporated, first in a current of air, then in a vacuum or spontaneously. As the solvents evaporate, water generally appears: this hinders any crystallization. Therefore the residue must be rendered dry, then dissolved in a little anhydrous chloroform (dried by standing over fused calcium chloride), and again evaporated in air in a large watch glass. The residue will generally be crystalline under the microscope if any alkaloid be present. Dissolve again in chloroform, transfer to a graduated burette, make up to a convenient volume (say 10 cubic centimetres), and transfer a measured fraction to a number of watch glasses, reserving about one-fourth for any subsequent quantitative test that may be necessary. Allow the liquid in the watch glasses to spontaneously[6] evaporate. To the first add a little water and a very minute quantity of dilute hydrochloric acid, and cautiously taste a portion. A tingling of the lips and subsequent numbness indicate aconite; intense bitterness points to strychnia; if there be no taste at all it is unlikely that any alkaloid is present. There are some alkaloids of a peppery taste; these are irritants, and are not common as poisons. Bitterness is the most frequent characteristic.

2. Moisten the contents of the second watch glass with a little water and a trace of acetic acid, and apply through an incision in the skin of the back of a young frog. He should be kept as comfortable as possible and the symptoms observed. Strychnia readily produces tetanus in this animal; other poisons also have peculiar effects. Some observers have used mice, rabbits, or cats; in the Palmer trial it was observed that dogs were not employed because they were inconvenient and might bite! On the whole this so-called physiological test has been overrated, as it is hardly to be expected that an animal with its back cut and otherwise injured will not exhibit some symptoms; and all who have kept wild animals in confinement will know how soon they become, first almost convulsive from excitement, then finally sink into stupor and die. If necessary, any judge may grant a special licence to the experts in a trial to make experiments on animals, otherwise such cruelty is rendered penal by the Vivisection Act.[3]

3. To the third watch glass, after the contents have been dissolved as before, a drop of a solution of iodine in potassium iodide is added. Nearly all alkaloids give a brown precipitate. If none occur, a negative conclusion may be expected.

4. Test the fourth watch glass in one corner for strychnia by concentrated sulphuric acid and peroxide of manganese; in another corner for morphia by iodic acid and starch; in a third corner for brucia (and morphia) by strong nitric acid. (See the special paragraphs on these reactions, pp. 280, 285.)

5. If there is still no indication, and no information has[7] been obtained from other sources, it may be necessary to employ Dragendorff’s process on the remainder. But if the poison has been discovered, the solution reserved in the burette should be evaporated, dissolved in water and a little dilute acid, avoiding heat, and titrated by Mayer’s reagent to ascertain the quantity.[4]

The second and third extractions of the organs must now be considered. Most of the text-books recommend that all the extracts should be mixed. The objection to this is, that since the alkaloid is usually present in very small amount, the first extraction will remove nearly all of it, while the second and third will mainly contain other matters, and therefore will be only adding to the impurities, and consequently to the difficulty of isolation. If it be worth while, the second and third extracts may be treated separately as above, and should any further quantity of alkaloid be found, it may be determined quantitatively, and the amount added to that already obtained.

It has been proposed to precipitate the original spirituous extract by neutral or basic acetate of lead, which throws down many impurities, but leaves the alkaloids in solution. After filtration, the liquid is treated with a current of sulphuretted hydrogen to remove lead; again filtered, evaporated (as speedily as can be done without overheating) to a moderate bulk, and treated with a little ammonia and with ether-chloroform as before. If the sulphuretted hydrogen be left exposed to the air for some time, it oxidizes to sulphuric[8] acid, which, during and after evaporation, tends to destroy the alkaloid. Hence I have found it advisable to remove the H₂S quickly by a current of carbonic acid and warming—previous to evaporation. But this process is not good for alkaloids, as sulphur compounds are often formed, which interfere with subsequent operations.

The foregoing process may fail to extract morphia, curarine, and solanine, as these, being very little soluble in ether-chloroform, may remain behind in the aqueous liquid. This, therefore, should be afterwards treated in one of the following ways:—

1. Heat some redistilled amylic alcohol nearly to boiling (it boils at 120° C.), add an equal volume to the aqueous (alkaline) solution; shake vigorously, separate while still hot, and shake again with a fresh, but rather smaller, quantity of the hot solvent. The united amylic alcohol solutions will contain all the morphia, but can only be distilled in vacuo, since at 120° C. the stability of the morphia would be endangered. It is better to extract the morphia from the amylic solution by shaking with successive small portions of weak acetic acid, separating each time, till the acidity remains unneutralized. The alkaloid will now be in the acid solution. Nearly neutralize this with ammonia, evaporate at a gentle heat, and apply the special tests.

2. Instead of the above, the aqueous alkaline solution may be agitated with a mixture of equal volumes of ether and pure acetic ether (the latter having been previously purified from free acid by standing over powdered carbonate of lime). Although this mixture does not extract the morphia so readily as amylic alcohol, it has this advantage that, after separation from the aqueous layer, it can be evaporated at a moderate temperature, when the morphia, if in sufficient quantity, will be left in the crystalline state, and can be tested as usual.

If sufficient material be at hand, of course both processes may be used.[5]

[9]

Selmi (Gazz. Chim. Ital. vi., 32) has given a process for alkaloidal extraction of which I have no experience.

When the alkaloid is obtained in a sufficiently pure form and in sufficient quantity, the sublimation process of Dr. Guy, as improved by Blyth, may be used. For the entire original method, see Blyth’s Practical Chemistry, page 285.

Dr. Guy’s “subliming cell” is a ring of glass tubing about ⅛-inch long and ⅓ to ½-inch diameter, ground true and smooth at top and bottom, resting on a circle of thin microscope glass, and covered with another similar circle. The alkaloid, thoroughly dry, is placed on the lower disc (a drop of the solution may be evaporated on it), the whole fitted together, and floated on mercury, or better, fusible metal, contained in a small glass beaker nearly full, supported on wire gauze over a small flame. A thermometer held by a clamp dips in the liquid metal. With a hand lens of as high power as possible, the melting point, and also the point when the first sublimate occurs on the upper glass, may be observed. As soon as the sublimate has become sufficiently distinct, the upper disc is removed, replaced by another, and examined under ¼-inch power of the microscope. The heat is slowly raised till charring occurs, and anything characteristic noted.

Morphia gives a clouding, consisting of minute dots, at 150° C.; from 188° to 200° C., distinct crystals are obtained; then it commences to brown, melt, and carbonize.

Strychnia gives a minute sublimate of fine needles at 169° C., and melts at about 221° C.

Brucia melts at 151° C., browns easily, but gives no true sublimate.

Aconitine or aconitia melts at 183° to 184° C.

Pseudaconitine melts at 104° to 105° C., and easily decomposes, giving off water.

Commercial aconitine usually melts below 100° C., and gives an amorphous sublimate above 150° C.

The reactions of the other alkaloids will be found in Blyth’s Practical Chemistry.

[10]

In order to avoid repetition, the mode of preparing the general reagents for alkaloids will be given here.

1. Mayers Reagent, potassio-iodide of mercury, already described (p. 7; Liebig’s Annalen, 133, 286), gives white precipitates with almost all alkaloids. The latter can be recovered from the precipitate by treating it with a solution of zinc chloride mixed with caustic soda. (Mayer.)

2. Potassium tri-iodide, a solution of iodine in potassium iodide, gives a brown or reddish precipitate.[6]

3. Sonnenschein’s test, Phosphomolybdic acid, is prepared as follows. To a warm solution of molybdate of ammonia acidified with nitric acid, phosphate of soda is added as long as any yellow precipitate is obtained. The precipitate is washed with water containing a little nitric acid, and heated with sodium carbonate solution till dissolved. Evaporate to dryness, heat to expel ammonia, add a little nitric acid and heat again. One part of the residue is then dissolved in a mixture of one part of nitric acid of 1·4 sp. gr., and nine parts of water. With this reagent strychnia gives a pale, other alkaloids a bright yellow flocculent precipitate, in very dilute solutions. The precipitates are soluble in ammonia, with the production of a greenish blue colour in the cases of aconitia and morphia. From the alkaline liquid the alkaloid can be dissolved out by at once shaking with ether-chloroform or hot amylic alcohol as already described. Instead of using ammonia, the precipitate may be agitated with barium carbonate, which has less tendency to decompose the base on its liberation.

4. A solution of bismuth iodide in iodide of potassium is recommended by Dragendorff (Zeitschr. f. Chimie, 1866, 478). 80 grammes of commercial bismuth subnitrate are dissolved in 200 cubic centimetres of nitric acid of sp. gr. 1·18: 272 grammes of potassium iodide dissolved in a little water are added, the potassium nitrate allowed to crystallize[11] out, and the whole diluted to one litre. This solution precipitates most alkaloids. The precipitate can be treated with sodium carbonate and the liberated alkaloid extracted by ether-chloroform, &c. For the equivalents, see Maugini, Gazz. Chim. Ital. 12, 155.

5. Scheibler has proposed Phosphotungstic acid as a precipitant. Sodium tungstate is digested with half its weight of phosphoric acid, sp. gr. 1·13: on standing, phosphotungstic acid crystallizes. Its solution is said to give a distinct precipitate with ¹/₂₀₀₀₀₀ of a grain of strychnia and ¹/₁₀₀₀₀₀ of quina, and with similar amounts of other alkaloids. From this precipitate the alkaloid is obtained by treating with sufficient milk of lime and shaking with ether-chloroform, &c., as before. He recommends the previous removal of impurities by lead acetate and sulphuretted hydrogen as already described (p. 7) (Fresenius, Zeitschr. f. anal. Chemie, 12, 315).

6. Picric acid, a saturated aqueous solution, gives precipitates in neutral solutions of morphia and atropia. In solutions acidified with sulphuric acid it gives the following:—morphia, and pseudomorphia, no precipitate; aconitia, a precipitate only in concentrated solutions; other alkaloids of opium, a thick precipitate.[7]

7. Animal charcoal, previously purified by hydrochloric acid and thorough washing with water, when digested with neutral or alkaline solutions of alkaloids, not too dilute, absorbs them from the liquid. The charcoal, washed twice or thrice with small quantities of water, is dried at a moderate temperature, and boiled with strong alcohol, which extracts the alkaloid. This process has been used for separating picrotoxin from beer, but has the inconvenience that the alkaloid is liable to gradual oxidation within the pores of the charcoal, and that the separation is never complete.[12] It is this property that has caused charcoal to be recommended as an antidote in poisoning.

8. All alkaloids form with platinic chloride double salts of more or less sparing solubility. These precipitates, washed, dried and weighed, and then burnt, leave metallic platinum, the amount of which yields a clue to the composition of the base. But aconitine and narcotine are only thrown down from concentrated solutions, and a few are not precipitated at all. Hence this test is of only occasional value in toxicological work. The same may be said of auric chloride.

9. Tannin or tannic acid, a moderately strong solution in water, throws down most alkaloids. Coffee and tea, and other tannin-containing infusions, have, therefore, been used as antidotes with dubious success. As a test it is not distinctive.

10. Phospho-antimonic acid (Schultze), prepared by mixing antimony pentachloride with ordinary sodium phosphate and decanting the clear liquid, gives whitish amorphous precipitates with alkaloids.

11. Silico-tungstic acid is prepared by boiling commercial tungstate of soda with fresh gelatinous silica. Filter and allow to crystallize. This gives precipitates with very dilute solutions of alkaloids, but it is also precipitated by ammonium chloride (Godefroy, Arch. d. Pharm., Nov. 1879). Zaubenheimer recommends it as a most delicate test: the precipitate may be decomposed by soda or potash, and the base extracted by ether-chloroform.

12. Auric chloride, palladious chloride, and mercuric chloride have been proposed, but are not of much use. Potassium chromate and sulphocyanide, and sodium nitroprusside give somewhat insoluble precipitates, generally crystalline and of characteristic appearance under the microscope. These tests should be strong, and must be used in small quantity.

Ptomaines or Cadaveric Alkaloids.—Much attention has been attracted lately by the possible interference to toxicological detections owing to the undoubted existence of natural[13] alkaloids in the dead body unpoisoned. Some of these, called by Selmi “Ptomaines” ([Greek: ptôma], a corpse), somewhat simulate strychnia, &c., in their chemical and physiological characters. The observation is not new, as years ago, in the Privy Council’s reports, Thudichum called attention to alkaloids separated by Sonnenschein’s process (phosphomolybdic acid) from the brain, urine, and from decomposed bodies. Various substances of the kind have also been found by other investigators. To these “cadaveric alkaloids” have been attributed the “sausage poisoning,” so frequent in Germany (for cases, see Casper’s Handbook, vol. 3), poisoning by various foods, such as tinned meats, cheese, &c. Some are irritants, others narcotics: different periods and circumstances of putrefaction producing different compounds.

In an Italian criminal prosecution, F. Ciotto, who made the investigation of the corpse, gave it as his opinion that strychnia was probably present. Selmi, for the defence, pointed out differences from strychnia, and considered the compound to be a ptomaine. [Arch. Pharm. (3), 19, 187.] This will show the importance of the subject.

Casali (Gazetta, 1881, 312) regards ptomaines as not true alkaloids, but as “acid or basic amidated compounds.” It is only the basic ones that will interfere with testing. Panum and Bergmann have isolated a substance called “sepsin,” generated by putrefaction, poisonous, acting like a ferment but not destroyed by boiling, soluble in water, but insoluble in alcohol, and thereby distinguished from alkaloids. Sonnenschein and Zuelzer found a product of putrefaction which produced tetanic symptoms, besides one resembling atropine. But these substances, or similar ones, can be produced without putrefaction, as Paterno and Spica have shown that fresh blood and fresh albumen (white of egg) yielded, with phosphomolybdic acid, potassio-mercuric iodide, and other alkaloidal reagents, precipitates like those of the vegetal alkaloids. Selmi has even supposed that death from various diseases may be due to the formation of these compounds. The same author obtained from a dead body one month after death a considerable amount[14] of a crystallizable ptomaine, giving reactions like those of alkaloidal poisons, and having poisonous effects on frogs.

Brouardel and Bouting (Compt. Rend. 92, 1056) propose the reducing action of ptomaines as a distinction between them and vegetal alkaloids. The solution in weak acid is added to a dilute mixture of ferric chloride and potassium ferricyanide: the latter, if a ptomaine be present, is reduced to ferrocyanide, and Prussian blue is thereby precipitated. But Spica (Gazetta, 11, 486) has shown that strychnia, brucia, morphia, and some others produce this reaction readily, and Beckurts (Arch. Pharm. 3, 20, 104) adds aconitine and others as producing it slowly. Hence the distinction is delusive. See also Husemann (Arch. Pharm. 3, 16, 169; also 3, 20, 270), Tauret (Compt. Rend. 92, 1163).

The discovery of these bodies has certainly raised a new difficulty for toxicologists, and suggested a new and plausible defence, as it must be confessed that at present there is no general method of distinguishing between “cadaveric” and vegetal alkaloids. Yet this mainly affects the “physiological” tests—on frogs and other small animals—for there is no ptomaine yet discovered which gives all the reactions of strychnia, morphia, &c. If a chemist be asked, “Could any other substance produce these reactions?” he can only answer, “I do not know of any”; he cannot aver the impossibility. Then the circumstantial evidence must decide.

In conclusion, the following principles should be noted:—

1. The quantity of poison found is generally only a small fraction of the quantity taken. The vomit and evacuations are frequently lost, and much may be decomposed by vital actions in the body, or by putrefaction. That which has caused death is probably thereby either decomposed or so combined as to be rendered undetectible: that which is found is merely the surplus beyond the fatal dose. This would account for the frequent non-discovery in the tissues when a small amount has been given, or much time has elapsed. To metallic poisons this does not apply, as, unless eliminated, they can always be found. See further under Strychnia.

[15]

2. The symptoms will differ according to the dose, the form (solid or solution, pure or admixed), habit, or idiosyncrasy, the state of health, &c.

3. In the post-mortem examination, appearances common to dead bodies generally are often mistaken for the effects of poison. See Casper’s Handbook, vol. I., et passim.

4. Unhealthy or improper food or acute disease may cause suspicious symptoms. This is the commonest solution of suspected poisoning.

5. In experiments on animals, it may be objected that they are inconclusive as to man. This is not strictly true. But if a recent vomit proves poisonous to an animal, with the same symptoms as in the man, that is almost conclusive evidence.

6. When a poison is not found by analysis, it does not follow that it has not caused death. Unequal distribution, uncertainty of tests, improper securing of the samples (Palmer case), decomposition or elimination of the poison, may hinder discovery.

7. In every case, if possible, the approximate quantity of the poison should be ascertained and stated. This specially applies to substances that may have been administered medicinally.

“If poison be administered with intent to murder, it is not necessary that there should be enough in the article administered to cause death, or that it should be given in such a way as to act fatally. If any poison be there, and the intent be proved, the crime of attempting to administer poison is complete.” [Judge’s ruling in Hartley, Cent. Crim. Court, May 12th, 1850; Reg. v. Bacon, Lincoln Summer Assizes, 1857; Reg. v. Southgate, Chelmsford Lent Assizes; Reg. v. Cluderay, York, 1849].

For minute directions as to the conduct of toxicological investigations, see Taylor’s Medical Jurisprudence, 1873, I., 202-209; also Guy and Ferrier’s Forensic Medicine, 1881, p. 359, et seq.

CHAPTER II.

TRIALS FOR POISONING BY HYDROCYANIC OR PRUSSIC ACID.

Two cases are reported under this head. The first that of John Tawell, for the murder of his mistress, Sarah Hart, at Salthill, near Windsor, tried at the Spring Assizes at Aylesbury, 1845, before the late Baron Parke (Lord Wensleydale). The second—a case of misadventure—the trial of George Ball, a surgeon, at Lewes, for the murder of his mother by the negligent administration of an overdose of this poison, medicinally, before the Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas (Coleridge) Summer Assizes, Lewes, 1860.

TRIAL OF JOHN TAWELL FOR POISONING SARAH HART AT SALTHILL BY PRUSSIC ACID.

March 12, 13, and 14, 1845, Spring Assizes, Aylesbury, before Baron Parke.

HISTORY OF THE CASE.

The trial of John Tawell, of Berkhampstead, Berks, for the murder of Sarah Hart, at Hall Place, Slough, attracted more than usual attention, from the cruelty of the act in poisoning the woman whom he had seduced, the position and popular character of the murderer as a benevolent and hospitable Quaker, noted for his charities, and the novelty of the mode by which his detection was mainly insured. The electric telegraph had only very lately been established on the line of the Great Western Railway, and though Tawell lost no time after committing the act, in getting into the train for[17] London at Slough, the telegraph outstripped him, and on his arrival at the Paddington station he was recognised, and tracked to his lodgings, and thus his immediate arrest secured.

Tawell’s life had been of a remarkable character. Originally a commercial traveller, he had exhibited a strange mixture of great shrewdness and money-making talent, combined with an outward show of religious observance. As a young man he had been indicted for forging a bill for £1000, and had he been tried on the counts for forging, or uttering, he would doubtless have been executed. By some influence, however, he was allowed to plead guilty to the count for having the bill in his possession (a nolle prosequi being entered on the others), and sentenced to transportation for life. “Accordingly,” says Mr. Justice Therry, who knew him well in Sydney, “he came out to the colony as a convict. Besides being a commercial traveller for some time, he had been in an apothecary’s shop in England, and on obtaining partial exemption from convict discipline, became the principal druggist in Sydney. After a prosperous career he sold his business for, it was said, £14,000, and judiciously invested this sum in buildings and other pursuits of profit. For nearly two years he occupied the house opposite to mine in Sydney, which gave me almost daily opportunity then of seeing him. He struck me as being a remarkably well-conducted person. He had once been a member of the Society of Friends; he wore a broad-brimmed hat, appeared always in a neat and carefully adjusted costume, and his whole appearance and manner impressed one with the notion of his being a very saintly personage. He always sought the society in public of persons of reputed piety. I have often met him in the street accompanied by a secretary or collector to a charitable institution, whom he assisted in obtaining contributions for benevolent objects. At one time he took up the cause of temperance in such an intemperate and silly spirit, that he ordered a puncheon of rum he had imported to be staved on the wharf at Sydney, and its contents poured into the sea, saying that, ‘he would not be instrumental to the guilt of disseminating such poison throughout[18] the colony.’ At another time his zeal took an apparently religious turn. He built, in Macquarie Street, Sydney, a commodious meeting-house for the Society of Friends, on the front of which was inscribed on a large square stone inserted in the wall some such words as these—

John Tawell
to
The Society of Friends.

He conveyed no title, however, to the Society to secure them the tenure of the property. After his execution it was sold, I understood, with other portions of his property, for the benefit of the party entitled to it under his will, the Crown having waived its right to the forfeiture of the estate.

“Tawell was himself a liberal contributor to charities, and the opinion of his character was so favourable, that the act for which he suffered created great astonishment in Sydney. A considerable part of his money had been realised by buying up all the whalebone that trading vessels, at an early period, imported into Sydney. This he sent to a London house, where it was manufactured into combs, handles for brushes, and various other articles of domestic use. He was the first person in the colony who converted whalebone into an article of profitable export. When he left the colony, he had a considerable property from rents and other sources which became much reduced by the general distress that prevailed in New South Wales in 1843.” Hence the anxiety expressed by him for his Sydney letters, referred to in the course of his trial. Still, however, a man of good means, occupying a respected position in his town, and noted, through a long and industrious life, for his benevolence and straightforward conduct in his relations with his neighbours, he might well say when first charged with the murder of his mistress, “My station in society places me beyond suspicion.” Such had been the remarkable career, and such was the ostensible character of the man to whom the most cold-blooded of murders was clearly brought home in the following trial.”

[19]

At the trial before Mr. Baron Parke, at Aylesbury, on the 12th, 13th, and 14th of March, 1845, Sergeant Byles and Mr. Prendergast appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. Fitzroy Kelly, Q.C., Mr. Gunning, and Mr. O’Malley, assisted by Messrs. Herapath, of Bristol, Professor Graham and Dr. Letheby, of London, the eminent chemists, for the defence.

In consequence of the excitement in the county caused by the event, numerous objections were taken to jurymen by the prisoner’s counsel. At length, however, a jury was formed, and after a brief recapitulation of the leading facts of the proposed evidence by Sergeant Byles, Mary Ashley, a next door neighbour of the deceased, was called, who had seen Tawell go to Sarah Hart’s between 4 and 5 in the afternoon of the 1st of January, and between 6 and 7 the same evening, “hearing a sort of stifled scream,” had gone to her door with a candle and seen him leaving the cottage. The cottages stood in a row, with small gardens in front, with rails and gates, and contained four rooms, two on the ground floor, and the same number above.

“The prisoner,” said the witness, “appeared to be agitated, and unable to open the gate. I opened it for him; it was fastened with a small button. When I went out of my house, I said, ‘I am afraid my neighbour is ill’—not speaking to any person in particular, but as the prisoner was then coming down the garden I should think that I spoke loud enough for him to hear me: I was about six yards from him. No reply was made by him. When I got to the gate I could hear Mrs. Hart still making the same description of noise: the prisoner made me no answer when I asked him if I should open the gate; he appeared very much agitated, and was trying in a hurried manner to open the gate; he came out of the gate before I went in; I saw his face; I held the candle over the gate to open it: I have no doubt that he is the same man, though I had never seen him before that afternoon. In the afternoon Mrs. Hart said to me, ‘I expect my old master, but perhaps he will not come till to-morrow.’ When I got to Mrs. Hart’s door it was shut, and upon my opening it I saw Mrs. Hart lying on the floor with her head not a great way from the door; her legs were towards the fire, her dress was quite in a disordered state, her petticoats nearly up to her knees, her left[20] stocking down to her ankle, and torn, and her left shoe off: her cap was off, and her hair hanging down over her head: her cap was a little distance from her: she was still making a noise, and her eyes were fixed, but her lips moving. I took hold of her hands and raised her head, and said, ‘Oh, Mrs. Hart, what is the matter?’ She did not make any answer, but I thought she seemed to press my hand, but I could not positively tell. I then raised her up, and a little froth came out of her mouth, and I thought she was dying. I laid her down again, and took my candle and went into Mrs. Wheeler’s house, next door but one. When I went into Mrs. Hart’s I observed a bottle and a glass by the side of it half full, and another glass on the opposite side of the table, near the door, empty; but there appeared to be something in the bottom of it. A chair was beside Mrs. Hart, and another opposite her. I returned from Mrs. Wheeler’s with Mrs. Barrett, and we placed a pillow on the child’s chair and bathed her temples. One of Mrs. Barrett’s apprentices went for Dr. Champneys, and he came. I searched the place immediately, and found no small vial about the size of a thimble. There was a middling fire in the house. Before I got into the house I thought the prisoner was looking, and I locked the door, because I was frightened. The deceased was breathing hard in a short way, and making a noise like ‘oh! oh!’ and her eyes looked very full.”

On cross-examination by Mr. Kelly, she said—

“That she heard Mrs. Hart’s voice rather loud after Mr. Tawell went in—only a few words, but could not hear what she said. She did not think that they were quarrelling, but that perhaps Mrs. Hart was in hysterics, as money matters were always talked over when Tawell came. When Mr. Champneys came in, he said he must try to bleed her: he did so, and there was about as much blood as would cover a plate; she died immediately afterwards; indeed, I think she was dead when he bled her. About Christmas Mrs. Hart received a basket of apples as a present—about a peck, some of which were left in a box.”

On re-examination, she said—

“That it was not more than a minute after she left her own house that she entered Mrs. Hart’s, and that she saw about ten or a dozen apples in the box after her death.”

Mrs. Barrett confirmed Mrs. Ashley’s account of the condition in which she found the deceased, but did not see[21] any foam on her lips until after she tried to pour some water down her throat.[8]

It was then proved by the barmaid at the “Windmill,” on Salthill, and a gardener, that about half after six on that day the deceased came there for a bottle of Guinness’s stout, and that she was met between her house and the “Windmill” about the same time in high spirits running towards her cottage.

The next witness spoke to the acts of the prisoner before he arrived at the cottage. At three o’clock in the afternoon he had been at the Jerusalem Coffee-house, inquiring at what hour they closed, saying he was going to the West End, and should not be back until half-past eight, and wishing to leave a greatcoat and a parcel, which, by arrangement with the waiter, he fetched away about half-past nine or a quarter to ten that night, leaving his umbrella there. Other witnesses proved his being seen running from Bath Place towards Slough, getting into the Eton omnibus and stopping opposite Sir John Herschel’s house, then returning towards the Slough station and leaving it for Paddington by the half-past eight train.[9] The evidence of the next witness, who tracked him from the moment of his arrival at Paddington, must be given in detail.

William Williams said—

“I am a sergeant of police on the Great Western Railway, at Paddington Station. On the 1st of January, in consequence of a telegraphic communication, I observed the prisoner get out of a carriage and get into a New Road omnibus. I put on a private coat, and acted as guard. He got out opposite Princes’ Street, near the Bank, about a quarter past nine. I opened the door on purpose to look at him; he went towards the Wellington Statue, and then crossed over to Birch’s, the pastrycooks: he stood a moment, as if he was considering; I watched him from behind the[22] statue. He then went towards the Jerusalem Coffee-house, and I followed him; he then went down a court into Birchin Lane, and from thence to Scott’s Yard, in the Borough, where he lodged, where I left him. On returning there next morning he was gone, so I went to the Jerusalem, and an officer (Wiggins) went in and took him into custody. Wiggins said to him that he was last seen in the house of a woman at Slough who was found dead, when he replied that, ‘I was not at Slough yesterday—I know no one there.’ I then remarked that I had seen him get off the train from Slough, and that he had given me sixpence after riding in the omnibus from the Paddington station. ‘You must be mistaken,’ he replied; ‘my station in life must rebut any suspicion that might be attached to me.’”

Wiggins, an inspector of the Metropolitan police, gave a graphic account of the arrest.

“On Thursday, the 2nd of January, I went into the Jerusalem Coffee-house with the last witness, and asked the prisoner if his name was Tawell; he said, ‘Yes.’ I then asked him if he had been at Slough last night, and he said, ‘No, I did not leave town all day yesterday.’ I then opened my coat, showed my uniform, and said, ‘I want you concerning the woman you were with last night.’ He said, ‘I don’t know anyone there.’ I said, ‘There was a woman found dead there, and you are supposed to be the last person who was seen with her alive.’ He said, ‘Thee must be mistaken in the identity, my station in society places me beyond suspicion.’ I then took him down to Salt Hill, to the ‘Three Tuns,’ where the inquest was being held. I searched him, and found £12. 10s. in gold and £1. 1s. 6d. in silver, a gold watch, and a letter addressed to him, which he said he had received from his wife. On the second day of the inquest I saw him again. After consulting with his lawyer, he said to me, ‘I took thee for a gentleman in the railway carriage.’ I said, ‘I told you I was an officer.’ He replied, ‘Yes, but that was afterwards.’ The first day of the inquest he said, ‘Mind, I have disclosed nothing.’”

In cross-examination, Mr. Kelly failed to get the witness to say that when asked about Slough the prisoner said he came from Berkhampstead, and only led the witness to reiterate that he stated “that he had not been at Slough that day.”

To Perkins, the inspector of the Eton police, Tawell was dangerously communicative.

[23]

“On the day after I had taken him into custody,” said this witness, “and brought him to my own house, after he had seen his lawyer, he said to me, ‘The unfortunate woman once lived in my service, about two years and a half, or nearly so.’ He asked me if I knew this. I told him I had heard so. Then Holmes, the other constable, came in, and he added, ‘She left my service about five years ago.’ I told him whatever he said I should communicate to the coroner to-morrow. He said, ‘he would have no objection to that,’ and then continued, ‘she had been in the habit of writing letters to him for money,’ and that he had been pestered with her; she was a very good servant when in his service, but a bad principled woman. She wrote to him that if he did not send her something she would make away with herself. He came down to her house and told her that he would not give her any more money. She then asked him if he would not give her some porter. I then sent for a bottle of stout, and she had a glass and I had a glass. She then took out a small phial, about the size of a thimble, and said, “I will, I will,” and poured some into her glass and drank a part of it—the remainder was thrown into the fire. She then done herself about and laid down on the hearth-rug; I then went out. I did not think she was in earnest, otherwise I would have called somebody.’ I asked him if he had got those letters, and he said, ‘No, I never keep such letters as those.’ I knew him by person, having seen him at Aylesbury.”

The cross-examination was unimportant—mainly directed to the probable inaccuracy of his recollection and to the nature of the communication he made to the coroner. Holmes, in addition to confirming Perkins’ report of the prisoner’s statement, was present when Mrs. Tawell visited her husband, when, in reply to her question, “what he had been doing,” he replied, “Nothing. I hope you will forgive me.”

MEDICAL EVIDENCE.

H. Montague Champneys, surgeon at Salthill, sent for a few minutes before 7 P.M. on January 1st, said—

“I ran, and when I got there saw deceased on the floor, felt her pulse, but am not certain whether I felt any pulsation. I put my hand under her clothes over her heart, and could not discover any pulsation; considered her dead, but still thought it best to open a[24] vein in her arm, and obtained about an ounce of blood. Next day I made a post mortem examination with Mr. Norblad and Mr. Pickering. Having previously examined the external parts, we opened the body, when I smelt the odour of prussic acid; the lungs were perfectly healthy, but the coverings had the appearance of inflammation. Examined stomach and contents. Rather more mucus than there ought to be; the abdominal viscera perfectly healthy. Put contents of stomach into a bottle, which I, with Messrs. Norblad and Pickering, took to Mr. Cooper, in London. The contents were tested for sulphuric acid, oxalic acid, and some poisonous salts, but nothing was discovered; afterwards an experiment was tried for prussic acid. Mr. Cooper tried protosulphate of iron, and also nitrate of silver, but could not during the experiment discover any prussic acid; but nevertheless, it is my opinion that she died from the effects of that poison. On the following Sunday I took the beer and the part of a bun found on the table to Mr. Cooper, which were tested for prussic acid, but none discovered. When I stated that in my opinion the deceased died from the effects of prussic acid I did not know that the prisoner had bought any. I know Scheele’s prussic acid and that of the London Pharmacopœia; less than a grain of pure prussic acid would be a dose; two drams of Scheele’s would contain six grains. There are cases on record where the smell of prussic acid could not be discovered in the stomach of a person who had taken it. A person in Paris died from taking seven-tenths of a grain. Prussic acid is volatile, and may be carried off by the lungs or absorbed by the tissues. There is a case in the Lancet of a person dying from having less than a grain administered to her. After this occurrence I put thirty grains of Scheele’s acid into a glass of Guinness’s stout, and the smell was scarcely perceptible. The symptoms would come on in less than two minutes.”

In the very minute and detailed cross-examination to which this witness was subjected by Mr. Kelly, he made the following statements:—

On his re-examination by Serjt. Byles, the witness said:—

After two constables (Hill and Larkin) had proved the finding of a phial in a cupboard and two others in a jug, one of[28] which contained hartshorn, the case was adjourned to the following morning.

SECOND DAY. Thursday, March 13.

SUPPOSED PREVIOUS ATTEMPT TO POISON.

Charlotte Howard, unmarried, a servant, said:—

“I knew Mrs. Hart, and went to see her at Salthill on the 26th September, 1843. She had a child of mine in her care. I was there from three to four months, in which time I saw Mr. Tawell there twice. On the 30th of September he came, and in ten minutes after, Mrs. Hart sent me out for a bottle of stout, which I got and gave to her. She took it into the room where he was. Shortly after she came out and sent me for a sheet of paper, leaving Mr. Tawell in the room with the stout. When I came back she said to me ‘I am so ill, I shall be obliged to tell my master to go; I am so sick, my head is so bad.’ She was very sick, and I helped her upstairs to bed. After she got upstairs she was sick again. She was in very good health when Tawell came. She said she only drank one glass of porter and felt sick directly afterwards. I went down again and saw eighteen sovereigns on the table, which I put into a drawer. There was some porter in the glasses and in the bottle. That in the glasses I threw away, and drank that in the bottle, and it did not make me ill. Mrs. Hart complained of being very giddy, but did not say anything about her throat.”

ANALYTICAL EVIDENCE.

Mr. Cooper, the Analytical Chemist and Lecturer on Medical Jurisprudence, was then called and examined by Serjeant Byles.

During his examination, Mr. Cooper produced the bottles containing the Prussian blue produced from the stomach and from the apple-pips—the former dark blue in colour, the latter hardly more than tinged with it. When placed side by side on the front of the witness-box the marked contrast caused much excitement in Court.

The cross-examination of this witness by Mr. Kelly was so important, that though very lengthy it is necessary to give it in considerable detail.

[34]

Mr. Joseph Cooper, a son of the last witness, and his assistant for four years, deposed to having smelt the ordinary prussic acid at the time in the process, mentioned by his father.

Mr. Norblad, surgeon and apothecary at Slough for 10 years, said:

Cross-examined by Mr. Kelly:—

Re-examined by Mr. Prendergast.

Mr. Pickering, who had been in practice as a surgeon for nine years, and was present when Mr. Champneys made the first incision through the integuments, said he then smelt the odour of prussic acid,[15] and confirmed the accounts of the previous witnesses of the experiments in Mr. Cooper’s laboratory. On cross-examination he admitted that before they examined the body they were led to suppose that the death had been caused by poison, and that he had never seen a case of death from poisoning either by oxalic or prussic acid.

[39]

Previous visits of Tawell to Mrs. Hart, were proved by Kesiah Harding, a washerwoman at Slough, in December, 1844, and particularly on the Monday week before her death, when he told the deceased that he wished her to be alone when he next came, and that he would come on the Tuesday or Saturday week.

PURCHASE OF PRUSSIC ACID BY TAWELL.

This was proved by Henry Thomas, shopman to a Mr. Hughes, a chemist in Bishopsgate Street, who said,

“On the 1st of January, between twelve and two the prisoner came to the shop dressed in a great coat and usual quaker garb and asked for two drachms of Scheele’s Prussic Acid, bringing with him a ½oz. bottle with a regular label of Scheele’s Acid on it. As I could not get the stopper out, I gave it him in one of our own bottles. When about to put on a label, I believe the prisoner said “You need not,” but I would not swear it. He said he wanted it for an external application to varicose veins, paid 4d. for it, which was entered in the book now produced. Next day he came again between ten and two and asked for the same quantity, and, as he had broken our bottle, took it in the one he had originally brought. I had seen him frequently before and might have sold him prussic acid, but am not certain. He told me, three months before, that he had been a chemist and apothecary abroad. I do not remember his being in a hurry to catch the train and my being not able to get the stopper out. It is our practice to do it. We usually cover our bottles with leather. Attended at Aylesbury on the 13th of January, and recognised the prisoner the next morning in gaol.”

The cross-examination of this witness, who was evidently favourable to the prisoner and in communication with his solicitor, was directed to three points—the suitability of prussic acid to the disease in the legs from which the prisoner suffered; the effect of porter on the odour of prussic acid when mixed with it; and the amount that can be produced from apple-pips.

On cross-examination by Serjeant Byles the witness admitted that he made this experiment on the 9th of March at the request of the Prisoner’s solicitor, and that he had never made this experiment before; that he had been with Mr. Hughes only about a year and half, and was paid £80 a year, and that Dr. Lievesley provided the London Pharmacopœia acid, and the porter. On being shown a leather or paper covering of a small bottle that had been found in the ashes of the grate in Mrs. Hart’s house, the witness declared that it could not be the covering of the bottle that he had put on, as it was too small for leather.

[41]

HISTORY OF MRS. HART.

Sarah Bateman said that she knew Mrs. Hart six years ago, when employed to nurse the Prisoner’s first wife, who soon after died. The witness at that time observed that Mrs. Hart—then known as Hadler—was with child, and the following statement was subsequently made by her when at tea with Tawell and the witness.

“I am in the family way, and will vindicate my master in it. He is going to be married to Sarah Catforth (the present wife), ‘and if it was to get abroad it would make a great difference to him.’ She seemed much excited, and Tawell begged her not to excite herself. ‘He was about to be admitted into the Society of Friends,’ he said, ‘and should not like these things to get abroad.’ She said, ‘He could marry Miss Catforth, and no one, not even her mother, should know what had become of her.’”

Mary Ann Moss, of Crawford Street, Bryanston Square, with whom Mrs. Hart came to lodge in 1841, when she was confined of a girl, remembered Tawell frequently visiting her, as Mrs. Hart said, “to bring her money from her husband.” From there she removed to a small house on Paddington Green for the sake of privacy, where Tawell paid regular visits, and eventually to Salt Hill, at Tawell’s desire. She represented to this witness that her husband was Tawell’s son, that Tawell disapproved of the marriage, and that the girl and a boy of whom she had been subsequently delivered were his. Mrs. Hart’s mother, Mrs. Hadler, also spoke to her having not heard of her for several years.

With the proof by a clerk of Barnet’s Bank that Tawell had drawn a cheque for £14 on the 1st of January, and the identification of certain letters being in his handwriting, the case for the prosecution was closed.

THE DEFENCE.

The nature of the defence opened by Mr. Fitzroy Kelly, in his long and eloquent address to the jury has already been indicated by his cross-examination of the medical witnesses,[42] and was so fully commented on by the learned judge in his charge to the jury that it is needless to reprint it. On its conclusion residents at Berkhampstead who had known him for several years, testified to the good character which he had borne for kindness, charity, and benevolence, and a Mr. Richards, of Dover, and a Captain Dillon, who had both known him abroad—the latter for nearly thirty years—gave similar evidence of his kind, charitable, and hospitable disposition. On the conclusion of this evidence Baron Parke adjourned the Court to the next morning, when he gave the following exhaustive charge to the jury.

THE JUDGE’S CHARGE.

After the usual introductory caution to the Jury to be strictly impartial, Baron Parke said:—

“He would next tell them what the case was, and how it was to be proved. It was to be proved by circumstantial evidence—the only sort of evidence that could be obtained in most cases of a similar nature. The most atrocious crimes were committed in secret, but Providence had so ordered it that some traces were frequently left which were sufficient to lead to the discovery of the perpetrators. The law, therefore, wisely provided that direct proof of crime was not absolutely necessary; but on the other hand it was equally necessary that by circumstantial evidence the case should be so fully made out as to leave no rational doubt of its committal. He should, therefore, advise them to lay down the rule, that they should first consider what had been proved to their satisfaction, and then whether all those facts were consistent with the guilt of the prisoner. If they thought that they were consistent with his guilt—and there was nothing inconsistent with it except the prisoner’s previous character—then they should consider whether they were inconsistent with his innocence, and they should remember that the existence of the crime was not inconsistent with the other parts of the case. Whilst on this part of the case, he should observe that the counsel for the prisoner had admitted all those facts, but had asserted that the law required not only that those facts should be proved, but that it should be shown directly that the deceased had died from poison, and that a sufficient quantity of poison to cause death had been found in her stomach. That was not true of the law. It was not necessary to give direct and[43] positive evidence in every step of the case. There was no difference between direct and circumstantial evidence, if the evidence was sufficient to satisfy their minds that death had ensued from poison. It was not necessary to prove what quantity of that poison was necessary to produce death by the testimony of the person who had actually seen death produced by it; nor was it necessary to prove that such a quantity as would destroy life was actually found in the body. If they were satisfied that the prisoner administered poison to the deceased, and that she died of it, it was not necessary to prove what quantity had been administered to her. The only positive fact which the law required to be proved was the finding of the body, where such was possible. The body of the deceased having been found, it was to be considered whether the prisoner administered poison to her—whether it had been administered to her by the prisoner or by herself. The only allegation that she had done so was that of the prisoner himself, and if the jury thought the extraordinary story told by him was worthy of credit, it would agree with the latter mode of accounting for her death. But if they did not believe it, they had no other conclusion left than that he had committed the crime imputed to him.”

The learned judge then proceeded to comment on the evidence of Mrs. Ashley, and others, who deposed to the perfect health and good spirits of the deceased up to a few minutes of the discovery of her lifeless body, and to the medical evidence of the perfect state of her internal bodily organs, leaving no doubt that she had not died from natural causes. He then went to the evidence of Messrs. Champneys and Pickering, the surgeons, who, on opening the body of the deceased on the day following her death smelt the odour of the prussic acid.[17] “There, then,” he said, “was evidence at once of the presence of prussic acid in the stomach on the day following a sudden death accompanied by appearances, such as would be symptomatic of sudden death from that powerful poison. Mr. Cooper, the chemist, analysed the contents of the stomach subsequently and obtained a quantity of pure Prussian blue from it, and before he proceeded further with the[44] evidence on this point, he would observe, that the jury should never lose sight of the conduct of the prisoner during the whole of the proceedings. He then proceeded to comment on the evidence of the presence of prussic acid in the stomach immediately after death, and the allegation of the Prisoner’s counsel, that it was producible from apples, and that it might have been produced from natural causes in the stomach, which contained a quantity of apple pulp. He pointed out that from all the medical evidence, it was proved that, that acid was contained not in the apple, but in the pip, and that pips were not found in the pulp in the deceased’s stomach. It was also proved that prussic acid had been obtained from the pips themselves only by a process of distillation, and was not produced by the mere natural process of digestion.[18] No one would die from eating apple pips, although a person might be killed by the prussic acid obtained from them by a chemist. Besides, the action of the acid was sudden and immediate, and the deceased had died in the manner she would have done after suddenly swallowing some.”

With respect to the evidence regarding the odour of the acid being perceptible under this or that circumstance, said the Judge:—

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.

TRIAL OF GEORGE BALL FOR POISONING HIS MOTHER WITH PRUSSIC ACID.

July, 1860, Home Circuit, Lewes, before Coleridge, Chief Justice of Common Pleas. Barrow, for the Prosecution. Serjeant Ballantine for the Defence.

This case, really of misadventure, is reported, briefly, as showing the carelessness with which dangerous medicines may, no doubt most unintentionally, be administered even by professional men, the culpable ignorance in some of those chemists who deal in such deadly preparations.

The accused, a medical man, but not in regular practice, had for some time attended his mother, a very ailing old lady, and been in the habit of giving her small doses of prussic acid, as a remedy for violent attacks of vomiting to which she was subject. On the 11th of July in consequence, he purchased of a Mr. Moswell, a chemist in Lewes, a drachm of Scheele’s prussic acid, equal to 60 “minims,” and gave her a dose of 4 “minims.” The result was favourable, and the old lady went for a walk. On her return, however, she again complained, and the accused administered another dose of prussic acid, evidently from its effects, a deadly quantity, as she hardly got to her bedroom before she became insensible, and died almost instantaneously. The accused believed he had given her only seven drops, the proper quantity to be given. That he gave her seven drops was not doubted, but[50] that the size of drops differ under circumstances as much as the strength of Scheele’s preparation of the acid, will be seen from the following evidence.

Mr. Scrate, a surgeon at Lewes (who was sent for by the accused, found the lady dead and the accused apparently in a very distressed state of mind), said:—

Case for the prosecution closed.

[52]

The Chief Justice called the attention of the Jury to the evidence and observed, that the fact of the cork being broken in the bottle and defective was certainly an important matter for their consideration, as it admitted the possibility that the prussic acid might have escaped from the bottle accidentally, and then there was an absence of evidence that an excessive dose had been administered by the accused.

The Jury almost immediately returned a verdict of “Not Guilty.”

If the estimate of the witness Scrate is taken for the difference between a drop and a minim, and the second witness, Moswell, is correct in saying that he gave the accused at least 50 drops, equal to 25 minims, as only 2·5 minims were left in the bottle, equal to 4¼ drops; in the two doses the accused must have administered more than 45 drops, equal to 22½ minims. If the cork was not broken in the bottle when the first dose was administered, the probability is that the dose then given did not exceed seven drops of the size that would make them equal to 3½ minims, thus leaving 19 minims for the second dose. It is to be regretted that the strength of the prussic acid was not tested.

NOTE ON TAWELL’S CASE.

In a case of the poisoning at Egglesham, near Glasgow, by prussic acid, of a young woman, of the name of Agnes Montgomery, by Peter Walker, a tailor, the symptoms were thus described by one of the witnesses, as well as the effect of prussic acid on herself:—

“After we learnt that the moaning came from Aggie’s room, we came up, got Clarkson’s key, and went in. (As in Tawell’s case, the prisoner had left the girl’s room only a few minutes before.) Aggie was sitting on a chair (in which it was probable from other evidence that she had been placed by her murderer), with her head leaning on the table. The body was quite still. There was a little froth coming out of the wicks of her mouth. It was a little coloured with blood; and we afterwards found she[53] had bit her tongue and her lips. She threw back at different times, as if in distress. Her right hand was very firmly closed. I loosed the boot of the left foot, and found it was swelled and quite stiff. About ten minutes after that was another groan: the breathing was slow, and with great oppression. She sighed six times before she died. Her skin was getting quite cold after we got her. I thought there was a little sweat on her face. We got hot water to bathe her arms. The eyes were large and staring. She died about three quarters of an hour after we got her. When we went into her room, I found a sickening smell. I felt in my nostrils a kind of nipping, and my throat was dry. I felt it off Aggie the moment I came forward. I know the smell of almonds, but can’t say it was exactly like that. On the 5th of November I saw the superintendent of police, and others, and saw something (it was prussic acid) put into beer. I smelt the beer; and after some of it was poured on the floor, I recognised it as the same smell. It affected me in the same way as before in the nostrils and throat.”—Evidence of Mrs. M’Donald.

In this case, on a post-mortem examination of the exhumed body, the presence of prussic acid was clearly detected; and it was proved on the trial that the prisoner had employed a carrier to get some prussic acid for him, and that the bottle containing it had been given to him on the day of the murder; and the fragments of a glass phial were subsequently discovered, with the key of the girl’s room, at the root of a tree, at which the prisoner had been seen stopping, as he returned from going for a doctor. In this case the poison had been most probably given in beer, as in Tawell’s, a tumbler in which beer had been being found on the girl’s table.

The fellow, two months afterwards, tried to poison a Mr. Mason and his wife, with whom he had gone to lodge in Glasgow, with prussic acid, but happily failed in his attempt.

He confessed his guilt; and at first gave as his motive his desire to possess himself of the girl’s money, but subsequently said he could not tell what possessed him to do it. “Following so closely on the case of Madeleine Smith, the probability is that her case had had on him the same effect as[54] Palmer’s on Dove—exciting a morbid desire to tamper with deadly drugs, and that the death of his victim, and the danger of the others, was as much due to this feeling as the desire for plunder.” He was discovered to have been transported for robbery, and to have been guilty of other crimes. He now confessed that he had murdered a lad, by pushing him into a quarry hole. He was executed at Paisley, Jan. 14, 1858.—Annual Register for 1858.

CHAPTER III.

CHEMICAL NOTES.

Note I.—Hydrocyanic or Prussic Acid.

Nature of—Strength of different preparations of, English and foreign—Where found—Tests, preliminary: (1) Odour—(2) Silver—(3) Prussian blue—(4) Sulphur—(5) Guaiacum—(6) Uranium—(7) Picric acid—(8) Cupric sulphate—(9) Cobalt chloride—(10) Mercuric oxide—(11) Peroxide of hydrogen—(12) Mercurous nitrate. Test apparatus—Salts of hydrocyanic acid: (1) Potassium cyanide—(2) Mercuric cyanide—(3) Cyanides of the heavy metals—(4) Double cyanides—(5) Sulphocyanides—Oil of bitter almonds—Antidotes—Fatal dose—Symptoms—Post-mortem appearances—Drops and minims—Period after death at which hydrocyanic acid can be discovered—Formic acid to be tested for—Processes.

Synonyms.—Cyanhydric or prussic acid, Hydric cyanide, Hydrogen cyanide, Acidum borussicum, Blausaüre, Berlinerblausaüre.

Formula HCN, i.e., a compound of single atoms, of hydrogen, carbon, and nitrogen, in the proportions by weight of 1 + 12 + 14 = 27. In its pure state (anhydrous, or free from water), it is a feebly acid, colourless, mobile liquid, inflammable and very volatile. Boiling point 24·5° C. Much lighter than water: sp. gr. ·7058. It has a characteristic overpowering and oppressive odour, resembling peach-blossom or laurel-water. But the anhydrous acid, from its volatility and dangerous character is rarely seen or made. In commerce it is always found as a dilute aqueous solution, the varying strengths in real HCN being:—

In this country, only Scheele’s, and the British Pharmacopœia (2 per cent.) acid, are usually met with.

These numbers, however, must be regarded merely as rough approximations for two reasons; first, on account of the extreme volatility of the acid—if loosely stoppered, or frequently opened, it rapidly loses strength—second, both the anhydrous acid and its aqueous solution are decomposed by light, with formation of a brown matter. This change is supposed to be retarded by a trace of mineral acid, hence a little hydrochloric or sulphuric acid is frequently added to the commercial solution with this object. But the acid may even be stronger than supposed, as the methods of preparation are somewhat various, and the one adopted may have been carelessly carried out. Scheele’s acid is said to be the most popular among medical men; samples of it obtained from different large firms and examined by the author showed very irregular strengths, the lowest being 2, and the highest 8 per cent. The latter was purchased at the shop of a chemist who said he had made it himself, and could guarantee it was of full strength. He had evidently made allowance for deterioration. Woodman and Tidy found 16 samples sold in one neighbourhood as B.P. acid to contain 0·6 to 3·2 per cent. of HCN; others have found 0·25 per cent. not infrequent. It follows that if, in a poison case, a bottle has been found of a hydrocyanic preparation of a definite name, or even with a certain strength or dose marked on it, it will not be safe to trust to such figures without actually determining the amount.[57] In Ball’s trial (Lewes, 1860), the judge asked whether this variation in strength would not make the difference between a medicinal and a poisonous dose? It would not, as the maximum medicinal dose, 4 grains, of even the abnormally strong (8 per cent.) Scheele’s acid mentioned above, would only contain 0·32 grain of anhydrous HCN, and it requires at least half a grain to cause death, while about 1 grain is the usual fatal quantity. And a medical man would not even give the maximum medicinal dose as a beginning, and without precaution.

ACIDUM HYDROCYANICUM DILUTUM, PHARMACOPŒIA BRITANNICA.

We shall use the abbreviation “B. P. 2 per cent.” for this acid, which has the characteristic odour, a sp. gr. of ·997, and a taste “at first bland and sweet, ultimately pungent and acrid” (Thomson), “hot and bitter” (Taylor), “cooling, with pungent bitter aftertaste” (Watts). If pure, it only slightly and transiently reddens litmus; if other acids have been added to keep it, it may have a stronger reddening effect. Also, if pure, it leaves no residue on platinum, and gives no precipitate with barium chloride, but with silver nitrate it gives an immediate white curdy precipitate of silver cyanide, not blackening in daylight as the chloride does, soluble in ammonia, insoluble in dilute, but soluble in hot concentrated nitric acid. It dissolves mercuric oxide, giving a mercuric cyanide which may be obtained in white crystals on evaporation. The vapour is said to be more deadly than the fluid acid. The weaker the acid, the more permanent it is. Glycerine increases its stability (J. Williams); this might be useful if suspected substances had to be kept a long time.

Occurrence.—Hydrocyanic acid itself has never been found as a natural constituent of the body, although a compound of cyanogen occurs in the saliva (see Sulphocyanides). Hydrocyanic acid is not formed during putrefaction, nor by heating organic substances with chemical reagents at temperatures up to 212° F., as in testing for poisons. The only way in which[58] it may be generated from animal matter is by heating with alkalies to a red heat;[20] this cannot, of course, happen in the ordinary process of testing for prussic acid, though it must be remembered that cyanide might thus be formed in an ash (by burning), without having been present in the original substance.

It is rather frequent, however, in the vegetable kingdom, and consequently in a poisoning case the defence often sets up the theory that it has been ingested in the food (Tawell’s Trial, &c.). It is necessary, therefore, to examine in what kind of food, and to what amount, it may be taken.

Its principal source is the seeds, leaves, and flowers, and sometimes the bark, of most of the species of the sub-orders Amygdaleæ and Pomeæ of the natural order Rosaceæ. It does not occur in them ready-formed. There is a substance called Amygdalin, a white bitterish crystalline body, which may be extracted by alcohol from these plants. Amygdalin when dissolved by itself in water does not produce HCN, and is probably harmless, but there exists by its side in the plant a species of ferment called Emulsin or Synaptase, which has the power, when macerated in water with amygdalin, of breaking up the latter into glucose (so-called grape-sugar), benzoyl hydride (oil of bitter almonds), and hydrocyanic acid. In the plant the amygdalin apparently exists in cells apart from the emulsin, but by crushing in water, or masticating in the mouth, the change is very rapidly effected. By long soaking the same result may happen, as in cherry brandy; here the diluted spirit dissolves the amygdalin, and the emulsin then may act. But if, in the stomach, the apple-pips or cherry-stones should be found whole, it is almost impossible that the amygdalin should be decomposed, protected as it is by its horny or stony envelope. Stones and pips, in fact, pass through the body intact, and are found in the fæces.

Yet as amygdalin and its decomposition may be much[59] mentioned by the defence, the following account may be useful.

100 parts of amygdalin yield 6 parts HCN.

It has been found in the species of Rosaceæ given below, generally in fruit, flowers, leaves, sometimes bark, rarely root.

Pyrus malus (apple pips), domesticus (pear).

Prunus spinosa (sloe), avium (bird cherry), padus (wild service), Virginiana or serotina (wild black cherry), capricida, insititia (bullace), domestica (plum, damson, &c.).

Amygdalus communis (almond), Persica (peach), lævis (nectarine).

Armeniaca vulgaris (apricot).

Cerasus communis (cherry), acida, laurocerasus (cherry-laurel), Lusitanica (Portugal laurel).

Cydonia vulgaris (quince).

Sorbus aucuparia (mountain ash), torminalis, hybrida.

Cratægus oxyacantha (hawthorn, young branches).

Spiræa aruncus, sorbifolia, japonica (not in herbaceous species).

Hydrocyanic acid, ready formed, has been found in the roots of the bitter and sweet cassava (Jatropha manihot).

If the poisonous dose of the B. P. (2 per cent.) acid be at least 30 minims (Royle’s Mat. Med., Dr. Harley, 6th ed.) the following table shows the amount of some of the above which is needed.

[60]

Sweet almonds contain emulsin, but no amygdalin, hence give no HCN (see Tawell’s Trial, p. 40).

According to my own experiments, 837 sweet apples (apples weighing 135 pounds, pips about 5 oz.), would be required for a poisonous dose of HCN; whereas 130 bitter apples, weighing 18 pounds, and the pips about 2½ oz., would suffice. The pips of bitter apples are bigger, more numerous, and weigh about three times as much as those of sweet apples.

Among substances containing much more HCN, and actually poisonous on that account, are:—

(Allen, Comm. Org. Anal.) It is obvious that of fruits an impossibly large quantity must be eaten to produce any considerable amount of HCN. In Tawell’s trial, Mr. Cooper, the analyst, deposed that the seeds from 15 apples gave him an exceedingly small quantity of Prussian blue. Whereas, Henry Thomas, a druggist’s assistant, stated that “15 small apples gave 2¼ grains of silver cyanide” [equal to 0·46, or nearly ½ a grain, of anhydrous HCN, corresponding to 25 minims of B. P. acid, nearly a poisonous dose!] “This was done under the direction of a lecturer at the London Hospital.” A fair sample of the erroneous and bewildering evidence that is frequently offered in courts of justice.

Mr. Cooper also stated “there is a great difference between bitter and sweet apples; the bitter contain a great deal of prussic acid, the sweet, I believe, none at all!” This statement is misleading; no apples contain prussic acid, but all that I have met with will yield it by maceration, as all contain amygdalin. The highest class of eating apples, such as Newtown pippins, Ribstones, and Blenheims, contain only a minute trace. These have very few pips, 3 to 5 to each apple,[61] while the bitter varieties, such as “winesours,” have 9 to 13 pips.

In the arts, cyanides are used in photography, dyeing, cleaning lace and metals, electro-plating, removing silver stains, &c. Their solutions may cause accidental poisoning, either by the fumes or by absorption through the skin, especially if the latter is abraded.

Hydrocyanic acid is also formed (1) in the preparation of nitrous ether (sweet spirit of nitre), (2) by distilling albumen, fibrin, casein, or gelatin, with sulphuric acid and bichromate of potash, or manganese peroxide, (3) by the dry distillation of albuminous bodies. It is hardly necessary to say that these formations could not occur in the ordinary methods of testing.

Tests: Preliminary.—It cannot be too strongly insisted that all operations for the detection of HCN should be carried out as soon after death as possible, on account of the loss from volatility, or from secondary changes. (See Sulphocyanides.)

Allen asserts (Commercial Organic Analysis, 1879), that detection in the body is rarely possible more than twenty-four hours after death; but Taylor (Med. Juris., 1873, p. 368) has found it in the stomach twelve days after, saying, however, that “after the stomach had been exposed a few days longer, all had disappeared.” In a dog’s stomach he found it, after twenty-four hours’ exposure, and washing with water. In a human stomach, success was achieved seven days after death, where no odour was perceptible; in another case, after twenty-two days in the stomach, and after two months in the spleen. It may be found in the stomach, and not in the tissues; but in most cases it is easily detected, soon after death, in the blood, organs, &c. The vapour of HCN will traverse paper, wet or dry bladder, &c., in a few minutes (Taylor), and few stoppers are close enough to retain it. Hence care should be taken to shut up the suspected matters at once in glass bottles accurately stoppered; bad stoppers are worse than corks.

[62]

The stomach should be first examined entire, to ascertain odour, &c., noticing whether alkaline or acid, then cut in pieces, under distilled water sufficient to cover it, the whole measured, and one-half (acidulated with tartaric acid, if alkaline), placed in a capacious retort, and distilled in a bath of water saturated with salt to raise the boiling point. The condenser should be well supplied with cold water, the receiver attached airtight, with a mercury valve (a narrow glass U-tube, containing mercury), to prevent undue pressure. A little distilled water, about ½ oz., should be placed in the receiver. The distillation should be continued till one-third to one-half of the original liquid has passed over. The tests may then be applied to the distillate.

Allen recommends us to distil with water alone about one-half. If there is no result on testing the distillate, continue with addition of tartaric acid. Finally, add a considerable excess of moderately dilute sulphuric and hydrochloric acid, and carry the distillation nearly to dryness. In the last stage sulpho-, ferro-and ferricyanides and mercuric cyanide are decomposed, and give HCN. The original should be tested for ferrocyanide, &c. This seems a process calculated to give the clearest idea of the form in which the HCN is present, but is open to the objection that it is protracted, and may hence cause loss.

Sokoloff. (Chem. Centr., 1876, 603) advises a much more heroic treatment. “Strongly acidify with sulphuric acid, and distil over a water bath for two or three days, replenishing the water as evaporated. The longer the distillation, the more accurate the result.” He adds, that the muscles contain the greater part of the HCN. He quotes figures in support of his results, but I have not found such prolongation necessary; and we must remember that HCN is decomposed by heating with moderately strong mineral acids.

The following modification, proposed by the author, may be advantageous, as diminishing the risk of loss, and also effecting concentration:—Prepare exactly equivalent solutions[63] of silver nitrate, and hydrochloric acid: the silver solution may contain 17 grammes of silver nitrate, the hydrochloric solution 3·65 grammes of hydric chloride, per litre. Place in the receiver 100 cubic centimetres of the silver solution (= 1·70 gramme silver nitrate) before distillation. This is allowing large excess, to provide for exceptional quantities of HCN. If any quantity of HCN be present, the liquid in the receiver will become milky; if it does not, there cannot be more than a minute trace. Transfer the distillate and washings to a retort, provided with a thistle-funnel, and boil down to one-third of its bulk; then add, through the funnel, 100 cubic centimetres of the hydric chloride solution, which will precipitate all the silver as chloride, and liberate the HCN. Distill with the same precautions as before: the first 25 cubic centimetres will contain probably all the HCN. If doubted, a further quantity may be collected and tested. The 25 cubic centimetres of distillate may now be subjected to the following tests, taking care that each portion is measured before being examined, in order that the idea of the quantity present may be definite. For instance, in the Prussian blue, and sulphocyanide tests, the resulting colour may be imitated by standard solutions: in the silver test, a standard silver solution should also be used, and thus a triply-confirmed knowledge of the quantity present may be attained; and little bottles, containing the results, should be preserved, to show in the courts of justice.

I. Odour.—All tests involving odour are affected seriously by the remarkable differences between different people as to their sense of smell. We hear much of “colour-blindness;” but the analogous olfactory defect has almost escaped remark. Yet “smell-blindness,” as I have formerly christened it, or “anozism,” if a Greek word be required, is exceedingly common, and chemists and medical men are frequently afflicted with it. I have known an artist, who could not smell strong ammonia, yet delighted in the odour of new paint, which he compared to roses. Many laboratory students can neither smell acetic acid, arseniuretted hydrogen, nor[64] cyanogen. An assistant was so fond of sulphuretted hydrogen, that he was once found insensible beside the apparatus, having narcotized himself with the gas (he recovered); and many more such eccentricities. In the case of prussic acid these diversities are enormous. Some are so sensitive, that the least trace in a room becomes rapidly unbearable, causing headache and nausea; others are like photographers, and can work in a heavily-cyanogened atmosphere. Such idiosyncrasies become of great importance in evidence; for example:—

In Tawell’s trial, Mr. Champneys, surgeon, testified as follows: “Have no experience in detecting odour of prussic acid in a human subject. Should think it may be taken without detection. Should expect it in the mouth and breath, but there may be exceptions. There was no odour in her [the deceased’s] breath; but, on opening the body, I was positive I smelt prussic acid. The other two surgeons could not smell it.” Afterwards, when the contents of the stomach were transferred to a jar, neither the three surgeons, nor Mr. Cooper, the analyst, could perceive the least odour of prussic acid, even when the contents were boiled. Nor was it smelt in the blood. Mr. Cooper subsequently stated: “I have no doubt that prussic acid may exist without being smelt: absence of smell may arise from dilution, or from its being covered by the smell of other substances. When I smell it, it affects spasmodically the back of the throat. Sometimes it has produced a spasmodic constriction about the throat without my smelling it.” Here was a well-marked case of intermittent smell-blindness.

There were also several questions as to whether prussic acid might have existed in the form of an inodorous salt. Mr. Champneys further stated that he put ½ drachm of prussic acid into a tumbler filled with Guinness’s porter, and the smell was scarcely perceptible. Mr. Norblad, surgeon, deposed that he mixed 12 grains of prussic acid with a pint of porter, but could not then smell it. “Some of the porter dropped on the table, and I did then smell it.” In the same[65] trial, Henry Thomas, druggist’s assistant, mixed 30 drops of B.P. prussic acid with 11 oz. of porter, and found the odour of the acid slightly perceptible; yet, when he was pouring Scheele’s acid from a bottle, three women had to leave the room to avoid suffocation!

In a case of suicide by cyanide of potassium (Chem. News, 1861, p. 261), the smell of prussic acid was not perceived by the surgeon, either immediately after death or at the post-mortem examination, nor by the analyst until the contents had been distilled with dilute sulphuric acid.

To help in elucidating this matter I have made some experiments as to the detection of the odour of prussic acid. An acid of 2 per cent. strength (B.P.) was used.

1. From a bottle of Guinness’s stout, freshly opened, 3 samples of 1 fluid oz. each were measured. To the first 1 drop of the acid was added, to the second 2 drops, the third being left untouched. This was done out of my sight in another room. They were then privately marked by an assistant, and brought in; when myself and two others, one of them entirely inexperienced, independently and at once classified them without hesitation correctly as to the relative amounts of prussic acid. The odour was so distinct as to produce, when inhaled, a feeling of oppression, and to quite overpower the odour of the beer.

About ¹/₃₀ of a poisonous dose. Hence if a poisonous dose were put into a pint and a half of stout, the odour would be distinct.

2. One drop of the dilute (2 per cent.) acid was added to 6 oz. stout: there resulted a slight but distinct odour of prussic acid. Hence a poisonous dose in nine pints would be smelt. Covered by a watch-glass, with a drop of yellow ammonium sulphide on it, it was warmed; the drop, on evaporation, gave a distinct red sulphocyanide reaction with ferric chloride. Exposed to the air for twenty-four hours, all[66] the above samples had lost their odour, and failed to give the sulphocyanide reaction.

3. Two samples of urine, measuring ½ pint each, were treated respectively with 1 and 2 drops of B.P. acid (strength in this case 1·18 per cent. HCN), and a third ½ pint left untouched, the same precautions being used as with the above beers. Three independent witnesses again classified them without difficulty as to relative amounts of the poison. This is 2 drops of an exceptionally weak acid to the pint.

4. The contents of a human stomach, very fetid from decomposition, were divided into two portions of about 2 oz. each: one was left untouched; to the other 1 grain of mercuric cyanide was added, and then about 5 drops of hydrochloric acid, and a little zinc dust. The whole was well stirred, and shut up close. Next day the odour of HCN was very prominent in the one to which the cyanide had been added, in spite of the strong original smell of both.

5. I cannot agree with Taylor that either peppermint or tobacco mask the odour appreciably.

The odour of nitrobenzol, being similar to that of bitter almonds, might lead to a suspicion of prussic acid without due caution (Woodman and Tidy).

In putrefying, organic matters often develope ammonium sulphide, becoming alkaline. The ammonium sulphide would combine with the HCN to form sulphocyanide of ammonium, which is inodorous, but, by distillation with acids, gives HCN. Sulphocyanide, however, could not be produced unless the original matters were alkaline. In Tawell’s, and most other trials, the stomach contents were acid, as they always are naturally from the gastric juice.

Taylor (Med. Jurisprudence, 1873, vol. i., p. 364) mentions a case where the blood had a strong odour of prussic acid, and the mucous membrane of the stomach, even after it had been washed three times with water, also exhaled a strong odour. In another case (Med. Gaz., vol. xxxvi., p. 104), where 20 grains of Scheele’s acid had been taken with ultimate recovery, the vomited matters had no odour, “showing that,[67] if not concealed by other odours, the whole of the acid must have been absorbed.” Many other instances might be quoted where nothing was smelt, and yet the tests revealed prussic acid.

As to the question about the salts of prussic acid, it may be generally said that all poisonous cyanides would smell in the stomach, except, perhaps, mercuric cyanide. See “Properties of the Salts,” p. 73. Possibly the formation of mercuric cyanide may have accounted for the absence of odour in some of the above cases, as I do not find that mercury was tested for, though its compounds are common medicines. Otherwise it is hardly possible that hydrocyanic poisoning should have been effected, and the acid be still there, without its very characteristic odour being perceptible to an observer with an acute olfactory sense. I have entered at some length into the question of odour, as much importance has been attached to it in the trials, and I still consider it as one of the most delicate and positive of tests.

II. Silver Test.—When silver nitrate is added to a solution containing HCN or a cyanide acidulated with nitric acid, a white precipitate falls of silver cyanide, soluble in ammonia, insoluble in dilute, but soluble in hot concentrated nitric acid, and not blackened by light. This reaction is rendered quantitative according to Liebig’s volumetric method. The original solution is made slightly alkaline by potash, and a standard solution containing 1·7 grammes of silver nitrate per litre (1 cub. centimetre = ·0017 grm. AgNO₃) is added until a permanent white turbidity is produced, seen best over a sheet of black paper or a black book. Then each cub. centimetre used is equivalent to a double quantity or ·00054 grammes of HCN. Formic acid, or chlorides, do not interfere; in fact, it is advantageous to have a little chloride present.

The silver cyanide may be also estimated gravimetrically by adding excess of silver nitrate, collecting the precipitate on a weighed filter, washing, drying, and weighing. Silver cyanide corresponds to two-tenths of its weight of HCN[68] (134 gives 27). If chlorides be present, the mixed precipitate of silver cyanide and chloride is weighed, treated with dilute hydrochloric acid, and weighed again. The HCN is thus displaced, and passes into the filtrate; the silver precipitate, now all as chloride, is weighed again: then the increase of weight multiplied by 27 and divided by 9·5 (the difference between the equivalent weights of silver chloride and cyanide) is equal to the weight of HCN present. But the volumetric process is quite as accurate, and more expeditious.

In poisoning cases advantage is taken of the opacity of silver cyanide thus: A drop of moderately dilute silver nitrate is placed on a watch-glass over the substance, which may be gently warmed, taking care that the steam condensed does not cause the drop to fall. If HCN be present, the drop will become opaque-white from formation of silver cyanide. ¹/₁₀₀ grain of HCN, equal to ¼ grain of B.P. acid, will give this reaction (Taylor). If there is only a small amount, and the action is gradual, the drop on drying in the air may exhibit crystals of silver cyanide, recognizable under the microscope as minute prisms obliquely truncated. Of course the silver nitrate itself may give crystals, but they will be very soluble in water.

Cyanide of silver is decomposed by (1) hydrochloric acid, giving silver chloride; (2) dilute sulphuric acid and zinc, giving silver; (3) sulphuretted hydrogen, giving silver sulphide; in each case HCN is liberated and may be distilled off: then the other tests may be applied.

If sulphuretted hydrogen be present, it will give a black with silver nitrate. The liquid should in this case be previously shaken with just enough carbonate of lead to remove the sulphuretted hydrogen. The latter, however, does not interfere with the Prussian blue or sulphur tests.

When sufficient in quantity, the cyanide of silver, thoroughly dried in a water-bath, may be transferred to a small bulb-tube and heated, the end being closed with the finger. It breaks up into cyanogen gas, silver, and paracyanide of[69] silver, a peculiar glow and effervescence occurring as it decomposes. The cyanogen will have the characteristic bitter almond odour, and, on removing the finger, will burn with a flame violet on the margin and rosy in the centre.

III. Prussian Blue (Scheele).—Add to the solution or distillate caustic potash in excess, then a drop or two of fresh ferrous sulphate (protosulphate of iron), and a little ferric chloride (perchloride of iron—the tinct. ferri perchlor. of the Pharmacopœia will do), warm gently for a few minutes, add dilute hydrochloric acid in slight excess: if much HCN be present, a deep blue precipitate (Prussian blue) will remain; if only a trace, the liquid will be greenish, and on standing till the next day a blue deposit will form.[22] This is the only blue iron precipitate which is insoluble in dilute hydrochloric acid.[23]

Remarks.—Sulphuretted hydrogen does not interfere with this test, as the black ferrous sulphide dissolves in hydrochloric acid. The amount of iron salts added should have some relation to the amount of HCN present, an idea of which will have been attained by the silver test. Moderate excess of potash must be present all the time till the hydrochloric acid is added. A large amount of iron salt is objectionable, as the yellow colour interferes with the final green tint with traces of HCN. The test may be made quantitative by imitating the tint with a weak standard solution of potassium[70] ferrocyanide treated with a drop of hydrochloric acid and a drop of ferric chloride, on the same principle as “Nesslerizing” (see Wanklyn’s Water Analysis). Finally the precipitate of Prussian blue should be preserved to exhibit at the trial, as this is the most positive, though not the most delicate, test.

IV. Sulphur Test (Liebig).—The liquid to be examined is placed in a somewhat shallow glass dish or beaker, covered almost airtight with a watch-glass, moistened on the under surface with a drop or two of yellow ammonium sulphide. [The ordinary sulphide is commonly yellow enough for the purpose, or, if not, can be made so by warming with a little flowers of sulphur.] After warming gently for a short time (the periods recommended by different authorities vary from half a minute to ten minutes), great care being taken that the steam does not condense and cause the solution on the watch-glass to drop back into the liquid, the cover is removed, dried on a water bath to drive off any excess of ammonium sulphide, treated with a drop or two of water, and a drop of not too acid ferric chloride free from nitric acid and diluted till nearly free from colour. If HCN be present, it will have formed sulphocyanide with the ammonium sulphide, and will therefore generate a blood-red colour with the ferric chloride. If a colour be produced, continue the addition of ferric chloride till no further deepening occurs. The reaction is made quantitative by comparing the tint with that produced by a known quantity of sulphocyanide and ferric solution (Herapath). But there are difficulties in making it exact.

This is the most delicate test for HCN, detecting ¹/_7930th of a grain of HCN in a very dilute liquid, whereas Prussian blue does not discover less than ¹/_780th of a grain (Taylor, Ann. Ch. Pharm. lxv., 263). Salts of acetic, formic, and meconic acids give red colours with ferric chloride, but (1) meconic acid is not volatile; (2) the red from acetic and formic acids is at once removed by a slight excess of dilute hydrochloric acid, sulphocyanide is not; (3) sulphocyanide-red is destroyed by solution of mercuric chloride, the others are not.

[71]

The above tests are sufficient, but the following additional ones have been at different times proposed.

V. Guaiacum Test.—Paper dipped in fresh tincture of guaiacum, containing about 3 per cent. of the resin, then dried, then moistened with dilute cupric sulphate solution (2 per cent.), becomes blue in HCN vapour. But the same effect is produced without HCN by almost all oxydants, such as chlorine, bromine, or iodine, ferric chloride, nitric and nitrous acids, chromic acid, peroxide of hydrogen, ozone (Mohr’s Toxicologie), also by ammonia, hypochlorous acid, soluble chromates, &c. (Blyth).

VI. Uranium Test.—A grain or two of pure ferrous salt (ammonio-ferrous sulphate will do), and the same quantity of uranium nitrate, are dissolved in half an ounce of water. Two or three drops of this are placed on a white plate, and a drop of the suspected liquid added. A purple precipitate, or a greyish purple colour in weak solutions, indicates HCN. Cobalt nitrate may be used instead of the uranium salt, and is nearly as delicate. (Carey Lea, American J. of Science [3] ix., 121.)

VII. A hot solution of potassium cyanide mixed with picric acid gives a deep blood-red —“picrocyanic” acid). Free HCN does not give this reaction, and therefore must first be neutralized by an alkali. Said to be more delicate than the iron tests. (C. D. Braun, Zeitschr. f. anal. Ch. iii., 464.)

VIII. Slightly alkalize the distillate with potash, add a few drops of cupric sulphate, and afterwards just enough hydrochloric acid to dissolve the excess of cupric hydrate: white cuprous cyanide will remain undissolved. “This test will detect ¹/₂₀₀₀₀ of HCN in solution.” (Lassaigne, Ann. de Chimie, xxvii., 200.) But a similar effect is produced by hydriodic acid, and potassium iodide might have been administered.

IX. Mix the HCN with excess of alkali, add cobalt chloride and tartaric acid: on exposure to air a deep brown-red colour will be produced. (C. D. Braun, loc. cit.).

X. If to a solution of HCN, potash be added in excess, and[72] then a little very finely pulverised, or precipitated, mercuric oxide, the latter will dissolve. Mercuric oxide is soluble in alkaline fluids only in presence of HCN. (Fresenius, Qual. Anal.).

XI. “With peroxide of hydrogen, natural blood gives effervescence from escape of oxygen, but no discoloration. Blood containing HCN gives a brown colour, the spectroscopic bands disappearing, and no effervescence.” (Schönbein.) Hæmatocrystallin, the colouring matter of the blood corpuscles, combines, in fact, with HCN, giving a dark coloured compound which appears to be crystallizable and definite in composition (Hoppe Seyler), does not act as a carrier of oxygen like the natural hæmatocrystallin, and possesses a distinct spectrum (see Thudichum, Chem. Physiology). The blue masses in the blood described by Ralph (Journ. Microsc. Science, Oct. 24, 1866) have not been found by others.

XII. Mercurous nitrate gives at once with HCN solutions, a black deposit of metallic mercury, and a solution of mercuric cyanide. With calomel, a similar reaction takes place according to Allen, but I have found that the solution is not deodorized even by large excess of calomel, the odour becoming stronger and more pungent than the original HCN. On evaporating, mercuric chloride is left. Probably some cyanogen chloride is formed. The odour is so much intensified that it might be of use as a test. In view of the possible administration of calomel, the reaction is interesting.

Of course it will not be necessary to employ all these methods. The odour, and the silver, Prussian blue, and “sulphur” tests will be sufficient. I would suggest a form of apparatus by which all the latter could be obtained from the original substance without distillation in a retort.

A shallow beaker or glass jar is closed by an india-rubber stopper, through two holes in which are passed glass rods ending in glass spoon bowls bent at right angles, so as to be horizontal when mounted. The bowls should be one inch in diameter, and will have to be specially made. In the first bowl a few drops of silver nitrate are placed, in the second a[73] little potash. The apparatus is put in a warm place for six or eight hours, then the two rods are removed, a third rod substituted, its bowl containing a drop or two of yellow ammonium sulphide, the other hole plugged, and the apparatus put back in the warm place for two or three hours more. The first bowl will have the silver cyanide, the second should be treated with ferric and ferrous salt and hydrochloric acid for Prussian blue (vide), the third evaporated and ferric chloride added for the sulphocyanide test. This arrangement prevents loss of HCN by volatilization, and also, with a little care, avoids any danger of the reagent dropping back into the solution. The three rods cannot safely be placed in together, as the sulphide vapour would blacken the silver.

For the modifications in testing necessitated by the presence of mercury, &c., see under the different Salts.

SALTS.

Hydrocyanic acid combines with bases to form the cyanides, which may be thus grouped:—

A. Cyanides of the Alkalies (potassium, sodium, ammonium), and of the Alkaline Earths (barium, strontium, calcium, magnesium). These are all soluble in water, are alkaline to test paper, and are decomposed by all acids, even carbonic, hence they exhale an odour of HCN, and are nearly as poisonous as prussic acid itself. If they are present, the stomach contents must be alkaline. The only member of this group likely to be met with is

Potassium Cyanide, KCN. Broken opaque white lumps, or small crystals, deliquescent, smelling strongly of HCN, soapy to the feel, often containing much carbonate, and therefore effervescing with acids, easily fused by heat to a clear liquid, very soluble in water, less in alcohol. Used for removing silver stains in the form of “cyanogen soap,” but very dangerous, as a cut or scratch may cause absorption, and even the unbroken skin, according to Allen, may absorb enough to[74] cause symptoms. Its aqueous solution decomposes spontaneously into formiate of potassium, ammonia, and a brown substance. Its taste is bitter and acrid, causing constriction and a burning heat in the throat. It is very strongly alkaline. Distilled with dilute acids it gives off all its HCN. It easily responds to the other tests. In a case of poisoning investigated by Dr. Bernays, a piece of potassium cyanide was found in the deceased’s mouth, which was much inflamed by its acridity. The alkali being strong, and the acid weak, cyanide of potassium has most of the effects of an alkaline irritant.

The potassium may be found by incinerating a portion of the substance and testing for it in the ash. Taylor (Med. Jurisprudence) improperly says that the salt itself (cyanide of potassium) may be recovered from the organs by incinerating them in close vessels and treating the ash with water. I have already mentioned that cyanide would be formed in this way from the organic matters themselves, even if not originally present.

B. Mercuric Cyanide, Hg(CN)₂. Of all metals mercury has most affinity for HCN, mercuric oxide decomposing other cyanides, even Prussian blue, and dissolving readily, as we have seen, in free HCN, or in alkaline cyanides. Hence if a compound of mercury have been given medicinally, the prussic acid will be found in the stomach as mercuric cyanide, which is easily soluble in water, neutral to test paper, quite inodorous, and extremely poisonous. It is not officially recognised in any Pharmacopœia, except the French; has been occasionally used in medicine instead of mercuric chloride, which it resembles in action, but has the advantage of not being incompatible with alkalies and organic matters (Royle’s Mat. Med., 6th ed.). It crystallizes in anhydrous four-sided obliquely-truncated white opaque prisms, with a disagreeable metallic taste, is permanent in the air, easily soluble in water, less in alcohol. It fails to respond to the silver nitrate (partially) or Prussian blue tests, and gives the sulphur test with difficulty. It is decomposed by distillation with hydrochloric acid, but only ⅔rds of the HCN pass over into the distillate,[75] unless ammonium chloride be added (Roscoe and Schorlemmer’s Chemistry). Whenever HCN is looked for, it is safer to examine also for mercury, and, if found, to add a little hydrochloric acid and sulphuretted hydrogen to the original liquid, thereby precipitating mercuric sulphide (black) and liberating the HCN, which may be distilled off. If, however, excess of sulphuretted hydrogen has been inadvertently added, it would blacken silver nitrate, and hence the silver test would not be available, unless the solution was previously shaken with lead carbonate to remove the sulphide. But it would not affect the Prussian blue or sulphur tests, as sulphide of iron is soluble in hydrochloric acid. Mercuric cyanide also gives off all its HCN when distilled with iron filings or zinc dust, sulphuric acid, and water. This seems a better method.

Mercuric cyanide is said to be an irritant poison, and to be similar in its action to corrosive sublimate. Combination with mercury seems to mask the physiological action of HCN, just as it does its chemical action. The medicinal dose is ¹/_16th grain gradually increased to ½ grain, in pills or solution (Royle). 10 grains have proved fatal. By heat, when dry, it is broken up like silver cyanide into mercury and cyanogen.

C. Cyanides of the Heavy Metals, as zinc, lead, copper, &c. Silver cyanide has already been described. These are insoluble in water, inodorous, and probably, while intact, not poisonous. But they are decomposed by mineral acids, and, as the gastric juice is acid, they would more or less readily yield free HCN, with its usual odour and effects. The influence of the metal has also to be considered.

D. Double Cyanides, derived from iron, cobalt, manganese, chromium, platinum, &c., are inodorous. Those of the alkalies and alkaline earths are alone soluble. The only common ones are ferro-and ferricyanide of potassium, the so-called yellow and red prussiates of potash. They are said to be merely purgative, not poisonous, but, from the comparative facility with which they yield HCN by acids, they cannot be considered safe. Soluble ferrocyanides give, with[76] pure ferrous sulphate, a white precipitate turning blue in air; with ferric chloride a precipitate of Prussian blue; with cupric sulphate a maroon precipitate. Ferricyanide solutions give with ferrous salts a deep blue precipitate; with ferric salts a dark-brown coloration. These reactions would be applied to a filtered portion of the stomach contents. Prussian blue is ferric ferrocyanide mainly, but varies in composition: it is supposed to be inert.

Almen states (Chem. Centr. 1872, 439) that potassium ferrocyanide in solution decomposes at ordinary temperatures, especially if a little free acid be present, HCN being formed. Prussian blue only decomposes when warmed to 40° or 50° C. (therefore not in the body, C. G. S.), “hence the presence of HCN, if accompanied by ferrocyanide, is not a proof of poisoning.” But ferrocyanide is not in any Pharmacopœia, and is not administered medicinally. Yet, to answer a possible question, a known fraction of the original substance might be extracted with water, and tested as above. The same observations apply to ferricyanide.

When ferro-or ferricyanides are distilled with moderately strong sulphuric acid, a portion of the contained HCN passes over; in fact, this is the common process for preparing prussic acid. The iron remains behind in the retort, in combination with potassium and the rest of the cyanogen. If ferric hydrate —“ferri peroxidum humidum”), or ferrous sulphate and potash, have been administered as antidotes to HCN, Prussian blue might be formed in the stomach. It would then show a blue colour, either by itself or on addition of an acid, and blue particles under the microscope, if in sufficient quantity. In this case the HCN left in the stomach would have been rendered innocuous, and the prussic acid which had actually caused the death would be found free in the blood, &c. The stomach contents might then show no HCN, either by odour or distillation, as Prussian blue is inodorous, and not easily decomposed by dilute acids. With alkalies it turns brown, giving ferric hydrate and an alkaline ferrocyanide.

Ludwig and Maushner (Chem. Centr. 1881, 43), in a case[77] of poisoning, discovered a quantity of potassium ferrocyanide in the body. This was removed by slightly acidulating and carefully precipitating by ferric chloride. The filtrate, distilled with tartaric acid, yielded much HCN. The sample of cyanide of potassium, which had probably caused death, was afterwards found to contain a large proportion of ferrocyanide.

E. Sulphoncyanides (Thiocyanates). Those of the alkalies and alkaline earths are soluble and colourless; ferric sulphocyanide is soluble, and intense blood-red (sulphur test); other sulphocyanides are mostly insoluble. They are all inodorous, poisonous in moderate quantities, and are not officinal in any Pharmacopœia. Distilled with acids they break up, HCN being found in the distillate. It has been mentioned already that ammonium sulphide, produced by putrefaction, may combine with any HCN present to form ammonium sulphocyanide; therefore, if the matters to be examined are alkaline, and putrefaction has commenced, Allen (Commerc. Org. Anal., 1879, art. HCN) recommends us to digest with alcohol, filter, evaporate to dryness on a water bath, redissolve in a little water, filter again, and test the filtrate with ferric chloride after just acidulating with hydrochloric acid: the well-known blood-red colour will result (see “Sulphur Test”). But the ordinary distillation with tartaric or sulphuric acid would in this case also detect the HCN, though the whole might not pass into the distillate.

Sulphocyanide of mercury is the toy called “Pharaoh’s Serpent.” A case of poisoning by it is recorded.

It is important to notice that traces of sulphocyanide are naturally present in the saliva. If this salt be found, the question will occur, how much could be accounted for by the saliva? Carpenter (Princ. of Human Physiol.) quotes Harley to the effect that the average daily secretion from the salivary glands is 1 or 2 pounds: other observers have stated that it varies greatly. The secretion itself is said to contain, in 1000 parts, one part (Frehrichs), or 0·6 part (Jacubowitsch), or even 0·3 part (Oehl), of potassium sulphocyanide; that is, 4·2 to 7 grains per pound, equivalent to from 1 to 2 grains of[78] HCN, or 2 to 4 grains if 2 pounds of saliva were secreted. This would be a serious matter but for the fact that, whether from decomposition by the gastric juice or otherwise, or from its passing out of the stomach as it passes in, it is certain that no such quantity is ever found naturally in the stomach, not more than a minute trace being ever given by the processes, unless hydrocyanic acid, in one of its forms, has actually been administered.

Cyanide of cadmium, and some of its double salts, are sparingly soluble. Double cyanide of silver and potassium is soluble and crystallizable. It is the salt used in electro-plating, and, as commonly met with, smells strongly of potassium cyanide. Zinc-potassium cyanide has been used medicinally: it occurs in beautiful crystals, inodorous when dry, but having a faint odour of HCN in solution.

The other cyanides are rare, and their physiological action is unrecorded. Cyanic acid and cyanates are said not to be poisonous.

Oil of Bitter Almonds.—The crude oil contains, as we have seen, 8 to 15 per cent, of HCN. Dissolved in spirit it forms “essence of almonds,” and is exceedingly poisonous, having caused thirty-one deaths in four years (Taylor). Two drachms of the oil has killed a man in seventeen minutes (Lancet, 1868, p. 447), two ounces caused death immediately. The odour of almonds is always distinct in the stomach.

The oil can be freed from HCN, but then does not keep so well, and is much more costly. Its sp. gr. is 1·049; it boils at 356° F. The crude oil is yellow: with concentrated sulphuric acid it gives a crimson-red colour, and on diluting a yellow emulsion. We may estimate the amount of HCN in it by shaking with water, separating, adding dilute potash to the aqueous liquid, and testing it with standard silver solution as described under “Silver Test.” The other tests may also be used to prove the presence of HCN; the guaiacum and copper paper being specially convenient.

A case of poisoning by bitter almonds is reported in the “South Australian Register” for August 6th, 1879. A[79] female child (whose age is not stated) ate a dozen of them, freshly taken from the tree, and died in three hours. The symptoms described are pain, coma, and convulsions.

Antidotes to HCN are generally useless since the death is so sudden. A moderately dilute solution of an alkali, such as potash, lime or washing soda, along with a little ferrous sulphate, would render harmless so much of the poison as was still in the stomach unabsorbed. As already mentioned, this would cause a little difficulty in the chemical analysis. Ammonia acts as an antidote by opposing the depressant action of HCN. Chlorine water has been used: this converts the HCN into ammonium chloride, carbon monoxide and dioxide, and a little cyanogen chloride.

Medicinal uses.—Its primary action is on the cerebrospinal nerves. It is employed externally, largely diluted, to allay neuralgia and itching of the skin, and to relieve earache (not more than two drops of B. P. acid at a time)[24]: it must not come in contact with abrasions, or it might be absorbed and produce poisoning symptoms. Internally, it allays dyspepsia and the irritant effects of capsicum, &c. (Royle). Safe dose internally two to six minims of the B. P. 2 per cent. acid, suspended if there is any constriction of the throat (Farquharson’s Therapeutics).

Fatal dose.—Smallest recorded (Med. Gaz. 35, p. 896); twenty grains of Scheele’s acid, fatal in twenty minutes, equal to fifty grains of B. P. 2 per cent. acid, equal to one grain of anhydrous prussic acid. Largest dose with recovery (Lancet, 1854, January 14), one drachm (sixty grains) of Scheele’s acid, but in this case energetic remedies were at once applied. Average fatal dose of 2 per cent. acid, thirty minims (Royle’s Mat. Med., Dr. Harley, 6th ed.).

Symptoms.—These vary with the dose, &c. A large quantity kills in two to five minutes, though insensibility may ensue in a few seconds. But patients may survive for twenty minutes, or even for an hour; and may continue in[80] imminent danger for several hours, and yet recover (Guy and Ferrier, Forens. Med., 1881). Many cases have occurred of voluntary acts, such as concealing or throwing away the bottle, having been performed after fatal doses had been swallowed (Ibid, p. 600). In animals, according to Mr. Nunneley, there is usually a peculiar plaintive cry, but not in man, though there may be a call for assistance. Convulsions, and involuntary evacuation of fæces or urine, may or may not occur. Large doses kill by cardiac syncope; smaller ones by paralysis of the respiratory centre, or, if gradual, by impeded oxidation of the blood (Farquharson’s Therapeutics). Other symptoms are, dilatation of pupils, muscular prostration, deep convulsive breathing at long intervals, quick feeble irregular pulse, spasmodic closure of the jaws and clenching of the hands (Taylor). Breathing sometimes stertorous (Christison, Ed. Month. Journal, February, 1850, p. 97. Reg. v. Burroughs, Cent. Crim. Court, February, 1857). Vomiting occasional, or foaming at the mouth.

Post-mortem appearances.—Not characteristic (Farquharson; Guy and Ferrier). Putrefaction not accelerated (Taylor). The veins contain dark fluid blood: the right side of the heart is gorged (Harley). There may or may not be congestion and reddening of stomach and intestines, or of the brain. On the whole, the appearances are those of asphyxia.[25] The odour should be sought for in all parts, and as soon as possible the organs should be shut up in stoppered jars, or well-corked and sealed bottles, and sent at once for analysis.

The symptoms and post-mortem appearances of poisoning by Cyanide of Potassium are the same as those of prussic acid, except that:—

1. Convulsions are more common.

2. Owing to the irritant action of the alkali, the stomach is reddened.

3. The contents are alkaline.

The fatal dose is less than five grains, but Taylor mentions a case of recovery after nearly one ounce of the commercial[81] cyanide, which may, however, have contained much carbonate.

Hydrocyanic acid is not, in the strict sense, a cumulative poison; “but doses that exceed the proper medicinal limit may happen to prove fatal though similar previous ones have appeared to be harmless, in consequence of a change in the body itself.” (Guy and Ferrier’s Forensic Medicine, 1881, p. 606.)

In the trial of George Ball for poisoning his mother with prussic acid, at Lewes, July, 1860 (previously reported), the question arose as to the difference between minims and drops. A minim of water is supposed to weigh a grain: if the fluid is heavier than water, it weighs more than a grain; if lighter, it weighs less. But a drop is quite an indefinite quantity: it is affected, not only by the specific gravity, but by the cohesion of the fluid, by the shape and size of the vessel, the manner of pouring, and the temperature. I have made some experiments which show the irregularity. (See also Woodman and Tidy’s Forensic Medicine, p. 456.)

Proving that while a drop may be estimated at about 1½ to 2 minims (a good deal more than the usual supposition, the two terms being often regarded as synonymous), yet the inconstancy is so great that it is absolutely imperative, in using powerful medicines, to prescribe exact measurement, and not such a precarious process as dropping.

As to the period after death during which HCN may be detected, Allen (Comm. Org. Anal.) asserts that its detection is rarely possible after more than twenty-four hours. This is[82] astonishing, as Casper separated more than 18 milligrammes from a body eight days after death; Sokoloff detected it in hounds sixty days after; Dragendorff after four weeks in a dog, after eight or ten days in man. Reichardt (Arch. Pharm. 3, 19, 204) found it in a body two months after death—in the organs, but not in the urine. In the Tawell trial, also, the interval was considerable.

Casper states in his Handbook (vol. iii., illustrative cases of HCN) that Schauenstein (one of the Prussian official chemists), twenty-six hours after death, found no HCN in the stomach, but a considerable amount of formic acid, the result of its metamorphosis. We know that strong HCN, exposed to light, decomposes into formate of ammonium, which, by distillation with a dilute acid, would give formic acid in the distillate. That such a change should occur so rapidly in a dilute solution, and in the darkness of the body, is improbable. It would be well, however, that formic acid should be looked for in the distillate thus:—

Carefully neutralize a measured portion with pure soda or potash; evaporate on the water-bath to dryness. The alkaline formate will be left in white crystals if present, together with the cyanide, which will not crystallize, but remain as a deliquescent mass. Dissolve in a little water, and divide into three equal portions.

(1.) To the first add silver nitrate in slight excess. Cyanide of silver will precipitate, formate will remain in solution, if not too concentrated. Filter, if possible. On boiling, if any blackening happens from reduction of the silver, formic acid is probably present. Acetic acid does not reduce silver nitrate.

(2.) To the second add dilute neutral ferric chloride (a solution of iron-alum answers admirably). A red-brown colour, removed by a drop of hydrochloric acid, indicates either acetic or formic acid.

(3.) Evaporate the third portion to dryness, and ignite gently in a closed crucible. Formate and acetate will be turned into carbonate, while cyanide will remain unchanged[83] if air be excluded. If then effervescence take place on treating the residue with a little hydrochloric acid, it is a confirmation of the presence of formic or acetic acid. The first test will have revealed which it is.

Many animal substances, when distilled with strong acids, do give acetic and formic acids, but they do not act thus with dilute acids. Yet a stomach will usually yield a little acetic acid from the food having turned sour.

If formic acid be present, it will probably have proceeded from the decomposition of HCN. Then the reduced silver obtained in the first test should be weighed, and calculated into formic acid, and also into hydrocyanic acid (108 parts of silver = 46 parts formic acid, or 27 parts HCN). The result may be stated thus:—

“Hydrocyanic acid actually found,—— grains. Formic acid found,—— grains. If this had proceeded from the decomposition of hydrocyanic acid, it would correspond to an additional amount of—— grains of hydrocyanic acid.”

It is needless to observe that the mere finding of formic acid would be no proof of the administration of HCN, unless strong corroborative evidence were at hand.

On the whole, we must always try, and we may often hope, to find HCN if given, either free, as cyanide, or as sulphocyanide, even after months have elapsed.

CHAPTER IV.

TRIALS FOR POISONING BY STRYCHNIA. PALMER, DOVE, AND BARLOW.

Three cases are reported in this chapter. (1) That of William Palmer, for the poisoning of John Parsons Cook, at Rugeley, in Staffordshire, which, in consequence of the prejudice existing against him in that county, was transferred by Act of Parliament to the Central Criminal Court in the City of London,[26] and taken before Lord Chief Justice Campbell, on the 14th, and eleven following days, of May, 1856. (2) That of William Dove, for the murder of his wife, Harriet, at Leeds, tried at York, July 16th, 1856, before Baron Bramwell. (3) That of Silas Barlow, for the murder of his mistress, Eliza Soper, at Vauxhall, tried at the Central Criminal Court, November, 1876, before Mr. Justice Denman.

The first of these trials is remarkable for the conflict of the medico-scientific evidence, the most eminent men among our physicians and analysts being called on either side, and the most contradictory testimony as to the possibility of detecting strychnia being given by them. The second trial shows the dangerous effect of hasty newspaper reports in such cases—the murder of his wife by Dove having been clearly suggested by the popular report to which some of the journals of the day gave circulation, that Dr. Taylor, the eminent analyst, had stated, in connection with Palmer’s case, that strychnia could not be detected by analysis. This case is also interesting from the nature of the insanity which was set up by the defence.[85] The last trial, that of Silas Barlow, exposes the danger of the sale of the “Vermin Killers,” so popular with all householders, most, if not all, of which contain a large proportion of strychnia, and thus offer a ready means for murder or suicide, especially as the purchase of them would not be attributed to an evil intention. It is but a poor consolation to know that, when the mischief has been done, the punishment of the actor can be secured by the skill of the analyst.

THE RUGELEY POISONINGS.

TRIAL OF WILLIAM PALMER, May 14, and following days, 1856.[27]

Before Lord Chief Justice Campbell, Baron Alderson, and Mr. Justice Cresswell, at the Central Criminal Court.

For the Prosecution: The Attorney-General (Sir A. Cockburn), Mr. Edwin James, Q.C., Mr. Bodkin, Mr. Welsby, and Mr. Huddlestone.

For the Defence: Mr. Serjeant Shee, Mr. Grove, Q.C., Mr. Gray, and Mr. Kenealy.

William Palmer, surgeon, of Rugeley, Staffordshire, aged 31, was indicted for the wilful murder of John Parsons Cook.

HISTORY OF THE CASE.

Connection between Cook and Palmer.

Mr. Cook, having been originally brought up as a solicitor, on coming into a fortune of from £12,000 to £13,000, abandoned his profession, and took to the turf, where he became[86] acquainted with the prisoner, who had for some years kept racehorses. Originally in good local practice, Palmer had of late transferred the majority of his patients to a Mr. Thirlby, who had previously been his assistant, retaining only two or three more immediately connected with him or his family. His father, originally a working sawyer, had, by his industry, gradually risen to be a timber merchant in a large way of business, and, on his sudden death in 1837, left a fortune of £70,000. As he died intestate, the eldest son executed a deed by which each of the children took £7,000, and the remainder was left to the widow. Of these children, seven in number, the prisoner was the fourth. As a child he was known for his amiability and kindness, but also for his shy and underhand manner, and his partiality for trying experiments of a cruel nature on animals. “He was just and generous,” said one of his early friends, “when he grew up, and he never forgot an old face.”[28] Originally apprenticed to a firm of druggists in Liverpool, he had to leave them in consequence of a scandal in money matters; was then put with Mr. Tylecote, a surgeon, near Rugeley; walked the London hospitals, living the gay life of so many of that class of students; passed his examinations; married the illegitimate daughter of an Indian officer, who left her a small property;[87] and set up in Rugeley as a surgeon. Of his five children only the first, a son, was living at the time of his trial, the others all dying suddenly of convulsions within a few weeks after their birth. He was an indulgent husband, a kind father, a regular attendant at church, and apparently a religious man.

On his marriage, Palmer commenced to live in a handsome style, keeping his carriage, and soon after began training and breeding racehorses, and occupying himself on the turf. As his wife’s fortune was only for her life, in 1854 he insured her life for £13,000, the premiums on which exceeded the income he derived from her, further insurances of a greater amount being declined by other offices. Within nine months after this, his wife was dead, and the insurance money received, relieving Palmer from difficulties that were already pressing on him. Again, within three months after his wife’s death, Palmer was endeavouring to effect insurances on the life of his brother Walter, a confirmed drunkard, to the enormous extent of £80,000. Only one of these policies, that in the Prince of Wales’ office, was accepted, the other offices being put on their guard by the hint that “his wife had died after the first payment of the premium had been made.” Pressed by his pecuniary difficulties, he then tried to effect an insurance for £10,000 on the life of one George Bate, a decayed farmer, whom he employed as a kind of farm bailiff, and represented as a gentleman and an esquire, with a famous cellar of wine, but the insurance offices were now thoroughly awake; a detective was sent to interview the esquire, whom he found hoeing turnips, and the scheme fell through.[29]

[88]

Since 1854, Palmer had been in the hands of the bill discounters, and especially of a money-lending attorney in Mayfair of the name of Pratt, with whom he from time to time discounted what purported to be the acceptances of his mother, some of which were renewed on partial payment, others cleared off by the money received from the insurance of his wife’s life.

“This,” said the Attorney-General, “brings us to the close of 1854. In the course of that year he effected another insurance in his brother’s name, but Palmer was the real party, and corresponded with Mr. Pratt on the subject of effecting it, and the policy for £13,000 was assigned to Palmer. On the strength of that policy, which remained in the hands of Pratt, who paid the first premium out of a bill he discounted for Palmer at 60 per cent., they proceeded to discount further bills, this policy being kept as a collateral security. The bills, in the whole, discounted in the course of that year, amounted to £12,500—two in June, which were held over from month to month to keep them alive—two of £2000 each in March, 1855, with the proceeds of which Palmer bought two racehorses, Nettle and Chicken. These bills were renewed from time to time, and eventually came due in January, 1856. Another bill for £2000 was discounted in April, 1855, renewed like the others, and became due on the 25th of October. On the 9th of July another bill for £2000 was discounted, renewed, and became due on the 12th of January. On the 27th of September another bill for £1000 was discounted to pay for the renewal of the bills due and then coming due. So that when the Shrewsbury races took place in November, 1855, bills were due or rapidly maturing to the extent of £11,500, every one of which bore the forged acceptance of the prisoner’s mother. You will therefore understand the pressure which naturally and necessarily arose upon him; the pressure of the liabilities for £11,500 which he had not a shilling in the world to meet, and the still greater pressure which arose from the consciousness that the moment he could go on no longer, his mother would be resorted to for payment. The fact of his having committed these forgeries would be known,[89] and would bring on him the penalty of the law for that crime so committed. The insurance company having refused to pay the policy effected on his brother’s life, no assistance could be derived from that source.”

Already, in May, 1855, Cook, with whom he had become intimately acquainted in racing transactions, had lent him his acceptance for £200 to meet a small claim, and had had to pay it on Palmer’s default. In August of that year, Palmer again asked the money-lending attorney of Mayfair to discount a bill of Cook’s for £500, representing that Cook required the money. It was, however, declined without further security, and then Cook assigned two of his racehorses—Polestar, the subsequent winner at Shrewsbury, and Sirius—as a collateral security, and obtained only £375 in money, and a wine warrant for £65, the rest being swallowed up in discount and expenses. This money and warrant Cook never got, Palmer asking Pratt to send it to the post-office at Doncaster, whence he obtained it; and as it was made “to order,” and bore a receipt stamp, Palmer, it was alleged, forged the name “John Parsons Cook,” and took the cheque and the warrant, and appropriated the proceeds. That bill would be due on the day of Cook’s death. In the same month it was that he attempted to effect the insurance on Bate’s life and failed; and though Cook had, at Palmer’s request, attested this proposal, which referred to Palmer as the usual medical attendant, beyond that he had nothing to do with this attempt.

Such was the desperate position of the prisoner at this time. It, however, rapidly grew worse. On the 6th of November a writ for £2000 against Palmer, and another for the same sum against his mother, were issued, but held over by Pratt in order that Palmer might make some arrangement. This he did to the amount of £800, and in consequence, after allowing for an exorbitant discount, £600 was taken off the bill, leaving £1400 to be met. The Prince of Wales office had refused to pay on Walter Palmer’s life, and Mr. Pratt would not wait any longer. On the 13th of November, Pratt wrote him that all the bills, £11,500 in amount, must be[90] met—a letter which Palmer must have received the next day—the day after that on which Cook’s horse, Polestar, won at the Shrewsbury races. After the race, Cook had between £700 and £800 in his pocket from bets paid on the course, and from the stakes and his other bets would be entitled on the week after to receive more than a thousand pounds at Tattersal’s. Before that day Cook was dead, his pocket-book empty, and his betting-book not to be found.

Cook, though slightly disposed to pulmonary complaints, was a hale and hearty young man, at the time of his fatal illness suffering only from debility.[30] It was only natural[91] that his victory should excite him, and that with some friends he should celebrate it with two or three bottles of champagne at the “Raven Hotel” on his return from the course. He was, however, generally abstemious. He went to bed with nothing the matter with him, got up the next day and went on the course as usual. That night his illness began.

Late on the evening of the 14th of November, a betting agent of Cook’s, of the name of Fisher, who was staying at the “Raven,” was invited by Cook to come into the room where he, Palmer, and one Myatt were, and take some brandy and water.

“They were drinking grog,” says Fisher; “the deceased had some brandy and water before him. He asked me to sit down, and I did so. Cook asked the prisoner to have some more brandy and water, and he said he would not until Cook had drunk his. Cook then took up his glass, and drank almost all the liquor that was in it, and, within a minute, he exclaimed, ‘There is something in it; it burns my throat dreadfully.’ Upon his[92] saying this, Palmer took up the glass, and sipped what remained in it, and said, ‘There is nothing in it.’ There was a very small quantity in the glass when the prisoner took it up. At this time a person of the name of Reid came in, and the prisoner handed the glass to him, and asked if he thought there was anything in it, and handed it to me also, and we said there was nothing we could recognize, as the glass was empty. I said, however, that there was a strong scent upon it, but I could not detect anything but brandy. Cook went out of the room, and when he returned he called me out. I went with him into my sitting-room. He appeared very ill, and he told me he had been very sick and asked me to take his money. He said he thought Palmer had been dosing him. He gave me £700. He did not say what I was to do with the money. He was very sick again after he had given me the money, and asked me to go into his bedroom with him. I did so. Another person named Jones went with us; the deceased vomited violently in his bedroom in our presence. He was so ill I recommended him to send for Dr. Gibson, who attended and gave him some medicine. He was certainly not drunk; there was nothing about him approaching to drunkenness. He appeared very ill the next morning, but a good deal better than the previous night, and I returned him his money.”[31]

[93]

Mr. Gibson, who saw Cook during this attack, confirmed Fisher’s and Reed’s account, stating that his tongue was perfectly clean, his pulse good, but his stomach appeared distended, that he only administered simple remedies. Cook told him he thought he had been poisoned. He seemed a little excited, but not drunk. A Mrs. Brooks, who also attends races, added the following evidence on this incident:—

“I went to the ‘Raven’ to see Palmer about half-past ten at night on Wednesday the 15th. I went upstairs, and asked a servant to tell Palmer that I wished to speak to him. She said he was there. At the top of the stairs are two passages, one facing, the other to the left. I turned to the left. I saw Palmer standing by a small table in the passage. He had a tumbler-glass in his hand in which there appeared to be a small quantity of water. I did not see him put anything into it. There was a light between me and him, and he held it up to the light. He said to me, ‘I will be with you presently.’ He saw me the moment I got to the top of the stairs. He stood at the table a minute or two longer with the glass in his hand, holding it up to the light and shaking it. The door of a sitting-room was partially open, and he went into it, taking the glass with him. In two or three minutes he came out again with the glass. What was in it was still of the colour of water. He then went into his own sitting-room, and the door was shut.”

Some brandy and water, which Palmer afterwards brought to Mrs. Brooks, proved harmless to her; but she admitted that on the previous day a great number of the racing men at Shrewsbury were affected with sickness and purging, and that there was a talk in the town of the water being poisoned.[32] With the return of Cook from Shrewsbury to Rugeley with[94] Palmer, on the day after this suspicious attack, the summary of the case ends, it being necessary to detail the subsequent events in the words of the leading witnesses.

THE SYMPTOMS.

In the evening of the 15th of November, Cook returned from Shrewsbury with Palmer to the “Talbot Arms,” at Rugeley, an inn situated immediately opposite Palmer’s own house. He said he had been ill at Shrewsbury, went to bed early, dined with Palmer the next day, and returned to the inn at night, apparently none the worse, and quite sober.

“On the following morning,” said Mills, the chambermaid, “Palmer came to see him, and asked me for a cup of coffee for him, which I procured, and I think I gave it to the deceased, and left the room. I did not see him drink the coffee; but when I went into the room shortly afterwards, I found it had been vomited in the utensil. I did not observe a jug of toast-and-water in the bedroom; but a jug that did not belong to the bedroom was sent down at night, for me to make some fresh toast-and-water in it. The prisoner was in deceased’s bedroom four or five times on this day, and I heard him tell Cook that he would send him over some soup. I afterwards saw some broth in the kitchen, which I knew had not been made in the Talbot Arms; and the waitress took this broth to the deceased’s bedroom. I saw the prisoner after this, and he asked me if Mr. Cook had had his broth; and the waitress said she had taken it to him, but he refused to take it, and said that it would not stay on his stomach. The prisoner then told me to fetch the broth, as Mr. Cook must have it, and I did so, and left it in deceased’s bedroom, and shortly afterwards I saw that it had been vomited. The same evening some barley water was made for the deceased, and also some arrowroot, but I cannot say whether they remained on his stomach or not. Mr. Bamford, the doctor, was called in after this. On the Sunday after the deceased came to the Talbot Arms, I saw him in his bedroom about eight o’clock in the morning, and he said he had slept well since twelve o’clock, and he felt pretty comfortable. A large breakfast cup of broth was brought from the prisoner’s house between twelve and one o’clock on the Sunday, and I took it up to the deceased’s bedroom. I tasted the broth, and very soon afterwards I was sick. I drunk about two tablespoonfuls. I vomited violently all the afternoon, and was obliged to go to bed. I was quite well up to the time of my[95] drinking the broth. I saw the deceased on Sunday evening, and he seemed in good spirits, and not to be any worse. I saw the deceased on the Monday morning between seven and eight o’clock, when I took him a cup of coffee for his breakfast. He did not vomit the coffee. Palmer had seen him before this, but he did not come again until ten o’clock at night. The deceased got up about one o’clock, and he shaved and dressed himself, and appeared a great deal better, but said that he was exceedingly weak. Ashmall, the jockey, came to see him on the Monday, and also Mr. Saunders, the trainer. Soon after one o’clock, the deceased took some arrowroot, and it remained on his stomach. The deceased went to bed at four o’clock, and between nine and ten the prisoner went into his room, and I left him there. Some pills were sent by Dr. Bamford for the deceased, about eight o’clock, and I took them into his room, and placed them on the dressing-table, and they were there when the prisoner went into the room. I went to bed between ten and eleven, and I was called up about twelve. I then heard violent screams from the deceased’s bedroom, and upon entering it I saw the deceased sitting up in bed, and he desired me to fetch the prisoner directly. I told him he had been sent for, and I then walked to the bedside and found one of the pillows was upon the floor. I picked it up and asked Mr. Cook if he would lay his head down. At this time he was beating the bedclothes apparently in great agony, and he told me he could not lie down, and he should be suffocated if he did; and he then, in a loud tone, asked me again to send for Mr. Palmer. There was a sort of jumping or jerking about his head and neck and body all this time, and his breathing was very much affected. He screamed three or four times while I was in the room, and twice he called out, ‘Murder.’ He asked me to rub one of his hands, and I found it quite stiff. It was the left hand. The fingers were all stretched out and there was no motion in them, and they twitched while I was rubbing the hand. Palmer came into the room while this was going on, and the deceased recognized him, and said, ‘Oh, Palmer,’ or ‘Oh, doctor, I shall die.’ The prisoner replied, ‘Oh, my lad, you won’t;’ and after remaining a minute or two in the room he told me to stay there, and went out. He returned in a very few minutes, and he then produced some pills, and he gave the deceased a draught in a wine-glass, after he had given him the pills. Cook said that the pills stuck in his throat, and the prisoner told me to give him some toast-and-water, and I did so in a teaspoon. His head and body continued jerking, and he seized the spoon fast between his teeth and seemed to bite it very hard. The deceased shortly after swallowed the toast-and-water and the pills,[96] and the prisoner then handed him the draught. It had a thick heavy appearance. The deceased snapped at the glass in the same way he did at the spoon, and he appeared unable to control himself. As soon as he had swallowed the draught, he vomited it immediately, and it appeared to me to smell like opium. The prisoner then made the remark that he hoped the pills had stayed, and he searched the utensil in which the deceased had vomited with a quill, and said that he could not find them; and he told me to take the utensil away and empty it carefully, and I did so, but could not see any trace of the pills. After this the deceased seemed a little more easy. The attack lasted altogether about half an hour, and during the whole of the time he was quite conscious. When he was composed he asked the prisoner to feel how his heart beat; and Palmer went to his bedside, and put his hand either to his heart, or the side of his face, and he said it was all right. I left the deceased about three o’clock in the morning, and at this time the prisoner was sitting in the easy chair, and I believe he was asleep. About six o’clock the same morning I saw the deceased again, and he told me that Mr. Palmer had left him about a quarter past five o’clock. I asked him how he was, and he replied that he was no worse; and he then asked me if I had ever seen any one in such agony as he was the night before, and I told him I never had. He then said he was sure I should never like to see anyone in such agony again, and I inquired what he thought was the cause. He replied that it was through some pills that Palmer had given him about half-past ten. The deceased was quite composed and quiet at this time, and there was no jerking or convulsion about him, but his eyes looked very wild. About twelve o’clock the deceased desired me to send the Boots over to Mr. Palmer to know whether he might have a cup of coffee. A message was brought back that he might, and Mr. Palmer would be over immediately. When I took up the coffee the prisoner was in the room, and I gave him the coffee, and he tasted it to see that it was not too strong. Mr. Jones came to the inn about three o’clock, and I saw him in the deceased’s room, and the prisoner after this told me that Cook had vomited the coffee. I saw Cook several times after this, and he appeared in very good spirits, and talked about getting up the next morning, and wished the barber to be sent for to shave him. I did not see the deceased later than half-past ten o’clock on the Tuesday night, and the prisoner was then in his bedroom, and I gave him some toast-and-water for the deceased, and the prisoner said he did not want anything more. I sat up in the kitchen on purpose to see how Mr. Cook went on, and I heard the bell of his room ring violently[97] about ten minutes before twelve, and went up immediately. I found the deceased sitting up, and Mr. Jones had his arm round his shoulders, apparently supporting him. The deceased when he saw me, told me to fetch Palmer directly. I went over to his house, and rang the surgery bell, and the prisoner came to the window almost in an instant, and opened a small casement, and I told him to come over to Mr. Cook, as he was in much the same state as he was the night before. He made some reply, and I returned at once to the ‘Talbot Arms,’ and in a minute or two the prisoner came into Mr. Cook’s room. The first thing he said was that he did not think he had ever dressed so quickly before in his life. At this time Mr. Jones was supporting the deceased. I went out into the landing about a minute or two, and the prisoner came out, and I observed to him that Mr. Cook appeared in the same state as the night before, and he replied, ‘Not so ill by a fiftieth part.’ He then went to his own house, and returned in a very short time to the deceased’s bedroom. I then heard the deceased ask to be turned on his right side, and I then shortly after heard that he was dead.”

The cross-examination of Elizabeth Mills was mainly directed to three points—(1.) The fact of Mr. Cook complaining of sore throat, but not of difficulty in swallowing, in May, 1855, when the witness said all that he did was to use a gargle sent by Dr. Bamford. (2.) Her omission to tell the coroner that the broth had made her sick; that Cook had said he became ill on taking the pills sent by Palmer; that he beat the bedclothes, called “Murder!” and “twitched” when she rubbed his hands. These omissions the witness accounted for by the fact that the coroner did not ask her to detail all the symptoms she saw, but merely required her to answer such questions as he put. On her depositions being read, the Attorney-General proposed to call evidence to prove the negligence and misconduct of the coroner, but the court ruled that it was inadmissible.[33] (3.) That the witness had had several interviews with Cook’s stepfather, Stevens, his attorney, and the chief constable, before giving evidence—the[98] defence imputing that they had instructed her in the symptoms. She denied, however, any such conduct on their part. She had heard of Dove’s case, but not read it, and Mr. Stevens had never given her any money. An attempt to injure her moral character in reference to a man of the name of Dutton entirely failed, and her evidence remained substantially uncontradicted.

Lavinia Barnes, the waitress at the “Talbot Arms,” remembered Cook coming there on Monday, the 12th, on his way to the races, and not complaining of illness, and she saw him when he returned on Thursday, the 15th, and after he came from dining at Palmer’s, on the Friday evening, when he spoke to her, and was sober.

“On the Saturday,” continued this witness, “I saw him twice. Some broth was sent over and taken up to him by me. He could not take it; he was too sick. I carried it down, and put it in the kitchen. I afterwards saw Palmer, and told him Cook was too sick to take it; he said he must have it. Elizabeth Mills afterwards took it up again. Mills was taken ill with violent vomiting on the Sunday between twelve and one o’clock. She went to bed, and did not come downstairs till four or five o’clock. I saw some broth that day in the kitchen; it was in a sick cup, with two handles, not belonging to the house. I did not see it brought; it was taken back to Palmer’s. On Monday morning (19th) I saw Palmer, and he told Mills he was going to London. I saw Cook during that day. Saunders came to see him, and took him up some brandy-and-water. I slept that night in the next room to Cook’s. Palmer came between eight and nine in the evening, but I did not see if he went up to Cook’s room. (According to Mills, Palmer had seen Cook in the morning, and saw him again at ten at night.) About twelve o’clock I was in the kitchen, when Cook’s bell rang violently. I went upstairs. Cook was very ill, and asked me to send for Palmer. He screamed out ‘’Murder!’ He exclaimed that he was in violent pain—that he was suffocating. His eyes were wild-looking, standing a great way out of his head. He was beating his bed with his arms. He cried out, ‘Christ, have mercy on my soul!’ I never saw a person in such a state. Having called up Mills, I left to send ‘Boots’ for Palmer, who came, and I again went into Cook’s room. Cook was then more composed. He said, ‘Oh, doctor, I shall die!’ Palmer replied, ‘Don’t be[99] alarmed, my lad.’ I saw Cook drink a dark mixture out of a glass, but do not know who gave it him. I both heard and saw him snap at the glass. He brought up the draught. I left him between twelve and one, when he was more composed. On Tuesday he seemed a little better. At night, a little before twelve, the bell rang again. I was in the kitchen. Mills went upstairs, and I followed her, and heard Cook screaming, but did not go into the room. I stood outside the door, and saw Palmer come. He had been fetched. I said, as he passed me, ‘Mr. Cook is ill again.’ He said, ‘Oh, is he?’ and went into the room. He was dressed in his usual manner, and wore a black coat and a cap.[34] She also heard him make the observation to Mills before reported. She went to the room, but came out before Cook died.”

MEDICAL EVIDENCE.

In consequence of his severe illness, the following deposition of Dr. Bamford (an aged local practitioner) before the coroner was read:—

“I attended the late Mr. Cook, at the request of William Palmer, and first saw him about three o’clock on Saturday, the 17th of November, when he was suffering from violent vomiting, the stomach being in that irritable state, that it would not contain a teaspoonful of milk. There was perfect moisture of the skin, and he was quite sensible. I prescribed medicine for him; and Mr. Palmer went up to my house and waited until I had made it up, and then took it away. I prescribed a saline draught, to be taken in an effervescing state. Between seven and eight in the evening Mr. Palmer again requested me to visit Mr. Cook. The sickness still continued, everything he took being ejected from his stomach. I gave him two small pills as an opiate. Palmer took the pills from my house. I did not accompany, nor do I know what became of the pills. On the following morning (Sunday) Palmer again called, and asked me to accompany him. Mr. Cook’s sickness still continued. I remained about ten minutes. Everything he took that morning was ejected from his stomach. Everything he threw up was as clear as water, except some coffee that he had taken. Palmer had administered some pills before I saw Mr. Cook on Saturday, which had purged him several times. Between six and seven in[100] the evening I again visited the deceased, accompanied by Palmer. The sickness still continued. I went on Monday morning between eight and nine, and changed his medicine. I sent him a draught, which relieved his sickness, and gave him ease. I did not see him again until Tuesday night, when Palmer called for me. I examined Mr. Cook, in the presence of Mr. Jones and Mr. Palmer, and I observed a change in him. He was irritable and troubled in his mind. His pulse was firm, but tremulous, and between 80° and 90°. He threw himself down on the bed, and turned his face away. He said he would have no more pills, nor take any medicine. After they had left the room, Palmer asked me to make two more pills, similar to those on the previous night, which I did, and he then asked me to write the directions on a slip of paper, and I gave the pills to Palmer. The effervescing mixture contained 20 grains of carbonate of potash, 2 drachms of compound tincture of cardamine, and 2 drachms of simple syrup, together with 15 grains of tartaric acid for each powder. I never gave Mr. Cook a grain of antimony. I did not see the preparations after they were taken away. His skin was moist, and there was not the least fever about him. I considered death to have been the result of congestion of the brain, when the post-mortem examination was made, and I do not see any reason to alter that opinion. Palmer said he was of the same opinion with respect to the death of the deceased. I never knew apoplexy produce rigidity of the limbs. Drowsiness is a prelude to apoplexy. I attribute the sickness on the first two days to a disordered stomach.” When called in the sixth day of the trial, after his recovery, the witness said—speaking of the last visit to Mr. Cook—“Having seen Cook, I left the room with Jones and Palmer: the latter said he rather wished Cook to have his pills again (I had prepared the same pills on Saturday, Sunday, and Monday), and he would walk up with me for them. He did so, and stood by me in the surgery while I prepared them. I had strychnia in a cupboard in my private room. I put the pills in a box, and addressed it ‘Night pills, John Parsons Cook, Esq.’ I wrote that direction all four nights. On the Tuesday night Palmer requested me to put on a direction. After that I did not see Cook alive. It was, as near as could be, twenty minutes past twelve, at midnight, when I saw Cook dead. I understood he was alive when they came for me, and I could not have been more than five or ten minutes in going up. My house is about two hundred yards from Palmer. I found the body stretched out, resting on the heels and the back of the head, as straight as possible, and stiff.[101] The arms were extended down each side of the body, and the hands clenched. I certified it was apoplexy.”

Mr. William Henry Jones, a surgeon at Lutterworth, and intimate friend of Cook’s for the last five years, was written to by Palmer on the Monday, the 19th, stating that “Cook was taken ill at Shrewsbury, and obliged to call in a medical man;” that “since then he had been confined to his bed with a very serious bilious attack, combined with diarrhœa,” and that Palmer “thought it advisable that his friend should come and see him.” Illness prevented this before about half-past three in the afternoon of Tuesday, the day before Cook died.

The cross-examination of this witness was directed to the previous health of the deceased, and to his fears that he was still suffering from a former attack of venereal disease, which Mr. Jones decidedly negatived; to his having been in pecuniary difficulties from his racing ventures, which the witness said he was steadily redeeming; to Cook’s objection to take morphia; to the question whether, when before the coroner, the witness had used the word “tetanus,” which it[104] was evident from the original depositions had been scratched out by the clerk, probably from ignorance of its meaning, and to whether he agreed with Dr. Bamford that Cook had died in an apoplectic fit, or rather, as the witness at the time thought, of one of an epileptic character. In re-examination, he said that “he was satisfied that Cook’s death did not arise from epilepsy, as in that disease consciousness is lost, but there is no rigidity or convulsive spasm of the muscles, and the symptoms quite different. He was equally certain that it did not arise from apoplexy.” Dr. Savage, of Gloucester Place, London, who had attended Cook for four years, also negatived the suggestion that he was suffering from syphilitic symptoms, or that he had any venereal taint about him. He was timid, no doubt, about his throat, and had had two small ulcers on his tongue due to two bad teeth, but by the end of May they had gradually disappeared, and were quite well.

The woman who laid out the body noticed that “though it was quite warm, the hands and arms were cold; the body lying on the back, straight down the bed,[35] the arms crossed upon the chest, and the head ‘lying a little turned on one side.’” She had never seen so stiff a corpse before. “We,” she continued, “had difficulty in straightening the arms. We could not keep them straight down to the body. I passed a piece of tape under the back, and tied it round the wrists, to fasten the arms down. The right foot turned on one side outwards. We were obliged to tie both feet together. The eyes were open. We were a considerable time before we could close them, because the eyelids were so stiff. The hands were closed, and were very stiff. I have never known them so stiff as in this case.” Mr. Stevens, Cook’s stepfather, who saw the body three days after death, also noted that the right hand was clenched, and, as he looked across the body, that the left was clenched in the same way.

[105]

What passed between Mr. Stevens and Palmer at their interview at Rugeley on the Friday after Cook’s death, and the reasons why he eventually insisted on a post-mortem examination and a chemical analysis of the corpse, belong rather to the section relating to the conduct of the prisoner. It will be sufficient here to note that on the 26th of November the post-mortem examination was held with the following results by Dr. Harland, of Stafford, assisted by Mr. Devonshire, of the London University, and Mr. Newton, of Rugeley, in the presence of Dr. Bamford, Palmer, and several other persons.

POST-MORTEM EXAMINATION.

Dr. John Thomas Harland, physician, of Stafford, arrived at Rugeley at ten in the morning of the 26th, called at Dr. Bamford’s on his way to the hotel where the examination was to be conducted, and on his road met Palmer, whom he had previously known. “I am glad,” said Palmer, “that you are come to make a post-mortem examination. Someone might have been sent whom I did not know.” “What is the case?” replied Harland; “I hear there is a suspicion of poisoning.” “Oh no,” said Palmer; “he had an epileptic fit on Monday and Tuesday last, and you will find old disease in the heart and head.” Such was not the result of the post-mortem. They “found the body much stiffer than bodies usually are five or six days after death—the muscles strongly contracted and thrown out, and the hands stiff and firmly closed.” According to a report which Dr. Harland sent to Mr. Stevens, and which at the suggestion of the judge was read in full, the various internal organs were perfectly healthy and natural, as described in detail in the following examination, subsequent to reading the report:—

On cross-examination, after stating that Palmer’s words, “they won’t hang us yet,” were addressed to Bamford in a loud whisper, and afterwards repeated to several persons, and that his original notes in pencil were destroyed, a more formal report being written by him on getting home, Dr. Harland said—

Dr. Monckton, a physician at Rugeley, made a separate examination of the spinal marrow of the deceased on the 28th of January, when he said that the body was in such a condition as to enable him to do so satisfactorily, and when had there been any disease of a normal character on the spine he should have had no difficulty in discovering it. All that he found were certain granules, the origin of which it was difficult to account for, though frequently found in persons of an advanced age, but which he never knew to occasion sudden death. He agreed entirely with the evidence of Dr. Harland.[37]

[110]

EVIDENCE OF MEDICAL EXPERTS.

We come next to a remarkable body of evidence given by men of such eminence in their profession as Mr. Curling, Dr. Todd, Sir Benjamin Brodie, and others of nearly equal mark, negativing the idea that had been suggested in the previous cross-examinations that the death was due to one of the two forms of true tetanus, and affirming that the symptoms which had been detailed were those of the action of strychnia. Not only were these opinions closely questioned in cross-examination, but as many medical men, several of them of not less eminence than these witnesses, were subsequently called for the defence to contradict them; and thus the most extraordinary conflict of scientific evidence raised that had hitherto been witnessed in a criminal court. Subsequently, as we shall see, a similar dispute between the medical giants of the day was roused in the case of Dr. Smethurst, but with, in the end, a very different result. In reading the following statements for the prosecution, it will help to make them more clear, if it is borne in mind that tetanus is of two kinds—(1), Idiopathic, or self-generated, and the other (2), Traumatic, the result of a wound or a sore; that the former may arise from exposure to cold or damp, or even from the irritation of worms in the alimentary canal, but in temperate climates is by no means a frequent disease; whilst the latter, from the various accidents to which human beings are liable, is of more frequent occurrence. Another point to be remembered is, that it is a moot point in medical practice whether a syphilitic sore, unless of course of a most aggravated character, will produce tetanus, and that the difference between the symptoms and progress of true tetanus and of that due to poison is, in the opinion of these experts, very marked. Dr. James Blizard Curling, surgeon to the London Hospital, was first called, and after describing the two kinds of tetanus and their causes, and speaking of the very numerous cases of the “traumatic” kind which he had seen, he thus detailed the symptoms:—

[111]

In his cross-examination, Mr. Curling admitted that irritation of the spinal cord, or of the nerves proceeding to it, might produce tetanus, and the correctness of Dr. Watson’s statements in his Lectures, that, in four cases out of five, the disease begins with lockjaw, and that all the symptoms of tetanic convulsions may arise from very trivial blows; but he denied that there was any well authenticated instance of “traumatic tetanus” occurring within a quarter of an hour after the reception of the injury, or that it was very likely that the irritation of a syphilitic sore by wet, cold, drink, mercury, or mental excitement, might lead to tetanic symptoms.

Dr. Todd, for twenty-one years physician to King’s College Hospital, well known for his lectures on Tetanus and the diseases of the Nervous System, and who had seen only two cases of what appeared to him to be idiopathic tetanus, so rare are they in this country, gave the following evidence:[39]—

The deposition of Dr. Bamford, before reported, was here read, his inability to attend from illness having been proved.

The examination of Dr. Todd by the Attorney-General was then proceeded with as follows:—

Sir Benjamin Brodie’s evidence, which follows, was given “with great clearness, slowly, audibly, and distinctly,” and produced a marked effect.

Two other surgeons, Dr. Daniell, late surgeon to the British Hospital, and Mr. Samuel Solly, of St. Thomas’s Hospital, confirmed in every respect the views of the previous medical witnesses, that the circumstances attending Cook’s death were clearly distinguishable from those attendant on ordinary tetanus. They relied on the fact that ordinary tetanus was always progressive, and that it is never intermittent to the extent witnessed in Cook’s case, and seldom endured less than from thirty to forty hours. Mr. Solly alluded to the peculiar grin—“the risus Sardonicus, as the first symptom of true tetanus, which is not common to all convulsions, and which having once seen,” he said, “you cannot forget.” He distinguished between tetanus with convulsions and death from epileptic convulsions by the fact that “the first seldom leaves any trace behind it, whilst the latter does leave its trace in the shape of a slight effusion of blood on the brain, and a congestion of the vessels.” The syphilitic theory was finally overthrown by the testimony of Mr. Henry Lee, surgeon to the Lock Hospital, which is exclusively devoted to syphilitic cases. Though he saw there nearly 3000 cases a year, he had never known one resulting in tetanus, or read of a case of primary or secondary symptoms having that result.

In addition to these experts, on the sixth day important evidence was given by Dr. Jackson, who had had twenty-five years’ experience of tetanus in India, on the difference of the symptoms observed in the idiopathic and traumatic kinds;[120] the former being much more frequent in India than in other climates, affording him in his practice as many as forty cases.

[121]

LATE EXAMPLES OF DEATH BY STRYCHNIA.

Four cases of undoubted poisoning by strychnia were brought forward by the prosecution, in each of which the symptoms had been observed by medical men, as well as by the attendants on the several patients. In the first case, that of Agnes Sennett, or French, a patient in the Glasgow Infirmary, in September, 1845, for a sore skin, from thoughtlessness apparently, she took one of two strychnia pills prepared for a paralytic patient, and then went and sat by the ward fire. “In three quarters of an hour,” said Kelly, another patient, “she was taken ill and fell back on the floor. I went for the nurse; we took her to bed, and sent for the doctor; we were obliged to cut her clothes off first because she never moved. She was like a poker. She never spoke till she died.” Each pill, according to the prescription, contained a quarter of a grain of strychnia. When the medical clerk of the hospital saw her in bed, the symptoms were—

“A strong retraction of the mouth; the face much suffused and red; the pupils of the eyes dilated; the head bent back; the spine curved, and the muscles rigid and hard as a board; the arms stretched out; the hands clinched; and there were severe paroxysms occurring in about a quarter of an hour. She died in about an hour and a quarter. When I was called the paroxysms did not last so long; but they increased in severity.” “The retraction of the mouth was continuous, but worse at times. I do not think I observed it after death. The hands were not clinched after death; they were semi-bent. The symptoms appeared about thirty minutes after taking the pills. I tried to make her vomit with a feather. She only vomited partially after I had given her an emetic. There was spasmodic action and grinding of the teeth. She could open her mouth and swallow. There was no lockjaw or ordinary tetanus.”[40]

Dr. Watson, the surgeon to the infirmary, who was called in within a quarter of an hour of the patient being taken ill,[122] said, “She was in violent convulsions, and her arms stretched out and rigid; they were kept quiet by rigidity. She did not breathe, the muscles being kept still by tetanic rigidity. That paroxysm subsided, and fresh ones came on after a short interval. She died in about half an hour. She was perfectly conscious. Her body was opened. The heart was found distended and stiff. The cavities of it were empty. The spinal cord was healthy.”

The second case, also of accidental poisoning, by the error of a local chemist, who substituted strychnia for salicine (willow bark), of which there ought to have been nine grains in the bottle of medicine, was that of a Mrs. Sergeantson Smyth, residing near Romsey. On the 30th of October, 1848, she took half a wine-glass of the mixture, equal to a third of the whole, containing three grains of strychnia. The effect was of course immediate. The symptoms were identical with Cook’s.

Mr. Francis Taylor, of Romsey, found her dead on his arrival. “Her body was on the floor by the bed; the hands very much bent; the feet contracted and turned inwards; the soles of the feet hollowed up and the toes contracted, apparently from recent spasmodic action; the inner edge of each foot was turned; there was a remarkable rigidity about the limbs; the body was warm, and the eyelids almost adherent to the eyeballs.” Three days afterwards the witness made a post-mortem examination, with the following results:—

The third case was that of a Mr. Clutterbuck, a gentleman suffering from paralysis, on whom, with Dr. Chambers, Mr. E. D. Moore, who detailed the case, had attended some fifteen years before.

The fourth case of poisoning by strychnia, though at this time given anonymously, as it had not as yet been brought to a public trial, was that of Mrs. Dove, of Leeds, more fully related in the next report. In this case, Mrs. Witham, who had been in attendance on the deceased, described how, after taking the medicine given to her, “She complained first of her back; her head was thrown back; her body stretched out; that she twitched, her eyes were drawn aside, staring, and that when the witness put her hands on the patient’s limbs they did not relax.” In this case the illness commenced on the 25th of February; attacks came on the 27th, 28th, and 29th (the last a very slight one), and then again, about a quarter past eight, on the 1st of March, and the person died about twenty minutes to eleven on that night. “She principally complained of prickings in the legs, twitchings in the muscles and in the hands, which she said she could compare to nothing else than a galvanic shock. Between the attacks, she was composed. She wished her husband to rub her legs and arms. She was dead when the doctor came.”

On cross-examination, the witness said that the sufferer “could not bear to have her legs touched when the spasms were strong upon her. Her limbs were rigidly extended when she asked to be rubbed between the intervals of the spasms. Touching her then brought on the spasms. Her body was stiff immediately after death,” but how long it continued so the witness could not say, as she did not stay long. She was[125] sensible from half an hour to an hour, from a quarter past eight till after nine, and the witness supposed she was insensible the remainder of the time; she did not speak. On the Saturday before she died the symptoms were the same as on the other days—not more violent.”

Mr. Morley, the surgeon who had attended this case, and whose opinion as to the symptoms being identical with those in the present inquiry, was directly opposed by Mr. Nunneley, of Leeds, who had then assisted him in the post-mortem examination, not only detailed the symptoms he then saw, but also the method and results of his subsequent examination of the body.

ANALYTICAL EVIDENCE.

On the fifth day, the late Doctor Alfred Swaine Taylor, the well-known Analytical Chemist and Author of “Medical Jurisprudence” (the text-book of the legal profession in all criminal investigations), Doctor Owen Rees, now one of the physicians extraordinary to her Majesty, and the late Professor Brande, of the Royal Institution, were called as witnesses. By the two first, the analytical examination of the various parts of Mr. Cook’s body had been conducted, and they had made a joint report of the results. By the last, that report had been carefully examined, and he had also heard all the evidence as to symptoms previously given in the case. No inconsiderable portion of the cross-examination of Dr. Taylor was occupied by questions connected with the publication, in the Illustrated Times, by Mr. Augustus Mayhew, of what professed to be statements as to the details of their analysis by Dr. Taylor and Dr. Rees, in which, if correctly reported, the former had committed himself somewhat prematurely to opinions on the case, and had used expressions towards the prisoner which, to say the least, were[129] not discreet. Dr. Taylor, however, stoutly maintained that he had not used many of the expressions objected to; that the opportunity of interviewing him, after the American fashion, had been unfairly obtained, and the pretended report published not only without, but contrary to, his expressed wish. Except, however, as throwing a shade of partisanship over his conduct, and so far lessening the value of his evidence, the whole episode was useless to the defence—perhaps, to a certain extent, injurious. Dr. Taylor had been hasty and injudicious, and undoubtedly taken at an advantage by the energetic reporter, who certainly obtained his interview with him by pretences not strictly true.[43] With these remarks, due to Dr. Taylor’s reputation and abilities, we proceed to give his evidence.

Referring to the symptoms previously proved in Cook’s case, the witness said—

“Vomitings produced by antimony would cause those symptoms. If given in small quantities, sufficient to cause vomiting, it would not affect the colour of the liquid with which it was mixed, whether brandy, wine, broth, or water. It is impossible to form an exact judgment when the antimony was administered, but it must have been two or three weeks at the outside before death. There was no evidence that it was administered within some hours before death. It might leave a sensation in the throat—a choking sensation—if a large quantity was given at once. I found no trace of mercury during the analysis. If a few grains had been taken recently before death, I should have expected to find some trace. If a man had taken mercury for a syphilitic affection within two or three weeks, I should have expected to find it. It is very slow in passing out of the body. As small a quantity as three or four grains might leave some trace. I recollect a case in which three grains of calomel were given three or four hours before death, and traces of mercury were found. Half a grain three or four days before death, if given in divided doses more favourable for absorption, would, I should expect, leave a trace. One grain would certainly do so.” The witness agreed with the opinion of the other witnesses as to the causes of the deaths of Mrs. Smyth, Agnes French, and the other lady (Mrs. Dove), and of the attack of Clutterbuck, and that the symptoms in Mr. Cook’s case appeared to be of a similar character. As a professor of medical science, he did not know any cause in the range of human disease, except strychnia, to which the symptoms in Cook’s case could be referred.

The cross-examination of Dr. Taylor was necessarily very diffuse and lengthy; with the exception, however, of the part in which it was sought to raise a prejudice against the witness as a partisan, to which I have previously referred, it was so important that, like the examination in chief, it must, in justice to all parties, be reported at length.

Mr. Serjeant Shee read the letter written by Dr. Taylor to Mr. Gardner:

[138]

I omit here the numerous questions about Mr. Mayhew’s visit, and take up the cross-examination with the witness’s opinion of Cook’s symptoms.

Mr. Serjeant Shee then referred to the case, and called attention to the fact that the only statement as to time was that in three hours the patient lost his speech, and was seized with violent convulsions.[51]

Dr. Rees and Professor Brande briefly but decidedly confirmed the statements, and coincided with the opinions expressed by Dr. Taylor, the latter witness speaking as to an experiment made by him to test the accuracy of the previous[146] one, with reference to the supposed presence of antimony, which enabled him to state positively that that poison was isolated by it. Professor Christison, of the University of Edinburgh, author of the well-known treatise on poisons, was then called, and gave the following evidence:—

Some further questions were put to the witness by the learned counsel for the prisoner in reference to opinions expressed by him in his work, and he explained that this work was written twelve years ago, and that the experience he had since obtained had modified some of the opinions he then entertained.

With the examination of this witness, the medical and scientific evidence for the prosecution was closed.

[149]

MEDICO-SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE FOR THE DEFENCE.

The conflict in the testimony given by scientific experts in this case, will be more clearly shown if, instead of deferring it to its original position, after the speech for the defence, the evidence of the eminent medical men and analysts is at once contrasted with that of those called for the prosecution. The two points mainly in contest were, (1.) Were the symptoms in Cook’s case such as could only be produced by strychnia, or could they have arisen from other diseases, and especially from one of the forms of ordinary tetanus? (2.) If strychnia had been given, could it not have been discovered by chemical analysis?[53] Under the first head came the consideration of Cook’s mode of life and general state of health, and his excitement at the victory of his horse at such a critical period of his fortunes, as predisposing causes to one or other of the various diseases to which the witnesses for the defence were prepared to attribute the symptoms and the result. Under the second, the success that uniformly attended such analysts as Mr. Herapath in detecting, even twenty times less than the fiftieth part of a grain of strychnia, and the inference that as it was not discovered by such eminent analysts as Dr. Taylor and Dr. Rees, that none had been given. If this inference[150] was fair, it would follow that, however mysterious the causes of the death of Cook might have been, and the symptoms of his attacks difficult of being referred to any known form of disease, yet it was not proved that he died of strychnia, and that therefore Palmer was entitled to an acquittal. “According to the witnesses for the Crown,” said Serjeant Shee, “the poison of strychnia is of that nature, that when it has done its fatal work, and become absorbed into the system, it ceases to be the thing it was when it was taken into the system; it becomes decomposed, its elements separated from each other, and, therefore, no longer capable of responding to the tests which, according to Taylor, would certainly detect the presence of undecomposed strychnia. They account for the fact that it is not detected, and for their still believing that it destroyed Mr. Cook, by this hypothesis. Now it is only an hypothesis: there is no foundation for it in experiment: it is not supported by the evidence of any eminent toxicologists but themselves; it was the theory of Dr. Taylor, which he propounds in his book—but he propounds it as a theory of his own; he does not vouch, as I remember, any eminent toxicologist in support of it.”

Against this theory, among other eminent men, the defence called Mr. Nunneley, of Leeds, who had assisted Mr. Morley (previously called for the prosecution) in the case of Mrs. Dove, Dr. Letheby, the medical officer of health of the city of London, and Mr. William Herapath. Of these three experts it will be advisable to give the evidence at some length, contenting oneself with summarising that of the other scientific witnesses who agreed with them in rejecting, as a scientific heresy, the hypothesis of Dr. Taylor.

The evidence of Mr. Nunneley covered both points—the character of Cook’s symptoms and the discovery of strychnia. “He had been, he said, in large practice for more than twenty-five years, and had seen four cases of idiopathic tetanus, all of which did not commence with lockjaw; in one of them lockjaw not becoming so marked as to prevent the person from swallowing once during the disease.”

[151]

On cross-examination by the Attorney-General, the witness, who, to judge from the expressions that passed between them, assumed an antagonistic position to the prosecution, after admitting that perhaps half of his sixty experiments had been made in conjunction with Mr. Morley, and spread over thirty years; that some had been made after the Leeds case, and some in reference to the present, and that he had been in consultation with the prisoner’s attorney since the case at Leeds, to whom he had transmitted its details, he thus continued:—

In reply to a request by Mr. Grove, Lord Campbell intimated that in the opinion of the Court experiments could not now be shown. This defect of evidence has been cured by the Vivisection Act, before referred to.

[170]

In addition to these analytical chemists, Professor Rogers, of the St. George’s Medical School, London, described an experiment he had lately made on a dog to which he had given two grains of strychnia. He had not taken out its stomach and its contents, together with some of the blood, until three days after death, and had put off the analysis of the latter for ten days, when it had become putrid, and that of the stomach and its contents for a month or five weeks, yet found in both portions strychnia in large quantities. This witness maintained that unless the contents of the stomach in Cook’s case had been lost, their being shaken would only make the process of detection more difficult, but admitted that if strychnia had been in his stomach it would be found smeared over its mucous membrane, which, it may be remembered, was not sent to Dr. Taylor.

Dr. Francis Wrightson, a pupil of Liebig, of Giessen, a teacher of chemistry at a school in Birmingham, described two similar experiments on animals, with the same results as Professor Rogers. He expressed his decided opinion that strychnia could be detected in a mixture of bile, bilious matter, and putrifying blood and in the tissues in extremely minute quantities indeed, and that five or six days after death he should expect to find it, if it had been given—unless the dose had been entirely absorbed. The clearness and decision with which this witness gave his evidence elicited the well-deserved commendation of Lord Campbell. On cross-examination by the Attorney-General, he was asked—

Mr. Partridge, the professor of Anatomy at King’s College, gave the following evidence, attributing the death of Cook to the granules found on his spine at the post-mortem examination:—

With reference to the existence of these granules, Mr. Oliver Pemberton, anatomical lecturer at Queen’s College, Birmingham, who was present with Professor Bolton when Cook’s body was exhumed, in January, for the special purpose of arriving at a more satisfactory decision on this point than had been effected at the first post-mortem examination, was called for the defence. He gave it as his opinion, in which Professor Bolton agreed, that the spinal cord was not then in a condition to enable him to judge as to what was its state immediately after death; the upper part, where it separated from the brain, being green from decomposition, and the other part, though better preserved, not soft enough for that purpose. This point was, therefore, left in a far from satisfactory position.

A Dr. G. Robinson, of the Newcastle-on-Tyne Dispensary, also supported the spinal granules theory, and considered that from his habits of life Cook was predisposed to epilepsy. He admitted, however, on cross-examination, that “he had never seen symptoms of epilepsy proceed to anything like the extent as in Cook’s case; never saw a body so stiff in epilepsy as to rest on its head and heels; nor such symptoms, except in tetanus, and that the extreme form of epilepsy was always accompanied by unconsciousness.” “The granules,” he thought, “were likely to have irritated the spinal cord, and yet no indications remain after death; they might have produced Cook’s death.”

The last important medical witness called for the defence, Dr. Benjamin Ward Richardson, physician, of London, took the prosecution somewhat by surprise by attributing Cook’s death to Angina pectoris, a cause not as yet hinted at. As the counsel for the Crown were not prepared with information requisite for an effective cross-examination on this point, at the close of the prisoner’s case the Attorney-General asked leave to recall this witness, as he was then prepared with the books required for that purpose. The Court, however, refused the application, and the evidence therefore must be accepted with caution.

CASES OF TETANUS BROUGHT FORWARD FOR THE DEFENCE.

In answer to the cases of undoubted poisoning by strychnia proved on the part of the prosecution, four cases of tetanus were brought forward on behalf of the prisoner, with the object of showing that the symptoms then exhibited were identical with those in Cook’s case, and, therefore, raising the presumption that he might have died from ordinary tetanic convulsions, and not from those produced by strychnia.

The first of these cases was described by Mr. Robert Edward Gay, a member of the College of Surgeons, who had attended a patient of the name of Forster for tetanus in October, 1855. Apparently, at first the patient was suffering[178] only from sore throat and its usual attendant pains in the neck and upper portion of the spine, for which he was duly treated. On the fourth day of his illness the muscular pains extended to the face, and particularly to the lower jaw, and by evening lockjaw had come on, with pains of the muscles of the bowels, legs, and arms. “He became very convulsed throughout the entire muscular system, had frequent involuntary contractions of the arms, hands, and legs; his difficulty of swallowing increased, and not a particle of food, solid or liquid, could be introduced into the mouth, the attempt to do so bringing on violent convulsions; so strong were they, that I could compare him to nothing but a piece of warped board.” The head was thrown back, the abdomen thrust forward, the legs frequently drawn up and contracted; the attempt to feed him with a spoon, the opening a window, or placing the fingers on the pulse, brought on violent convulsions. While the patient was suffering in this manner, he complained of great hunger, repeatedly exclaimed that he was hungry, and could not eat. He was kept alive to the fourteenth day entirely by injections of a milky and farinaceous character. He was insensible on the 12th, and continued so till he died. There was no sore or hurt about his body, and Mr. Gay attributed his death to an inflammatory sore throat, from cold and exposure to the weather, assuming a tetanic form, from the patient being a very nervous, excited, and anxious person. Mr. Gay, whilst satisfied that this was a case of idiopathic tetanus, admitted that he never met with such another case; that it was altogether progressive from the first onset; that although for a short time there was a remission of symptoms, they invariably recurred, and that the locking of the jaw was the very first symptom that made its appearance.

In another case, at the Royal Free Hospital, in 1843, on the 28th of July, a boy was brought in with the middle toe of his left foot smashed by a stone, which Mr. John Gay amputated. The accident had happened a week before, and the wound became very unhealthy. When the surgeon first saw him, his mouth was almost closed, and continued so until the[179] 1st of August, but a small quantity of medicine could be introduced.

“During the first three days,” said Mr. J. Gay, “his paroxysms were of unusual severity; he complained of a stiff neck, and during the first night started up and was convulsed. On the following night he was again convulsed. At times the abdominal muscles, as well as those of the legs and back, were rigid, and the muscles of the face in a state of great contraction. He was in the same state the next day, but at two o’clock there was much less rigidity of the muscles, especially those of the abdomen and back. On the following morning the rigidity had gone, he opened his mouth and could talk; he was thoroughly relieved. He had no return of spasms till half-past five on the following day. He then asked the nurse to change his linen, and as she lifted him up in bed to do so, violent convulsions of the arms and face came on, and he died in a few minutes. About thirty hours elapsed between the preceding convulsion and the one which ended his life. Before the paroxysm came on the rigidity had been completely relaxed. Tartar emetic (containing antimony), which I gave on the second and third day, did not produce vomiting; the rigidity of the muscles of the chest would go far to prevent it. The wound might have rubbed against the bed when he was raised, but I don’t think it possible. Some peculiar irritation of the nerves would give rise to the affection of the spinal cord. There may be various causes for this irritation of the spinal cord, which ends in tetanus, but it would be very difficult merely from seeing symptoms of tetanus, and in the absence of knowledge of how it had been occasioned, to ascribe it to any particular cause. No doubt the death took place in consequence of something produced by the injury of the toe.”

The seriousness of the wound in this case, in comparison with any signs of wounds found on Cook’s body, and the severity of the shock occasioned by such a painful accident, renders this example almost valueless.

In a third case, at the London Hospital, on the 22nd of March of 1856, a patient, aged thirty-seven, was brought in about half-past seven in the evening. When in the receiving room, he had one paroxysm, and another soon after when in the ward. After the first, his pulse was feeble and rapid, his jaws closed and fixed, an expression of anxiety on his countenance,[180] and his features sunken; he was unable to swallow, and the muscles of the abdomen and the back were somewhat tense. After the second paroxysm, his body became arched for about a minute. He was quieter for a few minutes, had a third attack, and died. He had some old neglected sores of a chronic character, particularly at the right elbow, a peculiarly sensitive spot, and Mr. Ross, the house-surgeon, who attended the case, admitted that the disease had been coming on since the morning, that he had felt symptoms of lockjaw at breakfast, and had had successive attacks all the afternoon before coming to the hospital. Here again the case had been progressive until death, and commenced with lockjaw, the admitted signs of ordinary tetanus as distinguished from that due to poison.

The last case proved was that of Catherine Wilson, of Garnkirk, near Glasgow, who “was attacked with a fit,” as she deposed, “in October last year at night, felt heavy all the day from the morning, but had no pain till night. My first pain,” she said, “was in the stomach, and then I had cramp in the arm, and became quite insensible.” By the administration of chloroform the spasms were relieved, and she recovered.

Dr. William Macdonald, of Edinburgh, who saw the case about an hour after the attack, admitted that lockjaw came on in about an hour or two after he was called in.

This witness was also put forward as a medical expert in cases of strychnia, and attributed Cook’s death to “epileptic convulsions with tetanic complications,” and was subjected to the following cross-examination by the Attorney-General:—

Having thus reported the medico-scientific evidence pro and con, we pass on to the moral evidence—the purchase of poison by the prisoner, and his acts during Cook’s illness and subsequent to his death.

[183]

PURCHASE OF POISON BY PALMER.

The proof that Palmer purchased strychnia on two separate occasions immediately before the convulsive attacks of which Cook died rested on the evidence of two druggists’ assistants at Rugeley. One of these, Charles Newton, assistant to Mr. Salt, swore that about nine o’clock on the Monday evening, the 19th of November, Palmer came to his master’s shop, asked for three grains of strychnia, which he gave him, without charge, as he knew him as a medical practitioner of the town. Next morning, between eleven and twelve, Roberts, the assistant of Hawkins, another druggist in Rugeley, was asked by Palmer for two drachms of prussic acid, for which he brought a bottle with him. Whilst Roberts was preparing this, Newton, the former witness, came into the shop, and Palmer, putting his hand on Newton’s shoulder, said he wished to speak with him, and together they stepped out into the street, when Palmer asked some questions about Mr. Edwin Salt going to a farm about fourteen miles from Rugeley. Whilst they were talking, a Mr. Brassington joined them, and began to speak to Newton about some accounts for Mr. Salt, on which Palmer went back into Hawkins’s shop and asked for six grains of strychnia and two drachms of Batley’s solution of opium.

“Whilst I was preparing them,” said Roberts, “Palmer stood at the shop door with his back to me, looking into the street. I was about five minutes preparing them. He stood at the door till they were ready, when I delivered them to him—the prussic acid in the bottle he had brought, the strychnia in a paper, and the opium in a bottle. He paid, and took them away. No one else was in the shop.”

As soon as Palmer had left, Newton came in, and spoke to Roberts about Palmer’s visit, and no doubt was struck with the information he received. At that time he did not mention to his master Palmer’s purchase of the strychnia because, he said, Palmer and Salt were not friends, and he was afraid that[184] the latter might blame him for having given Palmer the strychnia. “I first mentioned it,” said Newton, “to Boycott, the clerk to Mr. Gardner, the solicitor, at the Rugeley station, when I and a number of witnesses were assembled for the purpose of going to London. He took me to Mr. Gardner’s. I told him what I had to say, and he took me to the solicitor of the Treasury.” Counsel for the defence tried to elicit from him that he had given as his reason for not mentioning it before that he was afraid of being prosecuted for perjury. “No,” he replied; “I did not give that as a reason, but I stated to a gentleman that a young man at Wolverhampton had been threatened by George Palmer because he had said at the inquest on Walter Palmer that he had sold the prisoner prussic acid, and he had not entered it in the book, and could not prove it. I stated at the same time that George Palmer said he could be transported for it. The inquest on Walter Palmer did not take place until five or six weeks after that on Cook.”

Not only, however, did Newton[60] not mention this purchase of strychnia when before the coroner, but he did not state that on the 25th of November he was sent for about seven in the evening to Palmer’s house, where he found the prisoner in his kitchen, sitting by the fire reading.

“He asked me,” he now said, “how I was, and to have some brandy and water. No one else was there. He asked me what was the dose of strychnia to kill a dog. I told him a grain. He asked me what would be the appearance after death. I told him that there would be no inflammation, and that I did not think it could be found. Upon that he snapped his finger and thumb in a quiet way and exclaimed, as if communing with himself, ‘That’s all right.’ He made some other commonplace remark, which I do not recollect. I was with him altogether about five minutes.”

Though he appears to have related the story of the dog at[185] an earlier date, it was not until the Tuesday before the trial that he said a word to anyone about the purchase of the strychnia.

To contradict the evidence of Newton, the inspector of police at the Euston station was called to prove that the last train for Rugeley left at 2P.M., and that if Palmer went by the five o’clock express he would not get to Stafford until 8.45, and would then have nine miles to travel to reach Rugeley. It was, however, remarked by the Attorney-General that Newton’s words were “about nine o’clock,” and “that everyone knows how easy it is to make a mistake of half an hour or three quarters of an hour, or even an hour, if your attention is not called to the circumstances within a week or a fortnight, or three weeks afterwards.” Not content with this evidence, counsel for the defence called one Jeremiah Smith, an attorney, of Rugeley, and intimate friend of the prisoner’s mother, who swore that on the night in question he saw Palmer get out of a car coming in the direction from Stafford at ten minutes past ten, and went with him to Cook’s room. The exhibition made by this fellow in the box was disgusting. For some time he declared that he had never had anything to do with the applications for the enormous insurances on Walter Palmer’s life; would not acknowledge his signature to them as a witness, and only after a most vigorous cross-examination admitted that he witnessed them on the application of the prisoner. He it was who made the application to the Midland Insurance Company for the policy of £10,000 on the life of Bate, the person whom Palmer represented as a gentleman of property with a fine cellar of wine, but whom the insurance agent found hoeing turnips in a field of Palmer’s, and with six months’ rent in arrear for the room in the farm-house which he occupied. The credit of Newton was set up by the desperate attempt of Mr. Jeremiah Smith.[61]

[186]

ACTS OF THE PRISONER DURING COOK’S ILLNESS AND AFTER HIS DEATH.

On Thursday, the 15th of November, Cook returned from Shrewsbury with Palmer to the “Talbot,” at Rugeley, complaining of being poorly. It will be remembered that he had been sick at Shrewsbury after partaking of the brandy and water in Palmer’s company. Next day he dined with Palmer,[187] and came back to the inn between nine and ten at night, as the witness Barnes said, sober. Early the next morning (Saturday) Palmer was in his bedroom, and sent for a cup of coffee for him. Mills, who brought it up, did not see him drink it; but when soon after she went into his room she found he had vomited it in the chamber. Palmer was in and out frequently, and promised to send Cook some soup; for this he sent Ann Rowley, a charwoman to the “Albion Inn,” who brought it to Palmer in his kitchen, left it there about five minutes with him, whilst she went about her other work,[188] and then, by Palmer’s orders, took it to the “Talbot,” with a message that Jerry Smith, a mutual friend who had dined with them on the Friday, had sent it.[62] Cook, seeming unwilling to take this, Palmer said he must have it. It was taken up again; Cook drank it, and shortly after vomited. Again, on the Sunday, Palmer sent a jobbing gardener in his employ with a covered cup of broth to the “Talbot,” of which Mills, who took it up to Cook’s room, tasted about two tablespoonsful, and was so sick that she had to go to bed. Whether Cook drank this or not was not distinctly proved, but the cup was afterwards seen empty in the kitchen of the hotel. What followed as to the pills sent by Dr. Bamford, and the others produced by Palmer, is already fully given in Mills’s evidence. Immediately after Cook’s death, Palmer was found by Barnes searching the pockets of Cook’s coat and under his pillow, and the bank-notes which Cook had had only a few days before, his betting-book, which had been seen on his dressing-table, and the letters that had been on his chimney-piece, had disappeared.[63] Previously to this time Palmer had been very short of money, being pressed for small debts, but immediately afterwards was in funds, paying small bills, and depositing £50 in a local bank. On Tuesday evening (20th), when Cook was in such a serious state, Palmer sent for Cheshire, the Rugeley postmaster, and asked him to fill up[189] the body of a cheque on Weatherby for £350 in Palmer’s favour, which he said that he would take over to Cook to sign. That cheque was sent to Weatherby’s that night, and returned by them to Palmer, as Weatherby, not having yet received the stakes Cook had won, was not in funds to meet it. That cheque was called for by the prosecution, but not produced by the prisoner. Again, on the Thursday or Friday after, between six and seven in the evening, Palmer sent for Cheshire. “When I arrived,” said the witness, “I found him in the kitchen, and he immediately went out, and shortly after returned with a quarto sheet of paper in his hand. He gave me a pen, and asked me to sign something. I asked what it was, and he replied, ‘You know that Cook and I have had dealings together, and this is a document he gave me some days ago, and I want you to witness it.’ I said, ‘What is it about?’ He said, ‘Some business that I have joined in with him, and which is all for his benefit, and this is the document stating so.’” Cheshire refused, and Palmer, saying perhaps they would not dispute Cook’s signature, took it away. This document was also called for, and not produced.[64]

On Friday, 23rd, Mr. Stevens, who had married the widow of Cook’s father some years before, and was executor to his grandfather’s will, arrived in Rugeley, saw Palmer, and asked him about his stepson’s affairs. “There are £4000 of his bills out,” said Palmer, “and I am sorry to say my name is to them, but I have got a paper drawn up and signed by him to show that I never had any money from them.” Mr. Stevens expressed great surprise, and said, “I fear there will not be 4000 shillings to pay you.” Then, after discussing his stepson’s affairs, Mr. Stevens said, “Well, whether he has left anything or not, poor fellow, he must be buried,” on which Palmer immediately said, “Oh, I will bury him myself, if that[190] is all.” Mr. Stevens at once refused, and expressed his intention of removing the body to London for interment, so as not to inconvenience the inn people. “Oh,” said Palmer, “that is of no consequence, but the body ought to be fastened up; as long as the body is fastened up, it is of no consequence.” Whilst Mr. Stevens was talking with the persons in the room, Palmer went out, and on his return, when asked by Stevens to recommend an undertaker, said, “I have been and done this. I have ordered a shell and a strong oak coffin.” Mr. Stevens expressed his surprise, and insisted on giving instructions himself to the undertaker.

Later in the day, after dinner, on Mr. Jones reporting to Stevens, who had asked him to go up to Cook’s room for that purpose, that he could not find any betting-book or papers, Palmer said, “Oh, it’s no manner of use if you do find it.” “No use,” replied Stevens, “I am the best judge of that.” Again said Palmer, “It’s of no manner of use.” “I am told it is,” was the reply; “my son won a great deal of money at Shrewsbury, and I ought to know something about it.” “It is of no use, I assure you,” replied Palmer; “when a man dies, his bets are done with; and besides, Cook received the greater part of the money on the course.” “Very well,” replied Stevens, “the book ought to be found, and must be found,” when Palmer said, in a quieter tone, “It will be found, no doubt.” The room was then locked by Mr. Stevens’s order, but the book was never found.

Mr. Stevens returned to London to see his solicitor, and on his way back met Palmer (who had been to London to pay Pratt £100, and caution him against giving any information about Cook’s affairs), and told him his intention of having a post-mortem examination. Apparently agreeing with that, Palmer offered to introduce him to a local solicitor to conduct it, which was declined; but, added Mr. Stevens, “I said, ‘Mr. Palmer, if I should call in a solicitor to give me advice, I suppose you will have no objection to answer any question he may put to you.’ I altered my tone purposely; I looked him steadily in the face, but although the moon was shining,[191] I could not see his features distinctly. He said, with a spasmodic convulsion of the throat, which was perfectly apparent, ‘Oh no, certainly not.’” Later in the evening Palmer came to Mr. Stevens and renewed his conversation about the bills, hoping that affairs would be settled pleasantly, and was told by the stepfather that “they could be only settled in Chancery.” Palmer, at that time, denied that he had attended Cook in a medical capacity.

On the 17th of November, Ishmael Fisher, who was Cook’s usual racing agent, received a letter from Cook requesting him to pay Pratt £200, which he would repay him on the following Monday, when the Shrewsbury bets would be settled at Tattersall’s. Much to his surprise, he was not employed as usual, and in consequence lost the money he had advanced, for on the 19th Mr. George Herring, another betting man, got a letter from Palmer to call on him at the latter’s lodgings, in London, at half-past two that day. He did so.

On the 26th of November, the post-mortem examination was held, at which Palmer was present, and the incidents of the pushing of the jar containing the contents of the stomach and the cutting of its coverings occurred; and if the evidence of Myatt, the postboy, is to be taken as true, Palmer tried to bribe him to upset the fly in which Mr. Stevens and his solicitor’s clerk were to take the jar to the Stafford station, en route to London,

Whilst the analysis of the contents of the jar was being conducted in London, the coroner opened an inquest at Rugeley. Palmer, now fully aware of his danger, determined to use his influence over the postmaster to get the earliest information of the results of the analysis, and to make a friend of Ward, the coroner. With the latter object, he sent a hamper of fish and game to the coroner from London on the 1st of December, writing the direction himself, but not otherwise letting Ward know from whom they came, which he professed to wish to be kept secret. To Cheshire, the postmaster, with whom he had long been on very friendly terms, receiving from him his mother’s and Cook’s letters, on the 2nd of December he hinted the importance of his knowing anything that might pass through the post between Dr. Taylor and the local solicitor. In consequence, on the Wednesday following, he is told by Cheshire the substance of the letter, already quoted, written by the analyst to Mr. Gardner on the previous day. On this Palmer, on the 8th, writes to a[195] poulterer at Stafford to have some game ready for his messenger, and sends Bate over for it, to take it, with the following note, to the coroner:—

Bate goes to the poulterer, re-directs, and sends the game by a lad, and then finds his way to the inn, where the coroner is smoking, calls him out of the billiard-room, and privately gives him the letter.

On the 14th of December the adjourned inquest is to be held, and Dr. Taylor’s evidence taken. On the previous day, therefore, Bate is again summoned by Palmer, and sent to borrow a £5 note of Thirlby, and on his return, Palmer being still ill in bed, is told by him to look in a drawer for another, but can only find one for £50. At this juncture the sheriff’s officer arrives to arrest him on one of the overdue bills, Bate is sent out of the room, and on his return commissioned to take a note to the coroner, and to be sure that no one sees him deliver it. This he succeeds in doing between the “station” and the “Junction Hotel,” where he slips it slily into Ward’s[196] hand. Not liking all this secrecy, Bate had hesitated at accepting the mission, and asked that some one else should be sent, when Palmer replied, “Why, George, as to this poor fellow Cook, he was the best pal I ever had in my life; and why should I have poisoned him?” and then added, “I am as innocent as you, George.” The inquest proceeded, and in addition to the evidence of the symptoms attendant on Cook’s death, Dr. Taylor gave his, and Roberts proved the purchase of strychnia only a day before Cook’s death. Palmer was summoned, but professed to be too ill to come, and on the next day a verdict of wilful murder against him was returned, and a warrant issued for his transfer to Stafford jail. After a few days’ detention in his own house, Palmer was conveyed to jail, in such a state of despondency that he appears to have determined to starve himself to death, and would probably have done so, but for the threat of compulsory measures by the Governor. Soon afterwards all his property was seized under a bill of sale and sold, his racehorses alone realising four thousand guineas.[65]

THE DEFENCE.

Of Mr. Serjeant Shee’s address to the jury in the defence of the prisoner, which occupied, without wearying, the attention of the Court during eight hours on the seventh day, only a brief analysis can be given. The main points on which he insisted were—First, the erroneous nature of the medico-scientific evidence in referring the symptoms exhibited in[197] Cook’s case to tetanus from strychnia, on which he was prepared to contradict it by witnesses of equal character and credit in the profession. Secondly, the probability, amounting as near as possible to a certainty, that if the death had been occasioned by strychnia, the presence of that poison should have been detected by the analysts. Thirdly, the similarity of the symptoms in the case to those of cases of traumatic or idiopathic tetanus of late occurrence, to be described by the doctors who had attended them. As the mass of evidence by which he sought to support these propositions has been already reported, it is needless to recur to it. We may therefore pass on to the moral evidence, only pausing to extract the noble passage descriptive of the mechanism of the human frame, with which he introduced the former subject, and his picture of Cook’s state of mind from before his victory at Shrewsbury until his death.

In opening the portion of his case that Cook’s death was attributable to causes other than strychnia, Serjeant Shee adroitly concealed the names of the diseases to which his witnesses were prepared to attribute it. Until, therefore, his cloud of witnesses had been passed through, the prosecution did not know, except from the cross-examination of their own medico-scientific witnesses, to what technical points they had to shape their reply.

[199]

In support of his contention that Cook’s death could be fairly attributed to ordinary convulsions, the learned Serjeant gave the following graphic sketch of the state of his mind at the period of Shrewsbury races, and from then to his death:—

In dealing with the “moral evidence,” counsel first attacked the motive imputed by the prosecution, and sought to show from the correspondence, as well as from the conduct of the parties, that at the moment when Palmer was charged with killing Cook, he was his best and indeed the only friend whom he could look to to assist him in his severe financial troubles.

In September Palmer had negotiated this bill with Pratt professedly for Cook’s benefit, and had received from Pratt a crossed cheque to Cook’s order for £385, and a wine warrant for £65, and at the same time, on his own account, £315 in cash, and the imputation by the Crown was that he forged Cook’s endorsement and took the money. The improbability of his doing this, as Cook was certain, had he done so, to have complained of it during the months that elapsed between the giving of the bill of sale on his horses and his death, was urged by Mr. Shee, who ventured to offer as an explanation the suggestion that as Cook wanted cash on that day, Palmer gave him his £315, and with his consent endorsed Cook’s name on the cheque and paid that to his own account. Again he dealt with the circumstance of Cook’s cheque for £350, the body of which was drawn by Cheshire, and, as Palmer said, taken by him on the 20th November to Cook for him to sign in his sick room. That cheque, it will be remembered, was not produced, but

[204]

Again, he tried to depreciate the evidence of Mills as to the symptoms of Cook’s attacks, on the ground—not, indeed, that she had been tampered with by the prosecution—because then, he said, he was certain that she would not have been called—but “that she had been instructed in the various symptoms by the repeated private examinations to which she had been subjected,” dwelling on the omission from her evidence before the coroner that she had been so violently sick after tasting the broth, and on the other discrepancies in, and omissions from, her description of the symptoms when there, and when in court.

“Upon all occasions,” said the learned counsel, “I am most reluctant to attack a witness who is examined on his or her oath, and particularly if he be in a humble position of life. I am very reluctant to impute perjury to such a person; and I think that a man who has been as long in the profession as I have been must be put a little to his wits’ end when he rushes upon the assumption that a person whose statements have, after a considerable lapse of time, materially varied, is, therefore, necessarily, deliberately perjured. The truth is, we know perfectly well, that if a considerable interval of time occurs between the first story and the second, and if the intelligent and respectable persons who are anxious to investigate the truth, but who have still a strong moral conviction—upon imperfect information—of the guilt of the accused person, will talk to witnesses and say, ‘Was there anything of this kind?’ or, ‘Anything of that kind?’ the witnesses at last catch hold of the phrase or term which has so often been used to them, and having in that way adopted it, they fancy they may tell it in court.”

He also attacked the conduct of Mr. Stevens, the stepfather, for, as he said, “goading and irritating Palmer into incautious expressions, by insinuating that he had stolen a trumpery betting-book that could not be of use to anyone;” and attributed Palmer’s anxiety to nominate a local solicitor to manage affairs to the nature of the pecuniary transactions, so much relying on honour, making them far more easy of adjustment by a friendly than by a hostile agent. As for Myatt, the postboy’s, story of the bribe for upsetting the fly, he[205] attributed that to a personal feeling against the “meddlesome old gentleman,” as he called Stevens, and not to any idea of destroying the probable proofs of his delinquency. His marked attention to Cook during his illness he attributed to the interest he necessarily felt in his life, and the sending of broth and other things from his own house to the wish to save expense at a time when neither of them were too well off. “Would he,” said Serjeant Shee, “dream of sending poisoned broth to an inn, where it was sure to be tasted by the cook?”

In addition to the scientific witnesses which he would call to rebut those of the prosecution’s, he would prove that Cook, previously to the Shrewsbury meeting, was suffering severely from a syphilitic state of throat, and applying to Palmer for remedies for it—that Palmer could not have been in Rugeley at the time at which Newton swore that he sold the strychnia to him, and that the incident at the “Raven,” at Shrewsbury, of the brandy-and-water was a fiction. To what this evidence of previous illness amounted, and how the two witnesses who were to negative Newton and disprove the scene at the “Raven” fared when put in the box, will be seen in the report of their examination.[67] Great stress was of course laid on Palmer’s not only calling in Dr. Bamford, but sending for Mr. Jones, Cook’s firmest friend, to witness what proved his last day of life, and on the improbability of Palmer tampering with the medicines under such professional supervision.

“Is it conceivable that if Palmer meant to slay Cook with poison in the dead of night, he would previously have insured the presence in his victim’s chamber of a medical witness, who would know from his frightful symptoms that the man was not dying a natural death? He brings a medical man into his room, and makes him lie within a few inches of the sick man’s bed, that he may be startled with his terriffic shrieks, and gaze on those agonizing convulsions which indicate the fatal potency of the poison. Can you believe it? He might have dispatched him[206] by means that defy detection, for Cook was taking morphia medicinally, and a grain or two more would have silently thrown him into an eternal sleep;[68] but instead of this he sends to Lutterworth for Jones. You have been told that this was done to cover appearances. Done to cover appearances! No, no, no! You cannot believe it. It is not in human nature. It cannot be true. You cannot find him guilty. You dare not find him guilty on the supposition of its truth. The country will not stand by you if you believe it to be true. You will be impeached before the whole world if you say that it is true. I believe in my conscience it is false, because, consistently with the laws that govern human nature, it cannot be true.”

“The incident of his being found searching the clothes and under the pillow,” said counsel, “ought not to be looked upon as suspicious, as Mills, who came into the room at the time, thought no suspicion of it, and there was nothing but the evidence of a kind and considerate character in his having ordered the shell and the coffin; nor was it possible to torture into a presumption of guilt the few words of irritation which may have fallen from him in the course of a conversation in which Mr. Stevens treated him with scorn, not to say with insolence.” And then, alluding to the entry as to the effects of strychnia in one of his medical books, the learned Serjeant turned it most adroitly to his own purpose, as the basis of a peroration so telling in its language and perfect in its construction that it must be preserved intact.

THE REPLY.

The greater part of the tenth day was occupied with the reply of the Attorney-General, dealing in the first part with the medico-scientific evidence brought forward for the defence, and contrasting it with that on the part of the prosecution, and in the latter part pressing home with all his force of criticism and power of language the suspicious acts of the prisoner before and after the death of Cook. Between idiopathic and traumatic tetanus he drew the distinction, “supported,” as he said, “by the evidence of men who had seen, not here and there a stray case, but numerous instances of that disease, that the former was a disease of days, and even weeks, and not of hours or minutes.” He pointed out that such were really the symptoms in the cases adduced for the defence, and ridiculed the notion that the old ulcers of the spring of the year, with which Dr. Savage had dealt successfully, could be assigned as the causes of this form of disease in Cook’s case, and then criticised seriatim the other forms of convulsive disease to which the witnesses for the defence attributed it. After referring to the statements of Dr. Savage and Mr. Stevens as to the state of Cook’s health prior to his departure for Shrewsbury races, he thus dealt with the evidences of his state of health offered by the prisoner’s witnesses:—

Then, after pointing out how the two cases of this disease put forward by the defence were cases of days and hours, and, not like Cook’s, of minutes, he proceeded to deal with the suggestion of idiopathic tetanus.

Again, on Mr. Nunneley’s suggestion that it might be a case of general convulsions accompanied by tetanic symptoms, said the Attorney-General.—

“Well, but pause a moment, Mr. Nunneley; have you ever seen one single case in which death arising from general convulsions, accompanied by tetanic symptoms, has not ended in the unconsciousness of the patient before death? ‘No, I never knew such a case—not one. But in some book or other I am told that there is such a case reported;’ and he cites one, not for that purpose, I think, but with reference, to general convulsions being sometimes accompanied by tetanic symptoms and ending in death, from a very eminent author of the present day, Dr. Copland. Dr. Copland is living and Dr. Copland might have been called—was not called, notwithstanding the challenge which I threw out. Why? Because it is infinitely better in such a case to call together from the east and west practitioners of more or less obscurity, instead of bringing to bear upon the subject the light of science which is treasured in the breasts of the eminent practitioners with which this city abounds.”

Again, on Mr. Partridge’s evidence of the probable effect of the granules on the spinal marrow,

“I called his attention,” he said, “to what had evidently not been done before, namely, the symptoms of Mr. Cook’s case, and asked him in simple, straightforward terms whether, looking at these, he would pledge his opinion, in the face of the medical world and the Court, that this was a case of arachnitis, and he candidly admitted that he would not assert it.”

Against Dr. Macdonald’s epileptic convulsions with tetanic complications, he cited the following from that gentleman’s cross-examination:—

“Did you ever know a case of epilepsy, with or without tetanic complications, in which consciousness was not destroyed before the patient died? He said ‘No, I cannot say I ever did, but I have read in some book that such a case occurred.’ Is there anything[211] to make you think this was epilepsy? ‘Well, it may have been epilepsy, because I do not know what else to ascribe it to, but I must admit that epilepsy is characterised generally by unconsciousness.’ Well, then, what difference would tetanic complications make? That he is unable to explain.”

With the final suggestion of Angina pectoris, he could not deal so minutely as with the four preceding ones.

“The gentleman,” he said, “who was called at the last moment would not have escaped quite so easily if I had had the books to which he referred under my hand, and been able to expose, as I would have done, the ignorance or presumption of the assertion he dared to make. I say ignorance or presumption; or, what is worse, an intention to deceive. I assert it in the face of the whole medical profession, and I am satisfied I shall have a verdict in my favour.”

He then concluded this part of his speech by calling attention to the fact, that three of the witnesses for the prisoner, Mr. Partridge, Dr. Robinson, and even Dr. Letheby, strongly as he was biased for the defence, agreed with Sir B. Brodie and the other medical witnesses for the Crown, that, “in the whole of their experience, learning, and information, they knew of no known disease to which the symptoms of Mr. Cook could possibly be referred—a fact the importance of which it was impossible to exaggerate.”

Assuming, then, that all were agreed, that from the time that the final paroxysm set in, the symptoms were similar to those of strychnia tetanus, he dealt with the point which the defence had raised—which he admitted deserved their most attentive consideration—that there were points of difference, which had led some of the witnesses to the conclusion that they could not have resulted from that cause.

“Let us see,” he said, “what they are. In the first place, they showed that the period which elapsed between the supposed administration of the poison, and the first symptoms, was longer than they have ever observed in animals upon which they have experimented. The first observation which arises is this: that there is a known difference between animal and human life, in the power with which certain specific things act upon their organization. It may well be that poison administered to a rabbit will produce its[212] effect in a given time. It by no means follows that it will produce the same effect in the same time on an animal of a different description. Still less does it follow that it will exercise its baneful influence in the same time on a human subject. The whole of the evidence on both sides leads to establish this fact, that not only in individuals of different species, but in individuals of the same species, the same poison and the same influence will produce effects different in degree, different in duration, different in power. But again, it is perfectly notorious that the rapidity with which the poison begins to work depends mainly upon the mode of its administration. If it is administered in a fluid state it acts with great rapidity. If it is given in a solid state its effects come on more slowly. If it is given in an indurated substance it will act with still greater tardiness. Then what was the period at which this poison began to act after its administration, assuming it to have been poison? It seems, from Mr. Jones’s statement, that Palmer came to administer the pills somewhere about 11 o’clock, but they were not administered on his first arrival, for the patient, as if with an intuitive sense of the death that awaited him, strongly resisted the attempts to make him take them; and no doubt these remonstrances, and the endeavours to overcome them, occupied some period of time. The pills were at last given. Assuming—which I only do for the sake of argument—that the pills contained strychnia, how soon did they begin to operate? Mr. Jones says he went down to his supper, and came back again about 12 o’clock. Upon his return to the room, after a word or two of conversation with Cook, he proceeded to undress and go to bed, and had not been in bed ten minutes before a warning came that another of the paroxysms was about to take place. The maidservant puts it still earlier, and it appears that as early as ten minutes before twelve the first alarm was given, which would make the interval little more than three-quarters of an hour. When these witnesses tell us that it would take an hour and a half, or two hours, we see here another of those exaggerated determinations to see the facts only in the way that will be most favourable to the prisoner. I find in some of the experiments that have been made that the duration of time, before the poison begins to work, has been little, if anything, less than an hour. In the case of a girl at Glasgow it was stated that it was three-quarters of an hour before the pills began to work. There may have been some reason for the pills not taking effect within a certain period after their administration. It would be easy to mix them up with substances difficult of solution, or which might retard their action. I cannot bring myself to[213] believe that if in all other respects you are perfectly satisfied that the symptoms, the consequences, the effects, were analogous, and similar in all respects to those produced by strychnia, you will conclude that in this case strychnia was not administered, and found your conclusion on the simple fact that a quarter of an hour more than usual may have elapsed before the pills operated. But they say the premonitory symptoms were wanting. They assert that in the case of animals the animal at first manifests some uneasiness, shrinks, and draws itself into itself, as it were, and avoids moving; that certain involuntary twitchings about the head come on, and that there were no such premonitory symptoms in Cook’s case. I utterly deny the proposition. I say there were premonitory symptoms of the most marked character. He is lying in his bed; he suddenly starts up in an agony of alarm. What made him do that? Was there nothing premonitory there—nothing that warned him the paroxysm was coming on? He jumps up, says, ‘Go and fetch Palmer—fetch me help! I am going to be ill as I was last night!’ What was that but a knowledge that the symptoms of the previous night were returning, and a warning of what he might expect unless some relief were obtained? He sits up and prays to have his neck rubbed. What was the feeling about his neck but a premonitory symptom, which was to precede the paroxysms that were to supervene? He begs to have his neck rubbed, and that gives him some comfort. But here they say this could not have been tetanus from strychnia, because animals cannot bear to be touched, for a touch brings on a paroxysm—not only a touch, but a breath of air, a sound, a word, a movement of any one near will bring on a return of the paroxysm. Now, in three cases of death from strychnia we have shown that the patient has endured rubbing of the limbs, and received satisfaction from that rubbing. In Mrs. Smyth’s case, when her legs were distorted, she prayed and entreated that she might have them straightened. The lady at Leeds, in the case which Dr. Nunneley himself attended, implored her husband between the spasms to rub her legs and arms in order to overcome the rigidity. That case was within his own knowledge, and yet in spite of it, although he detected strychnia in the body of the unhappy woman, he dares to say that Cook’s having tolerated the rubbing between the paroxysms is a proof that he had not taken strychnia. Then there is the case of Clutterbuck. He had taken an overdose of strychnia, and suffered from the reappearance of tetanus, and his only comfort was to have his legs rubbed. Therefore, I say that the continued endeavour to persuade a jury that the fact of Cook’s[214] having had his neck rubbed proves that this is not tetanus by strychnia, shows nothing but the dishonesty and insincerity of the witnesses who have so dared to pervert the facts. But they go further, and contend that Cook was able to swallow. So he was before the paroxysms came on. But nobody has ever pretended that he could swallow afterwards. He swallowed the pills, and what is very curious, and illustrates part of the theory, is this, that it was the act of swallowing the pills, a sort of movement in raising his head, which brought on the paroxysm of which he died.”

Having thus called attention to the fact, that against the three cases of undoubted poisoning by strychnia (those of Mrs. Smyth, Mrs. Dove, and Mr. Clutterbuck), the sufferers in which begged to be rubbed, all that could be set up was, that animals when thus poisoned could not bear to be touched, the Attorney-General dealt with the fact of the rigidity of Cook’s body after death, on which Mr. Nunneley relied as a proof that it could not be a case of strychnia poisoning. He cited the evidence of Mr. Herapath, the very next analyst called by the defence, that in two of his experiments on animals “the bodies had been indurated and contorted,” as well that of Dr. Taylor that one of the animals in his experiments was so rigid after death that it could be held out in an horizontal position in the air as though it were on its four legs on a plane surface. “What,” he said, “are you to think of the honesty of this sort of evidence? “Again, on the question of the fulness or emptiness of the heart, he thus accounted for the variation of the symptoms:—

“It is obvious to any one who reflects for a single moment that the question whether the heart shall be found compressed, or the lungs congested must depend upon the immediate cause of death, and we know that in cases of tetanus death may result from more than one cause. All the muscles of the body are subject to the exciting action of this powerful poison, but no one can tell in what order those muscles will be affected, or where the poisonous influence will put forth the fulness of its power. If it acts on the respiratory muscles, and arrests the play of the lungs, and with it the breathing of the atmospheric air, the result will be that the[215] heart will be left full. But if some spasm seizes on the heart, contracting it and expelling from it the blood that it contains, and so produces death, the result will be that the heart will be found empty. So that you never have perfect certainty as to how these symptoms will manifest themselves after death; but that is again put forward as if the fact of the heart being empty is a conclusive fact of the death not having taken place from strychnia. Yet those men who come here as witnesses under the sanction of scientific authority, must have heard both these cases spoken to by medical gentlemen who had examined those two unfortunate patients after death, and who told us that in both cases they found the heart empty. That gets rid of that matter. As death takes place from one or other of these causes, so will be the appearance of the heart, the brain, and the body after death. There is nothing in this for a single moment to negative the conclusion which you would otherwise arrive at from the other symptoms.”

For the difficulty which he admitted arose from the non-discovery of strychnia by the analyst, he assigned another reason besides that of the condition of the stomach and other parts from the negligence imputed to those who had conducted the post mortem examination—namely, the probable smallness of the fatal dose. In all the cases of experiments on animals in which the poison had been detected, the doses had been one or even two grains, yet half a grain would prove fatal; and where so little as that had been given in experiments, Dr. Taylor and Dr. Rees had failed to detect it. On the partisanship of Mr. Herapath, sitting by the side of the prisoner’s counsel, prompting questions, and on his assertion that he believed that Cook had been killed by strychnia and that Taylor could and ought to have detected it, his remarks were those rather of a French Public Prosecutor than an Attorney-General.

“I do not say that alters the fact; but I do say that it induces one to look at the credit of those witnesses with a very great amount of suspicion. I reverence a man who, from a sense of justice and a love of truth—from those high considerations which form the noblest character of man—comes forward in favour of a man against whom the world may turn in a torrent of prejudice and aversion, and who stands and states what he believes to be[216] the truth. But I abhor the traffic in testimony to which, I regret to say, men of science sometimes permit themselves to condescend.”

Whether Newton was believed or not—and he showed how his statement was confirmed by Roberts’s account of Palmer’s conduct at the time of the second purchase of poison, he urged that of the latter fact there could be no doubt, and asked what was done with that strychnia. That Palmer obtained this strychnia was not controverted, and what he did with it was not attempted to be satisfactorily accounted for.

“Purchased for whom? for what? If for a patient why is he not produced? If for any other purpose, let us at least have it explained. Has there been a shadow of an explanation? Alas, I grieve to say, none at all. Something was said, in the outset of the case, about dogs that had been troublesome in the paddocks, but that was in September. If there was any recurrence of this, why are not the grooms here to prove this? Some one must have assisted Palmer to destroy these dogs. Where are those persons? Why are they not called? Not only are they not called, they are not even named. My learned friend does not venture to breathe even a suggestion.”[69]

As for the witness called to disprove the incident of the brandy and water at Shrewsbury, his solitary evidence, that of one of the[217] prisoner’s associates, he urged, would not stand for a moment against those of the witnesses who had spoken for the prosecution. As for the attempt to prove that Palmer could not have been in Rugeley at the time when Newton swore that he purchased the strychnia, Mr. Jeremiah Smith’s antecedents, the disgraceful part he had played in the insurance transactions, let alone his exhibition in the witness-box, he added, deprived his evidence of credit.

Again, antimony was undoubtedly discovered in the body, and yet no one is known to have given it to Cook, unless Palmer did so in the broth, the toast and water, and the coffee that he pressed him to take, and provided for him. On the question of motive so anxiously laboured by the defence, it was enough simply to repeat, the amounts of the debts pressing on Palmer, and to bear in mind how drowning men will catch at a straw. Cook’s bets, which Palmer had collected, staved off immediate pressure; and had not Mr. Stevens, whose conduct as Cook’s relative the Attorney-General earnestly defended, insisted on the post-mortem, and thus brought about the inquest and this inquiry, it was possible that the insurance office might have paid the policy on Walter’s life, and the forged bills been thus redeemed in time to save exposure. Cook also was valueless to help Palmer to keep these bills alive; even Pratt, the 60 per cent. money-lender, would not discount his acceptance for £500 without the security of a bill of sale on his horses.

Better acquainted with turf doings than his opponent, the Attorney-General smiled at the idea, that because a man was another’s confederate on the turf therefore he made himself responsible for his debts, or that Cook, with all his friendship for Palmer, would beggar himself for his sake.

“Joint engagement they had but one, the £500 bill secured on Sirius and Polestar, and it was to meet this, and free his horses, that Cook gave £300 out of his receipts at Shrewsbury to Palmer to send up to Pratt, and wrote to Fisher to advance the other £200. No £300 was sent up, and the £200, with the bets collected by Herring, went not to free this bill, but to stop Pratt’s[218] action on the forged bill of £2000 of Palmer’s. It was no doubt true that after a man’s death, his bets were irrecoverable and his betting-book useless. It was, however, useful to enable Palmer to give a list of bets to Herring to collect, the proceeds of which were turned to his own use, and the previous collection of which Palmer withheld from Stevens. In the same way would have gone the cheque for £350 for the stakes—whether a forgery or not—but for the accident of their not having paid over in time. Had Cook lived, the closely approaching claim on his £500 acceptance, which he believed to have been settled, would have revealed the whole transaction.” [Again, the Attorney-General pressed for the production of the £350 cheque filled up by Cheshire.] “Why should Cheshire be asked to fill it up? Just about this time Palmer was to meet Dr. Bamford and Jones in consultation—why not ask Mr. Jones, the trusted friend of Cook, tell him the same story as he did Cheshire, and not send for the latter? From the day that this cheque was drawn till he was arrested on the bill, Palmer had undisturbed possession of his own papers—from the day of his arrest till his trial the papers had been in safe custody. Why, then, is it not produced? Can you help drawing the inference that the transaction will not bear the light? Look, again, at the claim of £3000 or £4000 of bills on Cook’s estate, the document Cheshire refused to witness, which is also not produced—the letter to Pratt that he must have Polestar, and the instructions not to give any information on Cook’s affairs. Can you doubt that they were all part of one fraudulent and flagitious design, for the full completion of which the death of Cook was a necessary thing?”

Palmer’s conduct at the post-mortem, the tampering with the cover of the jar—by whom?—his anxiety to upset Mr. Stevens when in charge of it, because, it had been urged, of “his prying meddlesome curiosity;” his presents and letters to the coroner; his prompting Cheshire to tamper with the letter from Dr. Taylor; his anxiety to know, and to let the coroner know, that strychnia had not been found; his suggestion to call Smith (what a witness Jeremiah would have made!); his assertions of previous epileptic fits, and his hope “that the verdict to-morrow would be that he died of natural causes, and thus end it,” were all dwelt upon: “little things, if taken individually, but taken as a whole,[219]” said the Attorney-General, “as I submit to you, leading irresistibly to the conclusion of the guilt of this man.”

In concluding this masterly speech, though in some parts too like fighting for a verdict, the Attorney-General criticised the assertion by Serjeant Shee of his belief of the prisoner’s innocence:—

“You have, indeed, had introduced into this case one other element, which I own, I think, had better have been omitted. You have had from my learned friend the unusual, I think I may say the unprecedented, assurance of his conviction of the innocence of his client. I can only say upon that point that I think it would have been better if my learned friend had abstained from giving such an assurance. What would he think of me if, imitating his example, I should at this moment declare to you, on my honour, as he did, what is the intimate conviction which has followed from my own conscientious consideration of this case? My learned friend also, in his address, of which all admired the power and ability, adopting a course which is sometimes resorted to by advocates, but which, in my mind, involves more or less a species of insult to the good sense or good feeling of the jury—endeavoured to intimidate you, by an appeal to your consciences, from discharging firmly and honestly the great and solemn duty which you are called upon to perform. My learned friend told you that, if your verdict in this case should be ‘guilty,’ the innocence of the prisoner would one day be made manifest, and that you would never cease to regret the verdict which you had given. If my learned friend were sincere in that—and I know that he was, for there is no man in whom the spirit of truth and honour is more keenly alive—if he said what he believed, I can only answer that it shows how, when a man enters upon the consideration of a case with a strong bias on his mind, he is liable to err. I think then that my learned friend had better have abstained from making any assurance which involved his conviction of the prisoner’s innocence. I think, further—in justice and consideration to you—that he should have abstained from representing to you that the voice of the country would not sanction the verdict which you might give. I say nothing of the inconsistency which is involved in such a statement, coming from one who but a short hour before had complained in eloquent terms of the universal torrent of passion and of prejudice by which he said that his client would be borne down; but in answer to my learned friend I say this to you:—Pay no regard[220] to the voice of the country, whether it be for condemnation or for acquittal; pay no regard to anything but to the internal voice of your own consciences, and to that sense of duty which you owe to God and man upon this occasion, seeking no reward except the comforting assurance that when you look back to the proceedings of this day you will feel that you have discharged to the utmost of your ability and to the best of your power the duty which it was yours to perform. If on a review of this whole case, comparing the evidence on one side and on the other, and weighing it in the even scales of justice, you can come to the conclusion of innocence, or can even entertain that fair and reasonable amount of doubt of which the accused is entitled to the benefit, in God’s name acquit him; but if, on the other hand, all the facts and all the evidence lead your minds, with satisfaction to yourselves, to the conclusion of his guilt, then—but then only—I ask for a verdict of ‘guilty’ at your hands. For the protection of the good, for the repression of the wicked, I ask for that verdict by which alone—as it seems to me—the safety of society can be secured, and the demands, the imperious demands of public justice, can be satisfied.”

THE JUDGE’S CHARGE.

As the learned Judge’s charge occupied the whole of the eleventh and until half-past four on the twelfth day, and was necessarily protracted by his reading in detail nearly all the voluminous evidence to the jury, it would be impossible to give it in full. I shall, therefore, limit this report to such of his observations, as have not already been given in the notes to the evidence of the various witnesses to whom they applied.

Contrasting the practice in foreign countries of raising the probability of guilt, from the fact of the previous commission by a prisoner of other crimes against other persons, and even of a totally different character to that with which he then stands charged, Lord Campbell warned the jury that they must deal with him now as if he were an entirely innocent man, and confine their attention solely to the evidence bearing on the crime itself. He warned them also that the expression of his counsel’s opinion, that the prisoner was[221] innocent, meant no more than the plea of “Not Guilty,” and that the most inconvenient consequences would follow from regarding it in any other light. Neither was it necessary, as a point of law, that the poison by which it was charged that the murder was effected, should be found in the body, or seen to be administered. They must look to the medical evidence to see whether the death was from that poison, or from natural causes, and to the moral evidence, whether that showed that the prisoner not only had the opportunity, but that he actually availed himself of that opportunity, and administered the poison. He then proceeded to read over the evidence, commencing with that showing the indebtedness of Palmer to Pratt, in which Cook had no liability, and then taking up the joint liability of Palmer and Cook to the same person in connection with the loan secured on Cook’s horses. With reference to the former transactions he called attention to Palmer’s letter to Pratt, “not to let Cook’s friends know what money Cook had ever had from him,” remarking, “that it was written at a time when the stepfather was making inquiries of a nature certainly very disagreeable to Palmer.” On the latter correspondence he called attention to the cheque for £375, sent by Pratt for Cook, on which Palmer wrote the endorsement, and admitted “that it was very properly argued for the defence, that it was possible that Cook had authorised some one else to write it;” but coupled with it the circumstance that on the 13th of November Palmer was in a state of embarrassment, and that on the 20th he could pay Armshaw two £50 notes, and that on the 22nd he could pay a further £50.

After next reading the evidence of Wright, the attorney of Birmingham, to show how heavily Palmer was indebted to his brother, besides to Pratt, and alluding to the bill of sale of all his property, he laid great stress on the non-production of the cheque on Weatherby for £350, the production of which would have settled the question whether or not it was forged with the intention of appropriating it to his own use. Mr. Serjeant Shee here interposing with the remark that[222] Weatherby thought the signature genuine, Lord Campbell replied:—

“Mr. Weatherby said the body of the cheque was not in Cook’s handwriting, and he had paid no attention to the signature. You, gentlemen, must consider the evidence with regard to this part of the case. The cheque is not produced, though it was sent back by Weatherby to Palmer. It is not produced” [here the judge read the evidence of the search for papers at Palmer’s]. “It might have been expected that the cheque so returned to Palmer, who professed to set store upon it, and to have given value for it, would have been found, but it is not forthcoming. It is for you to draw whatever inference may suggest itself to you from this circumstance.”

The judge then alluded to the fact of Palmer remaining in the neighbourhood after suspicion had been excited against him, as of importance, and worthy of being taken into consideration, though, as he added, “he might have done so, perhaps, thinking that from the care he had taken nothing would be discovered against him,” and that neither the bills nor the document by which Cook was said to have admitted his liability on them were produced, and closed this portion of the evidence.

On the incident of the brandy-and-water at Shrewsbury, the learned judge remarked, “What a mysterious circumstance it was, that Cook, after he had stated his suspicions, still retained his confidence in Palmer—was still constantly in his company—during the few remaining days of his life, still sent for him whenever in distress; and, in fact, seemed to a great extent to be under his influence.” In a subsequent part of his charge, when dealing with the evidence for the defence, he contrasted the evidence of Myatt in contradiction to that of Brooks and Fisher, and left the jury to draw their own conclusion which they would believe. Cook’s letter to Fisher to pay Pratt the £200 was also here read and commented on, and the jury left to infer why he did not go to London as he proposed, and why he put the collection of his bets in Herring’s hands instead of Fisher’s—“if he did so.”

[223]

Coming now to the illness at Rugeley, he said, “he was bound to declare that not one fact had been adduced to prove that Mills had been bribed, or that Mr. Stevens had read over the newspaper to her, to influence her evidence in a particular direction: it was a gratuitous assertion, unsupported by evidence, and distinctly denied.” Whether the difference of Palmer’s dress when he ran over, as described by Mills or Barnes, was of sufficient importance, was a question for the jury, and also whether Mills’s deposition before the coroner, and her evidence in Court (the deposition was read) was not substantially the same. On the letter from Palmer calling in Jones, cited by the defence as a proof of innocence, he said:—

“It is important, however, to consider at what period of Cook’s illness Jones was sent for, and in what condition he was when Jones arrived. Palmer’s assertion in the letter was, that Cook had been suffering from diarrhœa, and of this statement we have not the slightest confirmation in the evidence. When Jones, looking at Cook’s tongue, observed it was not the tongue of a bilious attack, Palmer’s reply was, ‘You should have seen it before.’ What reason could Palmer have for using these words, when there is not the slightest evidence of Cook having suffered from such an illness?” Then, having had Jones’s deposition before the coroner read, he added, “It is for you to say whether in your opinion this deposition at all varies from his evidence given here: I confess that I see no variation, and no reason to suppose that his evidence is not the evidence of sincerity and truth.”

After observing that the evidence of Dr. Savage showed that previous to his departure for Shrewsbury Cook was in better health than he had been for a long time, the learned judge read the evidence of Newton, and his deposition before the coroner. Remarking on his omitting to mention the first purchase of strychnia until the Tuesday morning, when coming to London, he said:—

“You will observe that though there has been an omission, there is no contradiction. You are then to consider what is the probability of his inventing this wicked lie—a most important lie, if lie[224] it be. He had no ill will towards the prisoner at the bar, he had never quarrelled with him, and had nothing to get by injuring him. I cannot see any motive for his inventing a lie to take away the life of the prisoner. No inducement was held out to him by the Crown. He says himself that no inducement was held out to him, and that at last he disclosed this circumstance from a sense of duty. If you believe his evidence, it is very strong against the prisoner.” And then, reading the evidence of Roberts and remarking that he was not cross-examined or in any way contradicted, he added—“If you couple that with the statement of Newton—believing that statement—you have evidence of strychnia having been procured by the prisoner on the Monday night before the symptoms of strychnia were exhibited by Cook; and by the evidence of Roberts, undenied and unquestioned, that on Tuesday six grains of strychnia were supplied to him. Supposing you should come to the conclusion that the symptoms of Cook were consistent with strychnia, then a case is made out for the Crown. The learned counsel did not favour us with the theory he had formed in his own mind with respect to that strychnia. There is no evidence—there is no suggestion—how it was applied; what became of it.[70] That must not influence your verdict, unless you come to the conclusion that Cook’s symptoms were consistent with death by strychnia. But if you come to that conclusion, I should shrink from my duty—I should be unworthy to sit here—if I did not call your attention to the inference, that if he purchased that strychnia, he purchased it for the purpose of administering it to Cook.”

Then, after vindicating the conduct of Mr. Stevens in relation to the loss of the betting-book, Lord Campbell alluded to the pushing of the jar, at the post-mortem, as probably an accident, and its removal as “nothing more than the pushing, were it not coupled with evidence afterwards given, which might lead to the inference that there was a plan to destroy it and prevent the analysis of its contents.” He saw no reason to doubt the evidence of the postboy, and did not believe that Stevens had given Palmer such provocation as to induce him to offer Myatt a bribe to upset him. “That is not indeed a decisive proof of guilt, but it is for you to say whether the prisoner did not enter on that contrivance[225] to prevent an opportunity of examining the jar, which might contain evidence against him.”

Cheshire’s evidence as to filling up the cheque, and being asked to witness Cook’s signature, as if he was present, to the document professing to admit his liability on Palmer’s bills; his subsequent dealing with Dr. Taylor’s letter to Mr. Gardner; Palmer’s letter to the coroner stating the result of the analysis; his presents to the coroner; and his instructions to Bate not to let anyone see him deliver his letter to Mr. Ward, together with the instructions to Herring about Cook’s bets, were then carefully reviewed before entering on the medico-scientific evidence offered on the part of the prosecution.

The evidence of this class of witnesses has been so fully reported, that it is needless to repeat the Judge’s passing comments on their descriptions of the symptoms of tetanus as consistent with those in Cook’s case, and with those exhibited in the cases of undoubted poisoning by strychnia, detailed by the medical men who had attended the several patients. With reference to the results of the analysis by Drs. Taylor and Rees, and of the effect of their evidence, the learned Judge made the following comment on their experiments on animals:—

“There is here a most important question for your consideration. Great reliance is placed by the prisoner’s counsel, and very naturally so, upon the fact that no trace of strychnia was detected in the stomach of Cook by Dr. Taylor and Dr. Rees, who alone analysed it and experimented upon it. But, on the other hand, you must bear in mind that we have their own evidence to show that there may be and have been cases of death by strychnia in which the united skill of these two individuals has failed to detect the presence of the strychnia after death. Both Dr. Taylor and Dr. Rees have stated upon their oaths that in two cases where they knew death to have been occasioned by strychnia—the poison having, in fact, been administered with their own hands—they failed to discover the slightest trace of the poison in the dead bodies of the animals on which they had experimented. It is possible that other chemists might have succeeded in detecting strychnia in those animals and strychnia also in the jar containing[226] the stomach and intestines of Cook; but, however this may be, it is beyond all question that Dr. Taylor and Dr. Rees failed to discover the faintest indications of strychnia in the bodies of two animals which they had themselves poisoned with that deadly drug. Whatever may be the nature of the different theories propounded for the explanation of this fact, the fact itself is deposed to on oath; and, if we believe the witnesses, does not admit of doubt.” With regard to the letter from Dr. Taylor to Mr. Gardner, stating that neither strychnia, prussic acid, nor opium had been found in the body, his lordship said, “this letter was written before Cook’s symptoms had been communicated to them; but they had been informed that prussic acid, strychnia, and opium had been bought by Palmer on the Tuesday. They searched for all these poisons, and found none. The only poison they found was antimony, and they did not, therefore, in the absence of symptoms, attribute death to strychnia, as they could not at that time; but they say it might have been produced by antimony, as they say that the quantity found in the body was no test of the quantity taken into the system.”—“For the discovery of strychnia Dr. Taylor experimented upon the bodies of animals which he had himself killed by this poison, but in them no strychnia could be found. I do not know what interest Dr. Taylor could be supposed to have to give evidence against the prisoner. He was regularly employed by the Crown, and knew nothing of Palmer until he was called upon by Mr. Stevens, and the jar was given to him. He could have no enmity against the prisoner and no interest whatever to misrepresent facts.” [On being reminded that Dr. Taylor’s experiments on the two rabbits were not made until after the inquest,] “that,” said Lord Campbell, “makes no difference. If that experiment was made this morning the fact would be the same. Against Dr. Rees there is not even the imputation of having written an indiscreet letter to a newspaper. Yet Dr. Rees concurs with Dr. Taylor, that these rabbits were killed by strychnia; that they did whatever was in their power, according to their skill and knowledge, to discover strychnia, as they did with the contents of the jar, and that no strychnia could be discovered. As to antimony, he corroborates the testimony of Dr. Taylor. Antimony is a component of tartar emetic; tartar emetic produces vomiting, and you will judge from the vomiting at Shrewsbury and Rugeley whether antimony may have been administered to Cook at those places. Antimony may not have produced death, but the question of its administration is a part of the case which you must most seriously consider.”

[227]

Having then read the evidence of Professor Brande, Dr. Christison, and Dr. John Jackson, Lord Campbell, at eight o’clock, reserved the evidence for the defence to the next day.

On resuming his charge the next morning, Lord Campbell commenced by a brief summary of his previous remarks.

“The evidence for the prosecution certainly did present a serious case against the prisoner. It appeared that in November last he was most seriously embarrassed, and that he had to make payments for which he was entirely unprepared. There were actions against himself and his mother, and he had no credit left in any quarter. Cook by the races at Shrewsbury became master of £1000, and the inference had been drawn that Palmer formed a design of appropriating it to his own purposes, in order to relieve himself from his embarrassments. Again, it was proved that the prisoner drew a cheque in the name of Cook which was a forgery, for the purpose of appropriating to himself Cook’s property. What would have been the effect of the survival of Cook under those circumstances it would be for the jury to consider. No doubt, if Cook had lived, that cheque would have been brought forward, and would have led to an exposure of all Palmer’s delinquencies. With respect to the joint liability of Cook and Palmer, it was said that it was disadvantageous to Palmer that Cook should die; but there seemed to be some doubt whether it was not the intention of Palmer to possess himself of the whole of Cook’s property, and in that case he had a direct interest in his death. Then as to the medical evidence which had been adduced for the prosecution. The jury had heard the evidence of able and honourable men, who said that the deceased did not die a natural death, and that the symptoms were consistent with death by strychnia, and not consistent with death by ordinary tetanus. There was no point of law which required that the strychnia should be found in the body of the deceased, and it would therefore be for the jury on this point to consider whether the evidence of the prosecution was sufficient, or whether they could rely upon the answer which had been put in by the defence. There was direct evidence that the prisoner procured the poison of strychnia on Monday and Tuesday. What he did with it was not for him in that place to affirm. It was impossible for the jury not to pay attention to the conduct of the prisoner before and after the death of Cook, and they would not fail to consider, as part of those circumstances, his very remarkable proceedings in reference to the betting-book, which had never been discovered.”

[228]

He then proceeded to consider the evidence tendered by medical and scientific experts for the defence.

“Then as to the evidence which had been put in for the defence, the jury had had before them gentlemen of great ability and high honour, who had given in detail the results of their experience. With that evidence he would now proceed to deal.” [The learned judge read in extenso the voluminous evidence of Mr. Nunneley, the surgeon, of Leeds.] “The jury had heard the manner in which Mr. Nunneley had given his evidence, and they must form their own opinion of it. Certainly he seemed to display an interest in the case not altogether consistent with the character of a witness. He differed very much from several witnesses who were examined for the prosecution, and particularly in reference to rigidity being produced by strychnia after death. These and similar questions were for the jury. The next witness who was examined was Mr. Herapath, of Bristol, a very eminent analytical chemist, who had paid great attention to the subject of poisons. That gentleman said that where there had been death by strychnia it ought to be discovered. But it appeared, on cross-examination, that he had expressed an opinion, on another occasion, that Cook died from strychnia, but that Dr. Taylor had not taken the proper means to find it. After adverting to the evidence of Mr. Rogers, his lordship read that of Dr. Letheby, of the London Hospital, the medical officer of the City of London, of whom he said that he seemed to prove that cases of this sort were very variable, and that he admitted that the Romsey case was an exception. Now, while these exceptional cases existed, it could hardly be said that the principles laid down by Dr. Letheby were sufficient to rebut the evidence in chief. His lordship next referred to Mr. Gay’s case of the omnibus conductor. This, he said, was a case of idiopathic tetanus. The jury would say, on comparing it with the symptoms in Cook’s case, whether his was also a case of idiopathic tetanus. The great weight of evidence seemed to show that Cook’s was not a case of idiopathic any more than it was a case of traumatic tetanus. Mr. Gay’s case differed altogether from that of Cook, and as far as he could see there was no analogy between them. Passing next to the evidence of Mr. Ross, and to his case of a man, who died from ulcers, his lordship remarked that he did not see why this case was brought before the Court unless to prove that Cook’s was of the same sort. This was a case, whether of idiopathic or traumatic tetanus, in which it was sought to prove that death was caused by bruises on the body. But there were no bruises of any[229] sort about Cook, and therefore the analogy failed. In reference to the important evidence of Dr. Wrightson, who said he had detected strychnia in putrifying blood and decomposed matter, and that strychnia did not under such circumstances decompose, he must say that this witness was a scientific and honourable man, and had spoken throughout with proper caution. According to Dr. Wrightson, the discovery of the poison should have been proved, but at the same time his evidence did not overthrow the case for the prosecution; and it would be for the jury to say whether, in the event of poison actually being in the body, the tests employed to detect it were sufficient. Referring to the evidence of Mr. Partridge, his lordship said that the witness had stated that the symptoms in Cook’s case did not correspond with what he should have expected to have found from strychnia, but he spoke from his own experience, and he admitted that the symptoms were very variable; and he did not seem, therefore, to speak with any degree of certainty upon the subject. Mr. Gay’s case of a boy who suffered from tetanus from an injury to his toe was, his lordship thought, not at all analogous to that of Cook; nor was that of the young woman who had an attack of tetanus without any apparent cause, and recovered, as deposed to by Dr. McDonald. The last witness had given his opinion that Cook died from epileptic convulsions, accompanied with tetanic complications, and this he thought might have been produced by mental or sensual excitement. The jury would see to what length this witness went, and it would be for the jury to say what weight they attached to his evidence. Having adverted to several cases adduced by the defence, and which his lordship considered bore no analogy to Cook’s, he read the evidence of Dr. Robinson, of Newcastle-on-Tyne, who ascribed the death to epilepsy. He then passed on to Dr. Richardson, who narrated the particulars of a remarkable case of angina pectoris, to the symptoms of which disease he said Cook’s bore a remarkable resemblance. The witness, his lordship said, seemed a most respectable man, and he said that the symptoms in this case were consistent with those arising from strychnia, and that if he had known as much of strychnia at that time as he did now, he should have searched for it in that case. It would be for the jury to consider whether Cook’s symptoms were consistent with strychnia, and if so, that ought to lead them as to the opinion they should form on the case. His lordship having adverted to the evidence of Catharine Watson, the girl who was attacked with tetanus in Scotland, and to other witnesses who were recalled, said this was all the medical evidence that had been adduced by the[230] counsel for the defence of the prisoner. But then, gentlemen, said Lord Campbell, comes that most important question, whether the symptoms of the deceased were consistent with death by poisoning with strychnia. You will say whether your opinion upon that subject is altered by the evidence given on the part of the prisoner. Several of the witnesses called by the prisoner seem to admit (although, of course, you will form your own judgment upon it) that those symptoms were consistent with strychnia, although, in the absence of evidence to show that strychnia was administered, they could not come to such a conclusion.”

Lord Campbell’s subsequent remarks on the witnesses who were called to contradict those for the prosecution as to the state of Cook’s health, the incident of the brandy and water at Shrewsbury, and the possibility of Palmer arriving in Rugeley from London at the time spoken to by Newton, have already been given in previous notes. In conclusion, he said,

After some further remarks from Mr. Serjeant Shee, Lord Campbell told the jury that not only must they be satisfied that the symptoms described agreed with the supposition that the deceased died from strychnia, but that it was administered by the prisoner.

The jury retired at 2.20, and at 3.45 returned a verdict of guilty, and Lord Campbell passed sentence of death, to be carried out at Stafford jail.

The prisoner heard the sentence perfectly unmoved. At one time he drew himself up, as if about to make some remark, but did not attempt to speak. He stood quite calm, and when his Lordship had concluded, turned round and walked from the dock with the same coolness as he had shown during the whole of his protracted trial.

Contrasting the procedure in this memorable trial with what it might and no doubt would have been in a criminal court in France, Mr. Justice Stephen makes the following remarks:—“Not less remarkable than the careful way in which all topics of prejudice were avoided was the extreme fulness and completeness of the evidence as to facts really relevant to the case. Nothing was omitted which the jury could properly want to know, nor anything which the prisoner could possibly wish to say. No case could set in a clearer light the characteristic features of English Criminal Law—namely, its essentially litigious character, and the way in which it deals with scientific evidence. A study of the case will show, first, that evidence could not be more condensed, more complete, more clearly directed to the point at issue; secondly, that the subjection of all the witnesses, and especially the scientific witnesses, to the most rigorous cross-examination is absolutely essential to the trustworthiness of their evidence. The clearness and skill with which the various witnesses, especially those for the defence, were[232] cross-examined, and forced to admit that they could not really distinguish the symptoms of Cook from those of poisoning by strychnia, was such an illustration of the efficiency of cross-examination as is rarely indeed afforded.”

“The defence was by far the least impressive part of the trial, but that was mainly because there was nothing to say. It was impossible to suggest any innocent explanation of Palmer’s conduct. It was proved to demonstration that he was in dire need of money in order to avoid a prosecution for forgery; that he robbed his friend of all he had by a series of devices which he must instantly have discovered if he had lived; that he provided himself with the means of committing the murder just before Cook’s death; and that he could neither produce the poison he had bought, nor suggest any innocent reason for buying it. There must have been some mystery in the case which has never been discovered. Palmer, at and before his death, was repeatedly pressed to say whether he was guilty or not, and told that everyone would believe him guilty if he did not emphatically deny it. He could only say Cook was not poisoned by strychnia, and I have reason to know that he was anxious that Mr. Herapath should examine the body for strychnia, though aware that he could detect the 1-50,000th part of a grain. He may have discovered some way of administering it which would render detection impossible, but it is difficult to doubt that he used it; for if not, why buy it?”[71]

[233]

THE LEEDS POISONING CASE.

EARLY LIFE OF THE PRISONER.

The prisoner, the son of a respectable leather manufacturer at Leeds, had been, from his childhood to his seventh year, more than usually fractious, mischievous, ill-natured, and irrational in his tricks: putting lighted candles more than once in a basket and locking them in a cupboard: pouring some kind of spirits on his bedroom curtains and setting them on fire: chasing his sisters with a red-hot poker and threatening to burn them: hanging a cat by its tail out of window: cutting himself with knives and writing his name with his blood: an irregular and inapt scholar, especially in his religion.[73] The usher at his first school, where he was from the age of ten to thirteen years, regarded him “as a boy of very low intellect, great inability of mind, great want of moral power,[234] evil and vicious propensities. Once, when he had got a pistol, he told his schoolfellows he was going to shoot his father—a dull boy, and a had boy. I then thought him insane, but did not feel myself in a position to object to his being flogged.”[74] Mr. Highley, the master of this school, spoke strongly of Dove’s bad conduct, which he attributed to his reasoning powers being very limited. “He appeared,” said the witness, “to have no idea of any consequences; to be deprived of reason. I am satisfied he was labouring under an aberration of intellect.”[75] Having been expelled from his school, his father took the opinion of a Mr. Lord, a schoolmaster, as to what was best to be done with the boy. “I could make no impression on his heart or his head,” said Mr. Lord. “He could not appreciate what I said. He listened, but I could make no impression—get no rational answers. When I heard of his engagement I told his future wife’s brother-in-law that inquiry ought to be made about Dove on account of his unaccountable irrational conduct.” By Mr. Lord’s advice, he was sent to learn farming, for more than five years, with a Mr. Frankish. Here again his mischievous and cruel propensities were exhibited—putting vitriol on the tails of some cows, burning half-grown kittens with it, putting it into the horse-trough, and setting fire to the gorse. He was as unapt a scholar at farming as at religion and grammar. Again, when he went to another farmer for a year, he was the same dull unpractical pupil. He was now sent to America for a short visit, returning with travellers’ stories of his adventures of unusual wildness and incredibility. Still, however, he was deemed by his father capable of being trusted with a farm, where his mischievous and extravagant conduct astonished his servants,[235] and made them regard him as “not of a sound mind.”[76] At this time, 1852, he married, quarrelling or playing with his wife like a child, and changed his farm more than once, without apparent reason. Other witnesses spoke to the incoherence of his conversation: of his lying on the ground and crying without a cause; complaining of noises in his house; trying to reap his own corn in a green state; exhibiting conjuring tricks, and talking of having put a spell on the steward of the proprietor of one of his farms. Eventually, in consequence of his intemperate habits, he had to give up farming and remove into the outskirts of Leeds, where he lived on an annuity of £90 a year, left to him by his father, who died in 1854. With nothing to do, he became an habitual drunkard, aggravating his eccentricities, stimulating his mischievous propensities, and stupefying himself as to the consequences of his actions to himself.[77] With such propensities, it may be conceived that his wife led a wretched life; that quarrels were frequent; that at one time he threatened her with a pistol; and that eventually, after a very few years, they occupied separate beds, and rarely met, except at meals. Unfortunately for both of them, an arrangement for a separation was broken off by the interposition of injudicious friends, and until the beginning of 1856 they endured their miserable life together.

HISTORY OF THE CASE.

It was at this time that the enquiries into the death of Cook at Rugeley were filling the newspapers, and the evidence on the inquest became matter of popular discussion. Among[236] Dove’s friends was one Harrison, known as the Witchman of Leeds, who, according to his own account, was “a dentist, a water caster, a caster of nativities, and a believer in the stars.” On hearing this man read, in a public-house, the results of the analytical examination of Cook’s body by Dr. Taylor, as related at the inquest, and that gentleman’s statement of the difficulty, if not impossibility, of discovering strychnia by chemical analysis, Dove appears to have been forcibly struck by the revelation. He asked Harrison either to make or get him some strychnia, and, when he refused, said he could get it elsewhere. Probably at that time the idea of poisoning his wife was first entertained by him. Unfortunately he had no difficulty in obtaining the necessary poison, as he was intimately acquainted with Mr. Morley, the surgeon of Leeds, who had attended the Dove family for many years, and was a constant visitor to his surgery. Subsequently, therefore, to his acquiring knowledge of what had happened in Palmer’s case, he had repeated conversations with one of Mr. Morley’s pupils about strychnia; and on the 10th of February, on the plea that his house was infested by rats, and that he was worried by his neighbour’s cats, he obtained from him ten grains of this deadly poison. This he placed about the house in a careless way, and destroyed a cat, the body of which he buried in the midden. Again on the 17th he got four or five grains more of strychnia, promising the pupil who gave it to him the skin of a grey cat which he professed to be about to poison with it. At this time, the pupil was of opinion that Dove noted whereabouts on the shelf the bottle of strychnia was placed. A few days after he was seen by Mr. Morley’s coachman in the surgery alone, with the gas turned up, which, as the coachman came near, he turned down, and in an apparent flurry, meeting him at the door, gave as his excuse that he had come to light his pipe.[78] The suggestion of the prosecution was that at this time, knowing where the bottle of strychnia was kept, he took the opportunity of[237] helping himself to some more of the poison. During all this time it was evident, from his conversations on strychnia and the impossibility of its detection, that he had studied Palmer’s case.

Previously to Sunday, the 24th of February, Mrs. Dove had not been well, but on that day appeared quite recovered. On the Monday, however, when she went upstairs with her servant to make the beds, she was suddenly taken ill, staggered, became paralysed, twitched and jumped, and when put on the bed, on the slightest touch either of her body or the bedclothes, had renewed convulsions. Dove, who was downstairs, was sent for, and went for the doctor, to whom he said that his wife had been ill all night, and asked if his wife died would there be a coroner’s inquest?[79] After two or three hours the convulsions passed away, and the patient remained free from pain. Dove’s attention to his wife was suspiciously marked. He gave her medicine with his own hands; called in a neighbour to attend to her, and seemed greatly distressed at her condition. Three days after, a second attack of the same nature occurred, and again he told the doctor he was sure his wife would die. She was seen to cry bitterly, and heard to say that she was sure the medicine, of the bitter taste of which she complained, was killing her. Next evening a third attack came on, with the same symptoms. And on the 28th Dove predicted that she would have another attack about ten[238] that evening; at that hour he gave her the medicine, and in half an hour afterwards another and more severe attack came on, so severe that she said, “Oh dear, I thought it was all over.” In all these attacks after a time the spasms and convulsions passed away, and she was apparently only suffering from exhaustion after them, and otherwise quite well. On Saturday Dove, who had gone out, returned much in liquor, and at 8 P.M. gave her her medicine. “It is very disagreeable,” she said, “hot and bitter.” He washed out the glass and wiped it as usual, saying, “I always wash it out; medicine is always such nasty stuff.” Within half an hour of taking this dose an attack more than usually violent came on, and after a series of spasms and convulsions the poor creature died about twenty minutes to eleven that night.

Struck with the resemblance of the symptoms of Mrs. Dove’s attacks to those due to poisoning by strychnia, and hearing from his pupil of the purchase of that drug by the prisoner, Mr. Morley, who had attended her, decided on having a post-mortem examination. This Dove, who had on her first attack asked Morley’s pupil whether Mr. Morley would have a post-mortem examination if his wife died, tried to prevent, on the plea of his having promised his wife that it should not be allowed, and his horror at the desecration of her body. Mr. Morley, however, obtained the consent of Dove’s mother, and persevered. On the examination of the body by himself and Mr. Nunneley, the surgeon, and the subsequent chemical analysis of its different parts, every test proved the presence of strychnia in large quantities. During the examination of the body, blood to the extent of a crown piece fell on the floor of the room, and a week after the spaniel of a woman who was cleaning the room was supposed to have licked it, and as she left on the completion of her work, was attacked with violent spasms, fell on its back, and died at once. On the examination of its body strychnia was also detected. The prisoner, who after his wife’s funeral had wandered about, asking Harrison and other persons whether it was safe to go back, and talking about the possibility of the wife having taken the[239] strychnia by accident, as he had carelessly placed it in his razor case, and put it about in the house, was subsequently arrested and put upon his trial. It is needless to give in detail the evidence of the persons by whom the above facts were proved, which were hardly traversed by counsel for the defence. The testimony with reference to the symptoms and the results of the post-mortem examination cannot, however, with safety be abridged, seeing the importance attached to this case in Palmer’s trial.

THE SYMPTOMS.

Ann Fisher, who took her daughter’s place in the house in consequence of the latter’s illness, said—

“On Saturday and Sunday Mrs. Dove appeared pretty well, and on the latter day went to church. On Monday, February 25, after breakfast, she complained of her legs, and said she felt curious, and fell in the bedroom whilst helping witness to make the beds. Witness caught her in her arms, and called up Dove, who went for Mrs. Witham (next door neighbour), and witness put Mrs. Dove to bed. She started, and twitched, and jumped, and, even if witness touched the bedclothes, or walked across the room, complained that it made her worse. Mr. Scarth (Morley’s assistant) came and gave some medicine, and she felt better. The jerkings continued from two to two and a half hours. She lay on her right side, and her breathing was rather difficult: she was quite sensible the whole time. She seemed better in the afternoon, and pretty well the next morning. On Wednesday, the 27th, she had another attack, beating, jumping, and starting; complained about her legs and back being very bad: said there was a stiffness in them; they seemed paralysed, and she could not move them about. She lay on her side, and her breathing was very bad when she had these attacks on her. She was better after the medicines on the two occasions on which I gave them to her myself. I cannot recollect Thursday, but on Friday night, about 10 P.M., I was called up into the bedroom. Dove was dressed, standing by the bedside holding her hand. Her back was quite arched, and she was making a great noise in her inside. She said, ‘Oh dear, I thought it had been my last.’ Her breathing was very difficult. She complained about her jaws being stiff. I stayed with her till about 2 A.M., and she was better, and I went to bed. Next morning she said she was very poorly, and[240] could not take any coffee. She had had no rest all night. She took some coffee afterwards, and had a little rest. In the afternoon Mrs. Witham was with her. She appeared much better then, washed herself and rubbed her legs, which seemed to ease her. She became worse at 8.30 P.M. The bell was rung: Mrs. Wood and Mrs. Witham were with her. Dove was out—had gone out about a quarter to half an hour. She then moaned and screamed; her body was quite arched and her feet projected right from her body, and she was in that state till twenty minutes to eleven, when she died. Before she died she grasped the hands of Mrs. Wood and Mrs. Witham, who were holding hers, so hard that it hurt them. Dove came back at about ten: she was then in great agony. As soon as he saw me, he told me he was going to Mr. Morley’s for medicine, and that if Mrs. Wood wanted to go home, I was to go up and take her place. When he returned with the doctors, she was dead.”

Mrs. Witham,[80] the next door neighbour who attended the deceased almost daily, confirmed Mrs. Fisher’s account of the earlier symptoms, and gave the following details of the night of her death:—

“On Saturday, March the 1st, I saw her again about 2.30 P.M. She seemed better, and I remained with her till about six. At 3.30 P.M. I gave her her medicine. Mr. Morley came at four, when she seemed well. I got the food he ordered for her, and she seemed better than I had seen her before. Dove was there, and when I told him I had given her the medicine, he said she ought not to have it until about five. I was sent for again later to sit with her until Mrs. Fisher came, as Dove was going for medicine. He was rubbing her legs, and asked her to kiss him, which she did. Shortly after, he gave her her medicine. He went to the washstand, and came back with a glass in one hand, with the medicine and water in the other. He was at the washstand time enough to pour out the medicine. Mrs. Wood was present. After she had taken it, Mrs. Dove complained that it was very hot, and asked for a lozenge. Dove took the glass to the washstand, and said[241] he always washed it out after giving the medicine. He then left, as he said, to get more medicine. In about a quarter of an hour she complained of her back: her head was thrown back. I took hold of her hand, and she grasped it so tightly I could not get it away. Her eyes looked fixed. I put my hand to them: they did not move. Her features were very much distorted, and her teeth clinched. We both took hold of her hands, which she grasped so tightly that I could not bear it. Mrs. Wood was going to rub her back. She said, ‘Oh, don’t; lift me up,’ and I and Mrs. Wood tried to do so. Her back was arched, her body quite stiff, her legs stretched out. I did not notice her feet. We lifted her up, and put a pillow under her back. She rested on her shoulders, and the bottom part of her back, until the pillow was placed under her. The symptoms grew more violent, but she could speak. Her breathing was loud and difficult. She shrieked several times—a sort of scream. In about half an hour she could speak no longer. We could not be positive if she was sensible, and at twenty minutes to eleven she died. Dove came in after she had ceased to speak, threw off his coat, and was going to rub her legs, when I said she could not bear it. Mrs. Wood said something to him, and he left the house immediately. When the doctors came she had been dead some minutes.”

On cross-examination the witness said—

“That when she gave her the medicine about three o’clock, deceased complained that it was bitter, as witness found it was on tasting it: (it contained aloes). That when the attack came on she appeared to lose her senses very soon, her eyes being fixed, and not speaking: this was in about an hour. She spoke until half an hour after her attack, but not until forty minutes. She was in better health and spirits on the Saturday than she had been all the week. She was rubbed after each fit, and it seemed to relieve her. The jumpings and twitchings went on, on the Saturday, and she was then some hours still, and then they began again.”

Mrs. Wood added the following particulars of the last attack:—

“I went at twenty minutes to eight on the Saturday evening and found her sitting up; her husband and Mrs. Witham were with her. About eight she asked her husband for her medicine; he went out of the room to get it, and returned in about a minute with it, and gave it to her. She said it was very bitter, very hot,[242] and very nasty, and that she thought she would get better if the attack did not return. I recommended her to try and put it off. In about a quarter of an hour after taking the medicine she began to be ill. I asked Mrs. Witham to go round and take her hand, saying, ‘this Gird is coming on.’ She was propped up with pillows. In a short time she said, ‘Off the bed’ and repeated it three times. I thought at that time she wished to get off the bed. Mrs. Witham said, ‘Oh no, we cannot.’ I do not think she was sensible after she said ‘Off the bed’ the first time. She died at twenty minutes to eleven. Dove went for the doctors; when he returned she was dead.”

Mr. Scarth, Morley’s pupil, who attended on the 25th of February, at the request of the prisoner, in Mr. Morley’s absence, said—

“I found Mrs. Dove in bed with very minute twitchings of the muscles of the face and arms, and her teeth closed—hands clinched—head thrown slightly back, and the shoulders likewise, and her feet stretched straight out with the legs. Again I saw her at seven on the Thursday night, the symptoms were the same, but her principal complaint was of pain in the shoulders and back. Her shoulders were thrown back. The attack passed off whilst I was there in about five minutes. I gave her the draught prescribed by Mr. Morley, and the convulsions ceased and did not return, and I ordered her the repetition of the draught.”

This witness had the cat dug out of the midden, in which the prisoner said he had buried it, and was present when Mr. Morley and Mr. Nunneley experimented on it.

MEDICAL AND ANALYTICAL EVIDENCE.

Mr. George Morley, a surgeon at Leeds, who had always attended the Dove family, was called in to the deceased in December, 1855, when he found her suffering from disordered digestion and nervous excitement. She improved, and he subsequently only saw her at long intervals till the 25th of February; on that day, he said—

It is unnecessary to give in detail the first portion of this report, in which, from a most careful examination of all parts[244] of the body, it was evident that the death could not be attributed to any known organic disease. With the exception of a slight appearance of congestion in the intestines, every part of the body was in a healthy state, and the stomach contained only usual food. The report then continued:—

“No appearance of irritation from any mineral or other irritant poison, nor any odour of any poison recognizable by smell. Hence we searched for strychnia. We divided the stomach and its contents into three parts:—(1.) The brown pulpy mass in the stomach; (2.) The mucous and all other matters that could be removed from the stomach; (3.) The stomach itself. By the usual tests we obtained strychnia from each of these. The spirituous extracts were also unusually bitter. In the contents of the intestines we found only faint traces. We obtained the body of the cat, that had been poisoned some time before, and proved that it is possible to discover strychnia in a dead body some time after death. The result was decidedly the same evidence as we had from the human body.”

The report then gave the details of the processes by which the strychnia had been detected. (1.) Taste; (2.) Nitric acid, producing a red colour (the test for brucia); (3.) Acetic acid and solution of chloride of gold, producing a yellowish-white precipitate (of doubtful value); (4.) Concentrated sulphuric acid and solution of bichromate of potash, both in powder and in solution, producing the purple colour; (5.) The application of the same tests to strychnia itself with the same results, by each of them separately, and repeated with such variations as could detect any error that might have crept in, and the conclusion to which the analysts came that the stomach contained strychnia enough to cause death.

The report then described the effects of administering portions of the spirituous extracts proved to have contained strychnia to several animals, five in number. In the cases of four of these, two rabbits, one mouse, and a guinea-pig, the liquid was given by inoculation through small openings either in the cellular tissues beneath the skin, or into one of the mucous cavities of the body; and in the case of one of the mice, by the mouth. In three cases death followed at[245] the respective intervals of two, twelve, and fifty minutes after the introduction of the poison; and in one case—that of a rabbit—although for a time it remained nearly dead, it afterwards revived, and eventually recovered. In the case of the pig, the effects were much more slight; the spasms were not so violent as to throw it down and entirely disable it, but on the following day it was found dead, with the muscles rigid, and the hind legs extended, as if from poison. “The symptoms preceding death, in all the cases, were, disturbed respiration, general distress, convulsive twitchings and jerkings, tetanic spasms, a peculiar out-stretching of the legs, and general rigidity, exactly those commonly produced by strychnia.” The same effects, for the sake of comparison, were produced in a parallel series of experiments on animals with ordinary strychnia, which, as a series, were not more severe, or more rapidly fatal. “These experiments,” said the analysts, “which add the test of physiological effect to that of the chemical reagent, directly confirm our analysis, and taking them in connection with the analyses and with the symptoms observed during life, and with the appearances noted after death, they afford, in our opinion, the most complete proof that the death of Mrs. Dove was from the poisonous effects of strychnia, and from no other cause.”

The witness then spoke from his own personal knowledge of cases of poisoning by strychnia, and continued:—

“I cannot refer the death to any other cause, nor the symptoms during life, as described by the witnesses Witham, Fisher, and Wood. There is no other substance that will produce such symptoms and appearances. I tried similar experiments on a little dog, with the same results. Strychnia is not a cumulative poison. The effect of of it passes off entirely by a gradual subsidence of the spasms. In part the strychnia is absorbed in the blood, in part it passes off by the secretions, part remains in the stomach, its carbon, hydrogen, and other constituents broken up. If not decomposed, it would act on other animals. The series of symptoms produced by strychnia were complete. I have no doubt that each of the several attacks were produced by strychnia. Several of the medicines I sent to Mrs. Dove were bitter, containing aloes and gentian, and hot,[246] containing ammonia and ether. The effects of strychnia would follow from in a few seconds to an hour and a half, depending on the constitution of the person, and state of the stomach, and how the strychnia was administered. Assuming that Mrs. Dove took no food or tea, I should refer the time at which she took the strychnia to the time at which she took the medicine. That would be the natural time for the attack; she would be attacked in a quarter to half an hour after taking it. The strychnia I had in my surgery was a soft white powder, fine, but not so fine as salt. There is a form of pure crystallised strychnia more like salt. I should judge that she had taken two to three grains to produce the results of Saturday night. You might take two or three grains between your finger and thumb: a quarter of a grain would kill a dog. I have examined one of the bottles of medicine which I sent to Mrs. Dove; it is the same as I sent.”

The witness also related the following conversations with the prisoner:—

“During the post-mortem examination, I had a conversation with the prisoner at his mother’s. He asked me what we had found in the analysis—had we found poison? I said the analysis was not complete, and could not give any answer till it was. I said we had not found any natural causes of death. He asked me, ‘If poison was found, what would the jury say? ‘ I replied, that ‘They could only say it was taken by accident, or intentionally, or given to her by some one.’ He wished me to let him know before the inquest if we had found poison. I had inquired about his getting poison, and asked him how often. He replied, ‘Only once, and that he had it to kill mice, as well as cats; had placed it in his razor-case, and told his wife that it was the poison Palmer used; that it was a deadly poison, and she must not touch it.’ I never told him there should be no examination.”

On cross-examination by Mr. Bliss, after speaking to his having attended the Dove family for many years, but seen but little of the prisoner before he came to Leeds, the witness said—

“When the conversation about strychnia took place, the prisoner asked me if I suspected him, and said, ‘Should I have done it openly if I had intended to do it? Should I have come to your surgery for it or have talked openly about it to other people?[247] Could I have been so cruel?’ That was the first time that I named strychnia to any relative. I examined the little dog and have no doubt it died of strychnia. They brought me a piece of carpet and the board on which was blood, but I discovered no strychnia. I could not; the quantity was too small. I think the stains in the carpet and on the board could not have contained strychnia enough to have poisoned the dog. I discovered very little blood in the intestines. Strychnia is exceedingly bitter. One part in 40,000 would be bitter, less would be perceptibly bitter. There was a considerable quantity of fæces in the intestines, and three or four ounces of digested food. Mrs. Dove’s medicines were alkaline. I saw Mrs. Dove every day from Monday to Saturday, and she told me her ailments. I found nothing in the body to account for death but the strychnia taken on Saturday. Strychnia is not soluble in alkali. The symptoms I have heard to-day, prior to those on Saturday, are additional to what I saw. Hysteria would have left no symptoms. There was nothing inconsistent with strychnia having been administered before in the appearances of the body. The engorged state of the lungs and the condition of the brain favoured that view. I say this guardedly. She might with this condition of body have been better on Saturday, as congestion would pass away quickly. I found no symptoms on Saturday of the brain or lungs being engorged. She was better in health, in spirits, and in appetite. Mrs. Witham’s and Mrs. Fisher’s statements have changed my opinion. The symptoms they describe are all to be found separately in hysteria. Mr. Scarth’s account also influenced me, which I did not hear until after her death. It was my opinion at the time that she was affected with hysteria. In a paroxysm from strychnia it is possible that a patient might wish to be rubbed, but it is not what I should ‘à priori,’ look for. Touch sometimes renews the spasms, but it depends upon the stage. The desire not to be touched is a symptom of strychnia. After hearing of her symptoms I prescribed a liniment to be rubbed. It consisted with the dose of strychnia said to have been administered that she should be better on Saturday. The effect of hysteria would be to gorge the vessels of the brain and lungs. Not shrinking from touch was consistent with strychnia, but a desire not to be touched was an indication of it.”

On re-examination, the witness said—

Mr. Thomas Nunneley, professor of surgery in the Leeds College of Medicine, who was examined in Palmer’s case on behalf of that prisoner, and then maintained that if Cook had been poisoned by strychnia it would have been found in his body by the chemical and other tests as late as the sixth day after his death, confirmed the statements in the joint report, and the opinion of Mr. Morley, that Mrs. Dove had died from the effects of strychnia. His experiments on strychnia in the cases of animals had been carried on for over thirty years, and he was of opinion that, “though he should not have anticipated the improvement spoken of on the Saturday, yet that it was not inconsistent with her having taken strychnia on the Friday.” On cross-examination by Mr. Bliss, he gave the following evidence:—

Dr. Christison, the eminent writer on poisons, also agreed with Mr. Morley and Mr. Nunneley as to the cause of the symptoms. He admitted that “it was just possible to attribute them to hysteria, but had never seen such a combination of symptoms in an hysteric case. He thought it was unusual[249] for a person to be insensible before death in a case of strychnia, but he had seen it lately in the case of an animal killed by that poison—the symptoms were exactly those which would be produced by an overdose of strychnia in the prior attacks.”

Dr. Hobson, who had seen the deceased with Mr. Morley a few minutes after her death, “saw nothing either in her countenance or position that he thought particular, and admitted that all the symptoms described before those of Saturday might be accounted for in an aggravated form of hysteria, but would not expect a person who suffered under such a form of hysteria to be conscious, nor did he attribute these symptoms to that disease.”

Mr. Teal, who had been in practice in Leeds for thirty-four years, agreed “in the symptoms being entirely in accord with strychnia, and though he had seen hysteria simulate strychnism, he had never seen it entirely resemble the entire group of symptoms represented in this case; had he heard only of the symptoms before Saturday, he should have considered them in strict accordance with the effects of that poison; and even if he had heard of hysteric symptoms before, he should have suspected strychnia, but would not deny the possibility of their being consistent with hysteria.” In reply to a juryman, he added the following evidence on the probable reason for the state of the prisoner’s mind:—

“Excessive drinking without producing delirium tremens might cause the conduct of the prisoner, described by Harrison,[81] as to spirits and noises. He might have any delusions when under the influence of drink, but when sober such a man might be sound in[250] mind and without delusions, and when partially drunk might have delusions without suffering under delirium tremens.”

Mr. Richard Hey, who had been in practice in York for twenty-seven years, and concurred with the other medical men, on cross-examination, said—

“I have had experience in hysteria, and have seen cases in which many of the symptoms would be the same as those described. The freedom from affection of the brain would lead me to suspect it to be strychnia. I think the violent twitchings and spasms, and the extreme pain they produced, would make a very marked distinction from the effects of hysteria. I have never seen instances of screaming out from pain in hysteria. I have heard of screaming out. They complain of pain, but not violent pain. The spasm consequent on strychnia would, I imagine, induce a patient to be rubbed as in ordinary spasms and cramp, but I never saw spasms so intense as in those spoken of in strychnia. One of the most marked symptoms in strychnia, in aggravated cases, is not being able to bear to be touched, but it is not so in slight attacks.” Re-examined.—“I never knew touching or walking across a room not bearable in hysteria, or pain in the jaws, or all these things combined in hysteria.”

The last witness called by the prosecution, Mr. William Hey, who had been in practice in Leeds for thirty-seven years, was equally of opinion that the symptoms were inconsistent with any known disease, but consistent with the effects of strychnia, and with nothing else. “Had he heard only the evidence of the symptoms down to Friday night, her hysterical temperament, and her recovery on the Saturday, he should not have attributed them to hysteria, but he should have thought it a most extraordinary case.”

THE PRISONER’S ACTIONS AND STATEMENTS.

In addition to the acts and statements of the prisoner reported in the “Early Life of the Prisoner” and the evidence already given, Miss Fisher deposed to his very violent threats against his wife, especially when in liquor; his telling her on one occasion “to mind her own business, or he would do her job for her”; his threatening her with a knife and striking her, and telling her “he would give her a pill”; and to his[251] wife saying, in his presence, “If I should die, it is my wish, Elizabeth, that you should tell my friends to have my body examined”; to his writing a letter to the witchman Harrison, asking him “to torment his wife when at Manchester, as she was not a right woman”; and telling the witness that Harrison had told him that his wife’s days would end in February. He also told another witness (Elizabeth Thornhill, a charwoman) that Harrison had told him that his wife would not live long, and that he would marry the lady next door (Mrs. Witham).

Whilst the inquest was proceeding he asked Mrs. Witham how it was going on, and when she said to him, “It is a very suspicious thing that you gave her the medicine at eight o’clock and that she became ill a quarter of an hour after,” he replied, “If they ask me if I gave the medicine, I shall say I did not; and if they ask if she took it herself, I shall say I do not know.”

To Margaret Gray, another witness, he stated on the Friday that his wife was ill of spasms, and he did not think she would live over Saturday night.

To Mary Hicks he more than once stated that he was sure his wife would die, and that Mr. Morley would want a post mortem examination, as he did in his father’s case, but that he would object to it, as he had promised his wife to do; that he should probably soon marry again; and when Mrs. Hicks told him to go back, as his wife might have another attack, he said she would not until half-past ten or eleven, and made no reply when again asked if the attacks were periodical. On the Sunday morning after his wife’s death, he told this witness that there was to be an inquest, and when she asked why, said, “Oh, we live in a bad neighbourhood, and have not lived happily together. It is all nonsense.” To the Rev. H. T. Sturgeon, the clergyman of Burley, whom he asked to visit his wife, and to whom he professed to be very anxious about her spiritual welfare, he assigned as his reason for not calling in further advice (as recommended by Mr. Morley) his fear of offending that gentleman. To a man of the name of[252] Rose, a baker, whose name even he did not know, and whom he met by accident in a dram shop on the Thursday before his wife’s death, he said that he thought his wife would die, and told him “not to come to him till he saw her death in the paper, and then, if he lighted on a woman that would suit him, to bring her down to his house, as he could not do without one if his wife died.”

To Harrison, the watchman, on the Thursday after his wife’s death, when giving him a card for her funeral, he said there was an inquest on her. When Harrison asked why, the prisoner said, “Can they detect a grain or a grain and a half of strychnia?” “Why,” replied Harrison, “have you given her any?” “No,” replied Dove; “but I got some of Morley’s man to kill cats, and some might have been spilt and she have got it.” Again Harrison saw him the next day, when he said, “Mr. Morley has told me they have found poison in my wife. Could they take me if I go back?” “I should,” replied Harrison. “If you are innocent, go back; what occasion have you to be frightened? They will not take you if you are innocent,” and Dove then went away.

To his wife’s mother, Mrs. Jenkins, who came to his house after her daughter’s death, he said at breakfast on the Friday, the day of the adjourned inquest, “Do you know that a sprinkle of oil of almonds will kill a person? Arsenic you can detect in a body after 20 years. Belladonna you cannot; one is a mineral, the other a vegetable. There is a poison like this”—taking up a piece of salt—“in a man you can detect it, in a woman you cannot.” He told her also that he could not think but that he should marry again. When he talked about the poisons another person, a Mrs. Risdon, was present.

To Mr. Scarth, a pupil of Mr. Morley’s, who, in consequence of the latter’s engagement, was the first to see her on the 25th of February, he put the question whether Mr. Morley would require a post mortem examination if his wife died. Scarth replied that Mr. Morley generally did on all his patients who died suddenly, when the prisoner said, “I will[253] not consent.” “Probably,” said Scarth, “as you did when your father died.” “His wife,” replied Dove, “would not consent.”

On the close of the case for the prosecution, Mr. Bliss called on the counsel to put into the box the remainder of the witnesses whose names were on the back of the bill, and Mr. Hardy, in the absence of his leader, declining to take this responsibility, Baron Bramwell, on the authority of the case of R. v. Woodhead, ruled that the prosecutor need not do so, but was bound to have the witnesses in Court so that they might, if required, be called by the defence.[82]

THE DEFENCE.

Though the defence of the prisoner was mainly rested on the question of his sanity, Mr. Bliss urged on the jury that the circumstantial evidence against him was inconclusive, turning the openness of the prisoner’s acts and conversations, and his attention to his wife during her attacks, to the best advantage. On the question of his sanity, in addition to the mischievous and cruel acts that had been elicited in cross-examination, he cited as further proof his belief in witchcraft and his frequent consultations with the witchman Harrison, and his request to that person to torment his wife, professedly to force her to return to his bed. The witchman, said counsel, not contemplating the murderous result, encouraged him, and held out such promises of future happiness that the desire ripened into practice, and the wife was murdered. Even after detection was inevitable, the confidence of the dupe remained unimpaired, and he firmly believed that the witchman could rescue him from his doom. As a proof of this insane belief the following letter written in his own blood, which had been found in his pocket when in jail, was read:—

[254]

MEDICAL EVIDENCE FOR THE DEFENCE.

In support of the plea of insanity, in addition to the witnesses already referred to in the introduction to this case, three medical witnesses of tried experience in lunacy, Dr. Caleb Williams (for 30 years the medical attendant at the York Asylum), Dr. Pyeman Smith (of the Leeds Lunatic Asylum), and Mr. John Kitchen (of The Retreat, at York), were called for the defence, whose evidence, it is only fair, should be given in some detail.

Dr. Williams, who had been in Court during the whole trial, and had also examined the prisoner with Mr. Kitchen a few days before the trial, was decidedly of opinion, from the evidence he had heard, that the prisoner was of unsound mind, and that his violent emotions and his belief in supernatural agency were indications of it.

“Taking into account,” said the witness, “that he had written and said similar things before about selling his soul to the devil, I think that his letter to the devil was not simulated. It appears to be written with blood. I had conversation with him about that letter when I saw him, and he told me it was written under satanic influence. The result of that conversation was that, in my opinion, it was not simulated. I have no doubt that his illusion, that he had sold himself to the devil, was a real one. I believe his incantations spoken of were connected with his belief in supernatural agency; and I think his saying that he had put a spell on the steward arose from the same belief.[83] The letter to his schoolmaster, in which he declared his sanity, is very like what is done by insane persons—they declare they are sane. His talking to various persons about strychnia showed the weakness of his mind. The effect of drink on a lunatic are to make him violent and dangerous. Persons liable to insanity would exhibit a tendency and inclination to drink. I think from what I have heard he has[255] not the power of controlling his emotions and passions. None of them at all times.[84] There would be periods when he would have control over some. The circumstance of his shooting the cat showed an uncontrollable impulse to injure or take life; and seeing it was not expended in injuring the man, he shot the cat. The effect of confining a person for several weeks on strictly sober diet, who has before been subject to get drunk, would be to reduce him to a calm condition. The Castle diet is sober (Dove’s prison). From all I have heard and seen, I consider his powers of mind, during the fatal week were probably influenced by his notions regarding supernatural agency, and that consequently he was the subject of a delusion. During that week, labouring under such delusions, he might retain his power of adapting means to an end, and of judging of the consequences. He could not under those delusions have the power of resisting any impulse.”

On cross-examination by Mr. Overend, after repudiating the notion that his evidence was tinged by religious objections to capital punishment, the witness said:—

On re-examination, Dr. Williams said—

In reply to questions by the Judge, the witness said:—

The witness wished to say with regard to the question as to shooting the cat, that he thought the impulse of destruction was so strong at the time, that he could not control it, and must have shot something.[87]

Dr. Pyeman Smith, the proprietor of a private lunatic asylum at Leeds for the past 15 years, though, from what he had heard and seen, he was prepared to declare that Dove was of unsound mind during the fatal week, and had been so for[259] the last 20 years, admitted, on cross-examination, that he did know right from wrong during that period. He, however, on re-examination, qualified this admission.

Mr. Bliss objected to this line of examination by the judge.

The Judge.—“I am entitled to, and in my opinion bound to, and I will put the questions.”

Witness then continued—

Mr. John Kitchen, superintendent of The Retreat at York, where the patients averaged a hundred, also agreed with the previous medical witnesses, that Dove was of unsound mind during the fatal week. He, however, admitted that “during that period he knew right from wrong, had some knowledge of the difference—some knowledge that he was committing murder—and that if found out he would be punished.” This admission he sought to explain away, on re-examination, protesting that what he meant was “that Dove knew he was killing his wife, but did not know he was doing a wrong act—that he would know in proportion as he knew the difference between right and wrong.”

On re-examination, he said:—

“There are dangerous wards in some asylums, but I should not expect to find the greatest number of impulsive cases in that ward. Sometimes impulsive lunatics are dangerous. The keepers have an influence over them—a mental influence. They formerly worked on their fears, and thus kept patients under control. There is a madness which consists in a propensity to kill. If a stranger was left with such a one in a room alone, I should expect him to exercise his propensity and kill him; and yet, probably, that patient would yield his keeper obedience. Probably the fear of some chastisement would induce fear of his keeper.”

THE JUDGE’S CHARGE.

The greater portion of Baron Bramwell’s charge was necessarily occupied by reading over and commenting on the evidence produced by the prosecution—that the death of the wife had been due to the administration of strychnia, and that the prisoner had opportunities of administering it. The evidence on these points has been already so fully reported that it is needless to give this portion of his exhaustive[261] summing-up. His remarks on the rule of law on the plea of insanity, and on the nature of the insanity suggested by the medical witnesses, are too valuable to be omitted.

Again, after going carefully through the evidence in the case, and pointing out the application of the different classes of proofs, the learned Baron said that “he thought none of the instances of strange conduct adduced when the prisoner was a boy evidence of insanity more than might be found in the conduct of a perverse, ill-conducted boy;” and contrasted the opinions of the witnesses as to his being almost an idiot with the letters written by him, which exhibited no traces of mental incapacity.[88] In commenting on the opinions of the medical men of experience in insanity, he adopted the judgment of Dr. Lushington in the Dyce Sombre case, “that the facts to which they depose, and not their opinions alone, were of weight;” and added “that he sincerely believed that the jury were as capable of judging as these mad doctors.”

[263]

“Two of them,” continued the learned judge, “were of opinion that the contemplation of a crime constituted insanity, if it were only contemplated enough. Then it was said that a man who had a propensity to vice, to cruelty, to crime, was insane. Take the case of a man found guilty at these assizes of a crime. It is found that he has twice been convicted before and in prison half a dozen times, and that he has a general propensity to commit crime. In such a case, why should not Dr. Williams come forward and say, “You are wrong. He is insane; you ought not to punish him.” If they believed these experts you would take away protection from the community, because they would have a check less to prevent the commission of crime. It would be affectation in him to say that he did not set a value on this scientific evidence. But he would rather take his own independent opinion, than that of others, on the facts. But it was not for him to do more than comment, and for the jury to judge of its value—of the conduct of the prisoner, of his letters, and of the arguments before them.”

After a brief consideration the jury returned a verdict of “guilty, but recommended him to mercy on the ground of his defective intellect.” Sentence of death was passed on him, and he was executed at York.

THE PRISONER’S CONFESSIONS.

A day or two before his execution Dove dictated two long and extraordinary statements of his connection with the “Witchman,” and the part played in the tragedy by this dangerous man, which contrast strongly with the evidence given by Harrison himself, and probably disclose facts which that person was glad to conceal at the time of his examination.

In the first of these statements he details his earlier interviews with the “Witchman” on the subjects of recovering lost cattle, removing strange noises from his house, and the bewitching of his live stock, in which Harrison appears to have played off on him the common tricks of his trade. His confidence in this fellow was unfortunately largely increased by his prophecying that Dove’s father would die before a certain Christmas Day—he died on Christmas Eve—and led him to[264] consult the “Witchman” about his wife when he first conceived his violent hatred towards her.

“About August, 1855,” he says, “I had some unpleasantness with my wife, and went over to Harrison at Leeds, told him of it, and he promised to make it all right. He told me I must let him know by letter how things went on. In two days after this I wrote him that my wife was no better, and that he must do something to make peace. I sent this by Fisher, a porter at the railway station, to post. Mrs. Dove knew I had written, but not what about. She therefore sent the servant to Fisher, got back the letter, took out what I had written, and put in a blank sheet.[89] I did not know this at the time, but, hearing some whispering, wrote another letter, and posted it myself about two o’clock. At three I went myself to Harrison, who told me he had received a blank sheet, and asked why, and I told him. I then informed him of the unpleasantness and unhappiness with my wife, and he said ‘You will never have happiness till she is out of the way.’ I said ‘How do you know that.’ He said ‘Come upstairs and I’ll tell you, for I’ve got your nativity marked out.’ [Upstairs he showed him a paper with the signs of the Zodiac, and hieroglyphical forms and numbers, which he describes at length.] Harrison then read out of a book my destiny. Between twenty-seven and thirty-two all would go against me. I should have nothing but misfortunes; that at thirty-two the sun and moon would come into conjunction, and then everything would be in my favour; that at thirty-two I should lose my wife, marry again, and have a child, and an addition to my fortune; and that for my sake he did not care how soon it was here, for until then I should never be a happy man; that after ‘thirty-two’ everything would go well for a few years. He made other remarks as to different periods of my life.”

Then follow the usual enquiries about the kind of person that was to be his second wife.

In the second statement he gives details of his administration of the strychnia, declaring that even when he got the second portion of that poison from Mr. Morley’s pupil he had[266] no intention of poisoning his wife, but only intended it for the cats. His first attempt was with the jelly his sister Jane had sent, of which, it may be remembered, the wife, on the score of its bitterness, took only a spoonful. He then goes on:—

“On the Saturday, after Fisher left,[91] I took the paper containing the strychnia out of my razor-case and put it in my waistcoat-pocket, and then went to my mother’s house. In the afternoon I had previously called at Mr. Morley’s for my wife’s medicine. It was an effervescing draught, in two bottles. At my mother’s that evening I took the cork out of one of the bottles and touched the wet end of it with the strychnia. On that Saturday evening my wife took some of the draught in Mrs. Witham’s presence. Mrs. Witham tasted it, and said it tasted bitter. The draught was not shaken that night before taken. My wife did not suffer from the effects at all. On my way from my mother’s that night I threw away the remainder of the strychnia. I cannot tell you the feelings of my mind when I put the strychnia into the jelly and the mixture. I did not think at the moment as to its effects and consequences. On the Sunday following, which was the 24th of February, I went to the surgery; and there being no person there at the time, I took perhaps ten grains of strychnia and folded them in paper, and when I got home placed it in the stable. On the Monday morning I gave my wife her medicine—the effervescent mixture—about half-past nine, and at ten she had the attack mentioned by Mrs. Fisher and Mrs. Witham. At the time she took it she complained very much of the bitterness, and said she would tell Mr. Morley about it. There were three or four doses left in the bottle after that draught was taken, and I broke the bottle in my wife’s presence, fearing Mr. Morley might taste it. The mixture was changed on the Monday; the mixture then given was very bitter. On Tuesday night or Wednesday morning I applied the wet end of the cork of the medicine-bottle to the strychnia, as before. I think there might be from half to a grain of strychnia on the cork when I put it into the bottle. I shook the mixture up. There were only two or three doses in the bottle. I don’t remember my wife[267] having an attack on the Wednesday. She took her medicine that day. On Thursday I got another bottle of medicine from Mr. Morley, and I again applied the wet end of the cork to the strychnia as before. About the same quantity adhered. The last dose of that medicine was taken on Friday night about ten, and my wife was taken seriously ill in half an hour, but she had no arching of the back, as far as I can remember. Mrs. Fisher is mistaken in that point, but her statement in other respects is true, I believe. On that Friday night I got another bottle of medicine from Mr. Morley’s, directed to be taken four times a day. I did not put any strychnia into that bottle, or upon its cork. Mrs. Witham gave a dose out of that bottle in the afternoon of Saturday.[92] The strychnia was in the stable, where I had first placed it, and there was none in the razor-case on that day, nor during any part of that week. I was drinking at Sadlefee’s public-house on that Saturday, and was more or less affected with drink all that afternoon and evening. About three in the afternoon I went to the stable and took a grain and a half of strychnia out of the stable and put it in another paper, which I placed in my waistcoat-pocket. I put that strychnia into the wine-glass which contained a little water—I believe the water left in the glass by Mrs. Witham after giving my wife the third dose in the afternoon, but I have no recollection as to the time I put the strychnia into the glass. I gave the mixture in the evening, as stated by Mrs. Witham and Mrs. Wood in their evidence. I poured the mixture into the glass which contained the water and strychnia. I did not put the strychnia into the wine-glass in the presence of Mrs. Witham and Mrs. Wood. I know that I put it in before, but cannot tell how long before giving the medicine. I did not, when I gave the medicine on the occasions mentioned, think of the consequences; but when I saw my wife suffering on the Saturday night, it flashed across my mind that I had given her medicine, and that she would die from the effects. I was muddled before this, and did not know what I was doing. When the thoughts of her death crossed my mind, I regretted what I had done, and believe that if Mr. Morley had come in at that moment I should have told him what I had given her, so that he might have used means to restore her. I cannot disguise the anguish I felt when I returned from Mr. Morley’s and found her dead. Palmer’s case first called my attention to strychnia, but I never should have thought of using that or any other poison for the[268] purpose of taking my wife’s life but for Harrison, who was always telling me that I should never have any happiness till my wife was out of the way.”[93]

TRIAL OF SILAS BARLOW FOR THE WILFUL MURDER OF ELIZA SOPER.

Before The Honorable Mr. Justice Denman, at the Central Criminal Court, November 27, 1876.

For the Prosecution: Mr. Poland and Mr. Beasley.
For the Defence: Mr. Fulton and Mr. Grubbe.

HISTORY OF THE CASE.

The prisoner, an engine driver on the South-Western Railway, about a year before the trial, on being left a widower, had formed a connection with the deceased, who, with their infant, came to lodge at the house of a Mrs. Wilson, in Leopold Street, Vauxhall, in August, 1876, under the name of Smith, where she was occasionally visited by the prisoner, who passed as her husband. Apparently they lived together on kindly terms, and were in fairly comfortable circumstances. On the 3rd of September the prisoner visited her about half-past eight in the evening, and stayed an hour. Up to that[269] day the deceased had been in good health. As soon, however, as the prisoner had left, she came down from her room, knocked at the landlady’s door, and complained to her that she was very sick from the sarsaparilla which he had given her. “Her lips were white, she was very nervous, and appeared hardly able to stand,” said Mrs. Wilson. “I had never seen her so before. She went upstairs, and when I went to bed I went to her. She was retching very much, and sitting in a chair. I then went away. Next morning I saw her; she came downstairs and said she was very bad—worse. She could not stand, and had to lean against the wall. During the day she became better.”

THE SYMPTOMS.

The prisoner came again on the Sunday following, the 10th, at the same time as before.

“The deceased,” said Mrs. Wilson, “was at the street door, talking to me, with her baby, and in perfect health. They went up into their room, and in about an hour the prisoner knocked at my room door and said his wife had had two fits. I ran upstairs and found her lying across the bed; the prisoner was in the room. She was in a kind of fit or convulsion. I sent the prisoner for some brandy and water. She became a little conscious, and taking me by the hand said ‘Don’t touch me.’ She had been unconscious, but the moment she was touched she went into convulsions. Her feet and hands were clenched, and she was drawn quite backwards, her back forming an entire arch. She was not conscious then. The prisoner was holding her all the time. About half past ten I sent him for Dr. Miller, who came at once, and applied mustard plasters, remaining with her about five minutes, and the prisoner going back with him for medicine. She was slightly conscious when Dr. Miller came, and more so afterwards. Her feet were quite white(?)[94] the toes being drawn backwards to the soles of the feet. I did what the doctor told me, but it did not do her any good. I tried to give her the medicine, but she could not take it, and went off in a swoon. She had licked the spoon. She then had[270] dreadful convulsions, one in particular, when it took the prisoner and me to hold her. Her neck was drawn backwards and quite arched. After that she became quite conscious, and said it was the nasty sarsaparilla that made her ill. The prisoner said ‘Oh no. I have taken more of it than you.’ He also said ‘I have given her two pills and taken two myself.’ She complained of a dreadful pain in her heart, and continued unconscious, coming to herself a little at times, but very slightly. The convulsions were dreadful, and she died about two o’clock on the eleventh. She seemed to drop instantly after a dreadful convulsion. I gave her two doses of the medicine the doctor sent. I had not seen any sarsaparilla in the room.”

On cross-examination by Mr. Fulton, after stating that she had never heard any quarrels between the prisoner and the deceased, she gave the following further particulars as to the symptoms:—

“In the evening, when I was called in, her eyes were partly closed during the convulsions; her breathing very hot (hard?) and at most suspended; her teeth entirely clenched and also her hands during the convulsions. She wanted to be sick shortly before her death; her lips were pale, and remained so until her death. The prisoner tried to move her, when she became sick, and she went into convulsions. He helped to hold her, and said he could not imagine what was the matter with her; seemed distressed, and sat on the bed holding her. To all appearance he was kind to her but not affectionate. She was more unconscious than conscious during the whole time. About twelve o’clock she appeared quite conscious. She had to move herself so that she could be sick, and caught hold of the bed head, and then went again into convulsions. Virtually she was unconscious the whole time. Dr. Miller came a second time, and she told him she had had some fearful fits, but I cannot recollect whether I said anything about the ‘arching.’ There was none when he saw her, but her feet were curved, and I told him about the ‘shakings,’ I mean the ‘convulsions.’ I first heard from the coroners officer that she had died of strychnia. I had previously told him the symptoms attending her death, but don’t remember telling him of the ‘arching.’ He said there was every appearance of her having died from strychnia.”

[271]

MEDICAL EVIDENCE.

James Miller, medical assistant at the Vauxhall dispensary, before that with Mr. Scott, a general practitioner, and previously an insurance agent, gave the following account of the case:—

“About twenty minutes to eleven on the 10th of September I was called by the prisoner to his wife, who he said had had two fainting fits. I found her lying on the bed, dressed, and quite conscious. She lay very quietly. She said she had severe pain in the legs, and that she had fainted twice. I asked her if she had complained during the week. She said only of pains in the head. I found the calves of her legs very rigid, her feet turned slightly inwards, the toes of each foot inclined towards the other as she lay, cramp in the lower limbs, her arms quiet. She beat her breast at times. Her hands were partly closed, her heart very excited, and her breathing slightly laboured. Her heart continued excited all the time I was there, about five minutes. I asked her what she had taken. She said a cup of tea in the morning and a herring at tea. She said she had pain in her head all the last week. I believed she was suffering from epilepsy. On leaving, the prisoner returned with me; I made up a bottle of medicine, antispasmodic, which he took away with him. I never saw her again alive.”

On cross-examination he said—

“He did not notice any such ‘arching’ as the witness Wilson spoke of, nor did she mention it to him as one of the symptoms. Nor should he call what he saw of the feet ‘arching.’ He had only seen one case of epilepsy before—that was twelve months ago—and the symptoms in it were very similar to what he saw in the deceased. He saw the body immediately after death; there was no ‘arching’ of it then. If there had been he should have seen it. She was lying, with her clothes on, on the bed. If there had been any marked rigidity of the body he should have observed it; that was a quarter of an hour after death.”

Re-examined by Mr. Poland.—“She had her clothes on when he saw her, and part of her body might have been covered with the bedclothes. In the case of epilepsy he referred to, the person died in six hours. He prescribed no pills, only the mixture.”

Proof was then given of the finding in the prisoner’s room[272] of six bottles of medicine, a box with two pills,[95] and a packet of powder in dirty paper, and of their delivery to Dr. Lees, and subsequently to Dr. Bernays for analysis. It was not, however, until suspicions were aroused by other circumstances (the finding of the body of the infant in the river) that a post-mortem examination was held by Dr. Lees, and the contents of the stomach and other interior parts of the body analysed by him, and subsequently handed to Dr. Bernays for the same purpose. In one of the bottles Dr. Bernays found a distinct sediment of Prussian blue, pointing clearly to the use of some vermin killer. Subsequently two kinds of these dangerous preparations were submitted to and analysed by him.

ANALYTICAL EVIDENCE.

Dr. Lees, M.D., of the Brixton Road, on the 18th of September made a post-mortem examination of the body in conjunction with a Dr. Lewis. They found no morbid appearances to indicate the cause of death—the limbs were somewhat rigid, the body fairly nourished, and the stomach showed no sign of irritant poison.

“It contained,” said the witness, “six ounces of a thin reddish fluid. I put the stomach and contents into a jar, and the viscera into another. I received the bottles from the constable and the paper of powder, and saw some pills at the inquest. Among the bottles was one of the larger ones, which appeared to have contained a few ounces of good sarsaparilla—it was empty and rinsed out. One bottle contained about two grains of dried powder, adhering to the bottle. I added to the bottle a few drachms of water, two drachms of spirits of wine, thirty drops of hydrochloric acid, and two grains of dried powder. My purpose up to that time was to test for strychnia, but it was frustrated. What I had done was not sufficient to enable me to form an opinion. I had previously analysed a portion of a two-ounce phial, containing half a drachm or thirty drops of a reddish brown fluid—half a spoonful. I first tested five drops, and obtained clear evidence of strychnia.[273] I was enabled to separate from the rest a substance that yielded strychnia. I used three separate tests; the second time with ten drops, and obtained needle-shaped crystals. I showed the colour to Dr. Bernays. I did not test the bottle for any other purpose. I left the rest (five drops) in the bottle and corked it up. Half a grain of strychnia is a fatal dose. I have been in practice fourteen years, and am of opinion that if Mrs. Wilson’s description of the symptoms is correct, they were consistent with death from strychnia. They only resemble the disease known as idiopathic tetanus. If Mrs. Wilson’s description is correct, the symptoms were not consistent with anything I know except death by strychnia—it came on so rapidly. If strychnia were administered in solution, the symptoms would come on in a very few minutes. Strychnia occasionally produces irritation of the stomach. The symptoms of poisoning by it are the rapid occurrence of twitchings in the limbs and rigidity of the muscles of the limbs, usually commencing in the lower extremities; the sense of weight on the chest, the extension of the spasms to the muscles of the trunk, the arching back of the head, the intervals of consciousness, the absence of any great difficulty in swallowing, and death in six hours. Mr. Miller’s evidence is consistent with death from strychnia.”

The cross-examination was, as in Mrs. Wilson’s case, directed to the eliciting admissions in favour of the opinion, at first adopted by Mr. Miller, that the death was due to epilepsy.

“Leaving out the ‘arching’” (opisthotonos), said the witness, “I should hesitate to say she died of strychnia; it is a leading symptom, and also that the intellect was clear at intervals. Vomiting is not usual in epilepsy. It was eight days after death that I examined the body. There was then no rigidity beyond what I might expect in death. The lungs were congested, the heart flabby and decomposed, spongy from putrefaction, and containing a little coagulated blood. Taking the appearances of the whole post-mortem examination, there were no marked ones to account for death.”

Dr. A. J. Bernays, professor of chemistry at St. Thomas’s Hospital, to whom the bottles and powder found in the room, the jars with the stomach, intestines, and viscera, and a bottle supposed to contain vomit,[96] had been handed on the 28th[274] of October, reported the results of his analysis of their contents.[97]

Mr. Thomas Stephenson, M.D., lecturer in chemistry at Guy’s Hospital, agreed with Dr. Lees and Dr. Bernays, and had no doubt of the correctness of their experiments.

It was also proved by the prisoner’s brother-in-law that the prisoner was in the habit of taking sarsaparilla, and that[275] whilst the prisoner lodged with him, the witness had been using Battle’s Vermin Killer, as he was troubled with mice in his room. This he had bought at a shop in the Vauxhall Road, but he did not recollect having any of it left, or of the prisoner using it in his room. The prisoner had left Mrs. Wilson a few hours after the woman’s death, saying he was going to telegraph down the line and would be absent till the evening. He did not return until about nine on the morning of the 11th, when he said his cousin would take the child, which Mrs. Wilson dressed and gave to him, and never saw it again until the 15th, when it was lying dead in a public-house at Battersea, having been found drowned in the river. He also promised Mrs. Wilson that he would attend the woman’s funeral, but did not, and told her on one occasion that he always had strychnia by him.

For the defence Mr. Fulton urged that the evidence of the “arching” of the body was very vague, and rested only on the word of Mrs. Wilson, who had not mentioned this important symptom either to the doctor or the coroner’s constable, and that without that symptom the death might be accounted for by epilepsy, and the first opinion of Dr. Miller justified. He endeavoured to minimise the evidence of the analysts, and argued that the conduct of the prisoner in his attendance on his wife was a strong proof of his innocence. “Motive,” he said, “there appeared to be none, as from his wages the prisoner was quite able to bear the expense of the mother and child.”

The jury, however, returned a verdict of “guilty,” and the prisoner was executed on the 2nd of December, admitting the justice of his sentence, and that he was a party to the death of the child, but saying others were in it.

CHAPTER V.

STRYCHNIA AND BRUCIA.

Contained in St. Ignatius’s bean—False Angostura bark—Nux Vomica, &c.—Properties of strychnia—Facility of detection. Tests: (1) Microscope—(2) Taste—(3) Color test; ditto in other alkaloids, in bile, and in resinous and saccharine matters—(4) Physiological test (Marshall Hall)—(5) Bichromate of potash—(6) Picric acid—(7) Sulphuric acid and sodium nitrite—(8) Mercuric chloride. Preparations of strychnia: Vermin killers—Battle’s, Gibson’s, Miller’s, Marsden’s, Barber’s, Hunter’s, Keating’s—Brucia—Igasuria—Igasuric acid. Doses of strychnia: medicinal, fatal, recovery—Nux vomica. Fatal period for strychnia—Symptoms in man, commencement of symptoms, if given in powder, in solution, in pills. Explanation of symptoms: by hysteria, tetanus, epilepsy, gritty granules on spinal cord—Angina pectoris. Post-mortem appearances—Treatment—Antidotes—Dr. Taylor’s evidence—Ptomaine—Did Cook die from morphia?—Granular preparations at St. Thomas’s Hospital.

Several species of Strychnos, of the natural order Loganiaceæ, contain, mainly in their seeds, the alkaloids Strychnia and Brucia in the proportion of one to one and a half per cent. The plants yet proved to contain these two alkaloids are:—Strychnos nux-vomica (bark and seeds), Strychnos Ignatia (Faba amara, or St. Ignatius’s bean), Strychnos Tieute (the Upas tree of Java), Strychnos toxifera (main source of woorara or curare, the arrow poison of the South American Indians), and Strychnos Ligustrina and Colubrina —“snakewood”), a tree of Asia. S. potatorum —“clearing nut”) and S. pseudokina are not poisonous.

In commerce, “Nux vomica,” “Faba amara, or St. Ignatius’s bean,” “false Angostura bark” (the bark of Strychnos nux-vomica), and an extract called “curare,” are met with. The last is made by mixing the juice of the bark of Strychnos[277] toxifera and another species with pepper and acrid plants; as its effects depend upon “curarine,” another alkaloid, and not upon strychnia, it will not enter much into our subject.

“Faba Amara,” St. Ignatius’s bean, contains 1·2 per cent. Strychnia and some Brucia.

“False Angostura Bark” contains Strychnia and Brucia, gives a light yellow powder, intensely bitter, and turned red by nitric acid.

Nux Vomica, a flattened circular seed, from half to one inch diameter, generally concavo-convex, with a slight central prominence. Colour greyish-brown; silky from radiating hairs. Substance tough and horny; powder light brown, with an odour like liquorice, and an intense and persistent bitter taste. Nitric acid gives with the powder and with the extract an orange-red colour, owing to the presence of brucia. The aqueous infusion gives a precipitate with tannin, and an olive-green tint with neutral ferric chloride.

Strychnia, C₂₁H₂₂N₂O₂, occurs in commerce in opaque white rhombic prisms (the “right square octahedra” of the British Pharmacopœia are not met with), inodorous, having a sp. gr. of 1·36. One part of strychnia dissolves in 7000 parts of cold, in 2500 parts of boiling, water; in 1250 parts of ether; in 1000 of carbon disulphide; in 200 of absolute alcohol; in 120 parts of cold, and 10 parts of hot, rectified spirit; in 181 parts of amylic alcohol; in 164 of benzene; and 7 of chloroform. Creasote and essential and fixed oils also dissolve strychnia (Blyth).

It sublimes in needle shaped crystals, or sometimes, if too quickly heated, in drops, at 169° C.; melts at 221° C., finally darkening and carbonizing.

Its bitter taste is its most prominent physical characteristic. I have verified the statement that one grain of strychnia in a gallon (70,000 grains) of water is distinctly perceptible. One grain in 30,000 is markedly bitter.

Its salts are crystallizable, and also bitter, lævo-rotatory in solution, mostly colourless, neutral to test-paper, generally soluble with facility in water, hence more rapidly poisonous[278] than the free alkaloid. Strychnia sulphates occur in large four-sided prisms, octahedrons, or needles, according to the amount of water of crystallization. Strychnia nitrate crystallizes in silky needles, easily soluble in water. The sulphate is officinal in the French, the nitrate in the German, Austrian, Swiss, Norwegian, and Dutch Pharmacopœias. The acetate and hydrochloride are met with in commerce, but are not officinal. Strychnia itself, the free alkaloid, is prescribed in the British Pharmacopœia. Liquor strychniæ is a solution of the hydrochloride.

Separation.—Strychnia is probably the easiest of the alkaloids to detect, on account of its stability and the delicacy of its reactions. One half-millionth of a grain in the pure state is discoverable by the colour tests (Pharm. Journ., July, 1856). Putrefaction does not change it, for Richter detected it in tissues after eleven years (Sammlung Klin. Vorträge, 69, 562), and other observers in decomposed or buried bodies after five to eight weeks. And yet there are few analysts who have not on some occasion failed to find it (see p. 147.) A very small quantity, about a grain, may destroy life. Even of this, only a portion is absorbed; the rest is eliminated by vomiting (when it occurs), and by the urine and fæces; the absorbed portion is diffused with great rapidity through a large mass of blood and tissue; the result is that we are looking for one part of the poison in about a million times its weight of impurities—almost worse than the needle in the haystack. Matters are still more difficult if the theory be true that an alkaloid, in killing, itself suffers change (see pp. 128 and 133)—an idea that Dr. Letheby and Mr. Nunneley strongly repudiated in the Palmer defence, though the latter witness had to admit that he himself had once failed to detect strychnia in an animal to which he had administered it. Dragendorff records several negative results without apparent cause. Taylor (Med. Jur., 1873, Vol. I., 414) mentions cases of non-discovery by Dr. Reese of Philadelphia, Mr. Horsley of Cheltenham, by himself in the organs of an animal hypodermically poisoned; and also a case in which five grains had[279] been taken, and only a little over a grain was found. Sonnenschein (Casper’s Handbook) in one case found a quantity in the stomach, but none in the tissues; yet it had caused death. All these facts greatly support the theory that the alkaloid is itself changed in causing death.

However this be, if the stomach has failed to yield strychnia, the whole of the rest of the organs, the blood, and the muscles—in fact, as much of the body as can be managed—should be extracted with hot redistilled methylated spirit acidified with a little acetic acid. It is easy to fit up an arrangement with a stoneware pan, a wooden cover, and a coil of tin pipe, through which steam can be passed, and thus the alcohol can be kept warm for two or three hours without much loss. Strain the whole through a cloth, distil off most of the alcohol, evaporate on a water bath at about 70° C., and treat the extract as described in the general process for alkaloids. To facilitate the purification, the alcoholic solution may be precipitated by acetate of lead (avoiding much excess), filtered, the lead removed from the filtrate by adding sufficient sulphate of potash in solution and allowing it to settle, and the clear liquid evaporated as before. Much syrupy matter, which occasions trouble, is thus removed.

The ether-chloroform solution (p. 5), by spontaneous evaporation, leaves the strychnia in “rosettes, veined leaves, stellate dotted needles, circles with broken radii, and branched and reticulated forms” (Guy and Ferrier, Forens. Med., 1881, 568). If not yet pure enough to crystallize, advantage may be taken of the fact that while most of the impurities are charred by warm concentrated sulphuric acid, strychnia is very little affected. A few drops of this acid are therefore added to the residue, then it is warmed for ten or fifteen minutes on the water-bath, finally diluted to about ten cubic centimetres, filtered, the filter washed with water, and the filtrate treated again with ammonia and ether-chloroform. The residue left by the latter, on spontaneous evaporation, will now be pure enough for the following

Tests.—1. The microscopic appearances are so various as[280] to be somewhat indefinite; Guy’s description has been already given. If no crystals are found, strychnia and most other alkaloids are unlikely to be present. But if crystals are obtained, they frequently, on further examination, prove to be some inorganic salt or an ammonium compound, leading to wrong conclusions, if the microscope be trusted too much.

2. Dissolve in water with a trace of acid, and divide on several watch-glasses, as described in the introduction. If one portion be cautiously tasted, and there be no bitterness, strychnia is very improbable.

3. Proceed at once to the colour test. Transfer a portion of the residue, dissolved in a drop of acetic acid, to a white porcelain dish or plate; dry gently on the water-bath; moisten it with about two drops of pure concentrated sulphuric acid; strychnia gives no coloration; with the point of a knife place a minute quantity of finely-powdered peroxide of manganese (the precipitated hydrate is often recommended, but the natural peroxide answers better, being more gradual in its action) on the side of the dish; slant the dish so as to allow the liquid to come in contact with the powder. At the moment of contact a deep rich blue colour is produced if ¹/_20000th of a grain of strychnia be present. The blue colour rapidly changes into purple, crimson, rich red-brown, then fades into bright orange-red, which last tint remains for some hours. By cautiously stirring with a glass rod, the succession of colours can be brought out again at another spot. One or two other qualified observers should always be summoned to witness the experiment, for two reasons; first, that they may testify at the trial, if necessary, to the certainty of the conclusion; secondly, because the sense of colour is differently developed in different people, and, if the hues are faint, one is apt to imagine what one expects to find. But if two or three, without prompting, see the same appearances, the chance of error is removed.

Applied in this way, the succession of colours is absolutely peculiar to strychnia. But, as objections have been made[281] that these can be produced from other substances, they may as well be discussed and disposed of.

(a) Curarine (from Strychnos toxifera) has a bitter taste, is almost insoluble in ether and chloroform; hence it is not usually extracted by the above alkaloidal process, but remains behind in the aqueous liquid. With sulphuric acid and peroxide of manganese it gives the same colours as strychnia, but the changes are slower. With sulphuric acid alone, it yields a pale violet colour, changing to dirty red, and finally to rose. Its physiological effects are opposite to those of strychnia—so much so that it has been proposed as an antidote.

(b) Pyroxanthine (a rare substance, obtained in very small quantity from wood spirit), salicine (from the willow), and piperine (from pepper), give with sulphuric acid alone a deep-red colour, destroyed or spoilt by peroxide of manganese. (Nunneley, in Palmer’s trial.)

(c) If sugar and bile should be present together, sulphuric acid will develope a purple colour very like the strychnia test. Bile would also give bitterness. But it must be remembered that bile, without sugar, will not give the colour, that sugar will not be extracted by the ether-chloroform, and that the colour will appear immediately on the addition of the acid alone, whereas strychnia remains then uncoloured.

(d) Many resinous and saccharine matters are coloured by sulphuric acid, but can be got rid of by warming with the acid as described above.

So that none of these can be mistaken for strychnia. This important test depends upon the action of nascent oxygen; hence any substance which yields oxygen will give the colours more or less satisfactorily. Bichromate of potash, potassium ferricyanide, peroxide of lead, peroxide of cerium (Sonnenschein), have been employed, but most of them give colours of their own, and none are so good as peroxide of manganese. It is only necessary that the manganese should be finely pounded and not too much added. The action is slower and more lasting than with bichromate.

[282]

Letheby’s galvanic test is interesting, and has the advantage of not introducing any extraneous substance into the matter under examination, so that another alkaloid can be tested for afterwards. I have found it better to place the drop of supposed strychnia solution, acidified with a drop of dilute sulphuric acid (10 per cent. strength) on a white plate, to place on its opposite sides two small pieces of platinum foil pressed closely against the plate, touching the drop, and approaching within a quarter of an inch of one another, and to touch them simultaneously with the terminals of a battery of two Grove’s or other cells. In the region of the positive terminal the same colours manifest themselves as with peroxide of manganese. If no colour is shown at once, the battery should be removed, as further galvanic action may decompose any other alkaloid that may be present. The test is not so delicate as sulphuric acid and peroxide of manganese.

It is said that the presence of much morphia will interfere with the above test. But morphia, again, is not extracted completely by the ether-chloroform; and I have not found it to hinder the reaction if performed carefully.

Brucia in ordinary quantities, quinine, cinchonine, veratrine, and santonine do not interfere. In strychnia poisoning, morphia should always be sought for, as it is used as an antidote. If found, its interference may be obviated thus. Dissolve the supposed strychnia in water with a little acetic acid, add an equal volume of ether, and then ammonia in slight excess, and shake well. The strychnia will dissolve in the ether, the morphia will remain in the aqueous liquid. On evaporating the ether, the strychnia will be isolated.

4. Dr. Marshall Hall’s physiological test is very delicate. With some small animal—preferably a frog—proceed as mentioned in the introduction (p. 6). Tetanic spasms are caused. But other poisons, ptomaines, and even the mechanical injury, may produce irritation and perhaps convulsions, so that the test is dangerous, except as confirmatory or negative.

5. Bichromate of potash solution gives with strychnia, at once or on standing, a yellow precipitate, appearing under the[283] microscope as rectangular plates and prisms. (See Guy and Ferrier’s Forensic Medicine, p. 567.)

6. A sublimate of strychnia touched with a drop of dilute picric acid solution, strength 1 in 250, gives microscopic arborescent crystallizations of peculiar curved forms. (Ibid.)

7. Treated with concentrated sulphuric acid and then with a crystal of sodium nitrite, strychnia gives a dirty yellow colour, changed by an alcoholic solution of potash to a fine orange-red, by an aqueous solution to brownish green, and finally to dirty red-brown. (Arnold, Arch. d. Pharm. 3, 20, 561.)

8. Mercuric chloride produces a white precipitate, as also does potassium sulphocyanide. All the general reagents for alkaloids precipitate strychnia. If, however, the reaction with sulphuric acid and manganese have come out properly, all the other tests are superfluous; if it has not been obtained, none of the other tests will be of use.

Preparations.

Vermin Killers.

1. Battle’s seems to vary in composition. Tardieu found in a packet of 19 grains, 1½ grain of strychnia, or 7·7 per[284] cent., the rest being Potato starch and Prussian blue. Woodman and Tidy (For. Med. p. 329) found 23 per cent. strychnia, with sugar, flour, and Prussian blue. Bernays found 10·7 per cent. of strychnia, with flour and Prussian blue. (Barlow’s case.)

2. Butler’s contains flour, soot, and about 5 per cent. strychnia. Sometimes it contains Prussian blue, and sometimes carbonate of barium in place of strychnia.

3. Gibson’s contains half a grain of strychnia in each powder.

4. Miller’s Rat Powder contains oatmeal, and about 6 per cent. of nux vomica (equal to 0·023 strychnia and 0·067 brucia). (Blyth, Man. of Prac. Chem. p. 317.)

5. Marsden’s Vermin and Insect Killer: one packet contains ¾ grain strychnia. (Lancet, April 19, 1856.)

6. Barber’s “Magic Vermin Killer Powders” weigh 28 grains and contain 10 per cent. of strychnia. “Hunter’s Infallible” also contains it.

In Keating’s Insect Powder I have found no strychnia nor arsenic.

BRUCIA.

C₂₃H₂₆N₂O₄,4H₂O, is probably derived from strychnia by the substitution of two molecules of methoxyl (CH₃O) for two atoms of hydrogen (Shenstone, Chem. Soc. Journal, Feb., 1883), hence might be named dimethoxystrychnia. But efforts to change it into strychnia have, as yet, been unsuccessful. All plants containing strychnia contain also brucia. In false Angostura bark the latter much predominates. It occurs in needles or 4-sided monoclinic prisms (rarely in tables), colourless, intensely bitter, lævo-rotatory to a less extent than strychnia, but more soluble in water, alcohol, &c., hence remaining in the mother liquors in the preparation of strychnia. Insoluble in pure ether. It melts at 151° C. (Blyth), and produces a scanty amorphous sublimate near its temperature of decomposition. The salts[285] are neutral, easily soluble in water, and crystallize in needles (the acetate with difficulty). Its physiological action is the same as strychnia, but six or seven times weaker.

With the general reagents for alkaloids brucia gives precipitates. With concent. nitric acid it gives a deep-red colour, changing to orange, and finally to yellow. A trace of stannous chloride (protochloride of tin) turns the red solution purple: excess bleaches it.[98] This test is very delicate. In former times commercial strychnia always contained brucia, hence the coloration by nitric acid was even looked upon as a test for strychnia (see p. 125, and p. 156). But, as the strychnia now sold is generally pure, it gives no colour with nitric acid in the cold. Therefore, if both strychnia and brucia are found in a product extracted from the animal tissues, it follows that Nux Vomica, or one of the plants, or their preparations, has been used, and not the pure alkaloid. The microscope in this case will generally detect some of the vegetal tissue or hairs in the stomach.

Concent. sulphuric acid, followed by bichromate of potash, gives with brucia a red-brown colour passing to green and yellow (Guy).

Whenever strychnia is found, brucia should also be looked for.

Igasuria, a supposed third alkaloid of the Strychnos tribe, has been shown by Shenstone to be a mixture of strychnia and brucia (Chem. Soc. Journal, Sept. 1881, p. 457).

Strychnic or Igasuric Acid, obtained by Pelletier and Caventun from Nux Vomica and from St. Ignatius’ Bean, is probably identical with malic acid.

DOSES.

Medicinal dose of strychnia ¹/₃₀ to ¹/₁₂ grain. Fatal dose: smallest recorded ½ grain (Dr. Warner, “Poisoning by Strychnia,” p. 138), ¼ grain (Guy; also case of Agnes Sennett, p. 121, ante), but a child of two or three years was[286] killed by ¹/₁₆ grain (Christison): average for adults, ½ to 2 grains (Taylor).

Recovery has taken place after 3 grains (Taylor), 4 grains (Lancet, 1863, i. 54), 3 to 7 grains (Husemann), 7 grains (Med. Gaz., xli., 305), “20 grains or more” (? Guy and Ferrier’s Forens. Med., 1881, p. 574), 40 grains (Med. Times and Gaz., 1865, p. 267). If these statements are correct, they must be accounted for either by vomiting, early and vigorous treatment, or impurity of the alkaloid.

Poisonous symptoms have sometimes occurred in adults, and frequently in children, from medicinal doses.

Fatal close of nux vomica: of the powder, 30 grains is the smallest (= ⅓ grain strychnia), (Hoffmann, Med. Rat. System, 2, 175), of the alcoholic extract, 3 grains (Christison on Poisons, p. 642).

Brucia is not used in medicine. Fatal dose rather uncertain, probably three to ten grains.

Fatal Period for Strychnia:—Shortest, five minutes (Dr. Gray on Strychnia, 1872, p. 55); longest, six hours after three grains (Taylor, Guy’s Hosp. Reports, Oct., 1857, p. 483); average, two hours. For nux vomica:—Shortest, fifteen minutes; longest, three hours or more (Guy); average, two hours (Taylor), one hour (Guy).

Symptoms commence at various intervals after taking, according to dose, form, and constitution. The beginning may be (1) almost immediate (Mad. Merghelynk, 1870, Taylor’s Med. Juris., p. 408), (2) in five minutes (case of Dr. Warner, also Dr. Gray on Strychnia, 1872, p. 55), (3) in fifteen minutes (trial of Dove, p. 242), (4) about an hour (Palmer’s trial, p. 102), (5) forty minutes (Lond. Med. Repository, xix., 448), up to two and a half hours (Wormley, Microchemistry of Poisons, p. 538). Hence no conclusion can safely be drawn from this feature (see Dr. Letheby’s evidence in the Palmer trial, p. 166). Probably Dr. Todd’s statement in the same trial is the most correct average:—“Symptoms in ten minutes, if in solution and a large dose; otherwise in a half to one hour.”

[287]

The different action of powder and solution is shown in the following experiments on two full-grown rats:—

1. Half a grain of powdered strychnia—First convulsion in twenty minutes, death in two and a half hours.

2. Same quantity dissolved in sufficient acid—Effect almost immediate; death in half an hour. In the stomach, liver, and brain, strychnia was separately detected.

Pills, especially if hard, would be very slow in action. The most intense effect is produced by hypodermic injection.

Symptoms in Man:—Bitter taste in the mouth, feeling of suffocation, jerkings and twitchings of head and limbs, then tetanic convulsions of nearly all the muscles. Body stretched out stiff, finally arched back so as to rest on the head and the heels (opisthotonos), spasmodic and difficult breathing, usually a peculiar grin (risus sardonicus). After a time the jaw becomes tightly fixed (trismus or lockjaw), the fingers are clenched, the feet arched inwards (incurvated), the eyes prominent and staring. The spasm lasts from a half to two minutes, then there is an interval of comparative rest. The pupils are generally dilated during the fit, contracted in the interval. A touch, a change of position, or a sudden noise, will usually cause a renewal of the spasm. In severe cases the convulsions recur at diminishing intervals, increasing in violence till death occurs from exhaustion or suffocation. Vomiting is very rare. Taylor says “the jaw is not always fixed during a paroxysm: the patient can frequently speak and swallow” (Med. Juris., 1873, p. 404). Woodman and Tidy (Forens. Med., 1877, p. 330) say that this symptom is invariably present. Guy and Ferrier are cautious, and state that the effort to drink often causes rigid spasms of the jaw, but that the “jaw is not always fixed, even in the fit” (Guy and Ferrier’s Forens. Med., 1881, p. 573). On the whole, fixing of the jaw is usual but not invariable. In the Palmer and Dove trials the patients spoke or shrieked during the paroxysms.

As to impatience of touch, Mr. Morley’s dictum in the Dove trial expresses the truth: “Not shrinking from touch is[288] consistent with strychnia, but a desire not to be touched is an indication of it. Several cases of strychnia had desired to be rubbed.” See also the cases of Mrs. Smyth and Mr. Clutterbuck, pp. 122 and 123.

Consciousness, in the immense majority of cases, is preserved to the last. If, as in Mrs. Dove, insensibility occurs, it is due to the exhaustion. In this trial Dr. Christison said “it is unusual to be insensible before death from strychnia.” Farquharson (Therapeutics, p. 264) states that “the cerebral functions remain unimpaired almost up to the close.” This is agreed to by all authorities.

The symptoms of strychnia poisoning have been explained away by the defence as “hysteria,” “idiopathic tetanus,” “epileptic convulsions with tetanic complications” (Dr. Macdonald in Palmer’s trial), “angina pectoris” (Dr. Richardson), “apoplexy” (Dr. Bamford’s certificate). Gritty granules on the spinal cord, sexual or other excitement, cold and damp, drink, &c., were in that trial assigned as causes. As to “gritty granules,” the expression is not clear; such granules as occurred in Cook have been found in many post-mortems, where they certainly did not cause the death. Sexual excitement was out of the question in this case. Drink does not cause tetanus. The cold and damp were hardly sufficient reasons, as no symptoms of chill were noticed. Apoplexy is distinct, as in this the brain would show the disease.

Hysteria, epilepsy, and idiopathic tetanus (tetanus which is “constitutional,” or not occasioned by external injury) produce in some cases insensibility; strychnia, as a rule, does not. They are also continuous in symptoms. Traumatic tetanus is caused by a wound or injury, rarely by ulcers or syphilitic sores (see p. 113). If there be none of these it cannot, of course, be traumatic tetanus. Hysteria is exceedingly variable, and simulates many other diseases: it is generally the result of excitement. But it does not produce opisthotonos. Epilepsy has never such symptoms as strychnia occasions: it rarely supervenes without some history of hereditary[289] tendency, and it is always attended by unconsciousness (p. 151). Idiopathic tetanus may occur from a cold (see a case of Dr. Todd’s, Lond. Med. Gaz., Nov., 1850), or from no assignable cause. It is very close to strychnia in symptoms, but the latter is much more rapid: the shortest recorded fatal period for natural tetanus being twelve hours —“even here the early symptoms had been probably overlooked”—Sir B. Brodie), the usual about eight days. In both kinds of tetanus the jaw is usually the first, in strychnia the last part to be affected. Angina pectoris Dr. Richardson himself disposed of, as in the case he mentions he says that had he known more at the time he would have suspected strychnia (see Palmer’s trial, p. 176). The symptoms of this disease, as given in the leading works, differ much from strychnia poisoning.

Post-Mortem Appearances.—Neither characteristic nor uniform (Guy and Ferrier). As a rule, the body is relaxed at death, and stiffens afterwards (Taylor), but occasionally the reverse is the case (Reg. v. Vyse, Central Criminal Court, 1862).[99] Sometimes the rigidity, as in Cook’s case, remains for months. Clinching of the hands, arching of the feet, are nearly always present, but they may likewise be noticed in cases of natural death (Casper, quoted by Taylor, Med. Jur., p. 406; also Prof. Partridge’s evidence in the Palmer trial, p. 172—“half-bent hands and fingers, not uncommon after natural death”). Brain, spinal cord, and lungs almost invariably congested. Blood dark and fluid. In some cases the heart is full of blood, especially on the right side, but occasionally it is empty and contracted. Stomach generally healthy, rarely congested. Casper found a dark violet colour of the muscles of the throat and gullet; this was the only peculiarity he noticed, and even this has not occurred in other cases. On the whole, the diagnosis must depend mainly on the symptoms during life, though the congestion mentioned above is a valuable corroborative from the post-mortem. Involuntary[290] evacuation of urine and fæces generally occurs, but is usual in all painful deaths.

Treatment and Antidotes.—The question will often arise in a trial whether the best means were taken of saving the patient. In Tawell’s trial it was actually suggested that the water poured down the throat may have caused the death by choking! If emetics are used, they are all more or less poisons. If the stomach-pump be employed, it will cause irritation and exhaustion. Nevertheless, where a violent poison has been given, the only hope is in strong remedies—to empty the stomach by emetics or the pump, to give tannin or animal charcoal, and to generally sustain nature during the operations. As the inquiry is, “What caused death?” the defence will frequently endeavour to fasten the responsibility on the remedial measures. These would not of themselves be fatal, unless disease or poison had previously brought the patient to a nearly dying state; whether it be disease or poison will be otherwise determined.

The direct antidote to strychnia is chloroform. In animals I have noticed a large percentage of recoveries. Woodman and Tidy (Forens. Med., p. 332) give the majority of recoveries to this agent.[100] I believe that most cases could be saved if, on the approach of the convulsions, they could be put vigorously under the action of chloroform. Chloral hydrate, nicotine, opium, &c., have been also tried with scanty success. Tannin precipitates strychnia, as well as most other alkaloids; hence may be useful as an adjunct. When the jaw is fixed, liquids can only be given through a tube; even teeth have been taken out to effect this. Enemata may also be used. Artificial respiration should be cautiously tried. Curara and Calabar Bean are dangerous and not effective.

Death or recovery is always rapid; if a person lives over five or six hours, the case is hopeful (Woodman and Tidy).

One or two considerations remain. Dr. Taylor’s evidence[291] in the Palmer trial, though in most points it has been corroborated by subsequent authorities, contained the following statements that require rectifying:—

(1.) “The colour tests are fallacious” (pp. 144 and 147). They are quite decisive if properly performed, and the precautions remembered.

(2.) “I know of no process which can detect strychnia in the tissues” (p. 133). This has been repeatedly done by the same method as is used for the stomach. Dr. Taylor himself admits it in his later works (see Med. Juris., 1873, p. 415). No operator now neglects the tissues. They should always be forwarded for analysis at the same time as the stomach, but in separate jars.

If indications be obtained, the question will occur—“Could they be due to Selmi’s ptomaine, resembling strychnia?” If we consider that in an immense multitude of cases of suspicion, where there is no clue, strychnia is tested for but not found, it is evident that this natural imitation of the alkaloid must be decidedly rare. So that the overwhelming probability, if the colour test has been obtained, is that strychnia itself is present.

In conclusion, Palmer afterwards is said to have more or less admitted that he poisoned Cook, “but not with strychnia.” Though the word of such a man is of little value, there are others who have been of this opinion. Mr. Justice Grove is reported to have expressed some hesitation afterwards on this point. Mr. Nunneley, who, although he showed too much partizanship in the trial, yet may be said to have certainly had great experience with animals, asserted that the symptoms did not quite coincide with strychnia. Others followed in this train. The assertion is certainly wrong, but Dr. Guy (Forens. Med. 1881, p. 525) has made a suggestion that may be noticed. After quoting Dr. Shearman’s case of a patient who had taken one and a-half grain of morphia acetate, and who was seized with “twitching of the limbs and face, difficulty in swallowing, spasms of the arms, legs, and abdomen, partial opisthotonos, and great activity of[292] the reflex function” (Med. Times and Gazette, March 7, 1857); another case from orfila, when twenty-two grains of morphia hydrochloride had caused lockjaw, tension of the abdomen, and occasional convulsions; and Castaing’s case, when twenty-six grains of morphia acetate, and twelve grains of tartar emetic, had been purchased, and the victim had “vomiting, purging, convulsions, lockjaw, rigid spasms of the neck and abdomen, inability to swallow, loss of sensibility in the legs, contracted pupils, and stertorous breathing,” Dr. Guy goes on to say that as Cook had probably three grains of morphia acetate within seventy-two hours, and had previously been reduced by tartar emetic, his death may have been due to morphia and not to strychnia. But setting aside the second and third cases where the dose was so large, Cook’s symptoms did not on the whole agree with those of Dr. Shearman’s patient. The dose in the time was not larger, but the effects on Cook were immensely more severe. If these be examples of morphia in its worst and most anomalous aspect, it certainly cannot dispute with strychnia for the responsibility of Cook’s death.[101] See also Dr. Todd’s remark, p. 117.

The three preparations of “gritty granules” on the spinal cord in the museum of St. Thomas’s Hospital, “in which the patients are said to have died from tetanus” (Mr. Nunneley’s evidence, p. 152, also Dr. Macdonald’s evidence, p. 180), are in section N, numbers 113, 114, and 115. They are described in the catalogue as—

[293]

Mr. Charles Stewart, professor of comparative anatomy and curator of the museum at St. Thomas’s, tells me that these are calcareous, but not true bone, that they are not uncommon in post-mortems where they have had nothing to do with death, and that if the above had died from tetanus it would probably have been recorded in the catalogue. As there is no mention of the cause of death, it is certain that it had no reference to the so-called “granules.”

The assertion of Mr. Morley (Dove’s Case, p. 245), that strychnia is decomposed into its elements, is obviously incorrect, probably an error of the reporter.

See also an interesting case lately reported (J. de Pharm. et de Chimie, November 1882), where strychnia was found, and also arsenic, in the stomach, liver, and brain.

Dr. John Harley tells me that he finds hemlock juice the best antidote to the convulsions of all kinds of tetanus. He has had many successful cases. Messrs. Mavor, veterinary surgeons, find this remedy most efficacious with horses, in which animal tetanus is very common.

CHAPTER VI.

TRIALS FOR POISONING BY ARSENIC.

Notwithstanding the difficulties thrown in the way of the purchase of arsenic by the “Sale of Arsenic Regulation Act” of 1852, the cases of poisoning by the use of this drug have been so numerous, that it has been difficult to select examples without greatly extending the bulk of this volume. I have, therefore, limited the full reports in this chapter to two, namely:—(1). The case of Miss Madeline Smith for the imputed murder of her lover, Pierre Emile L’Angelier in Glasgow, tried before the “Lords of the Justiciary,” the chief criminal court of Scotland, in Edinburgh, on the 30th of June, 1857, a case full of interest and doubt, the mystery of which will probably never be disclosed; and (2) that of Ann Merritt for the murder of her husband, tried at the Old Bailey, March 8th, 1850, on the verdict in which arose a notable difference of opinion between leading medical and other experts, and the chief medical witness, as to the possibility of fixing, with any definiteness, the time at which the arsenic found in the body had been administered; resulting in the eventual commutation of the capital sentence by Sir George Grey, the Home Secretary. This was the case referred to by the Attorney-General in his cross-examination of Dr. Letheby in Palmer’s trial. For the trial of Madeline Smith I have relied on the Report reprinted with additions and corrections from “The Scotsman,” by far the most accurate that I have read. To my copy is an Appendix of the whole of the letters, including those suppressed in Court, published in New York at the Astor Press. Happily it is not necessary to dwell on their disgusting details.

[295]

TRIAL OF MADELINE SMITH.

Before the Lord Justice Clerk (the Hon. John Hope), Lord Ivory, and Lord Handyside, at Edinburgh, 30th June and following days, 1857.

For the Prosecution: The Lord Advocate (Jas. Moncrieffe), The Solicitor-General (E. F. Maitland), and Mr. Donald Mackenzie.

For the Defence: The Dean of Faculty, Mr. John Inglis (now Lord Justice General), Mr. G. Young (now Lord Young), and Mr. H. Moncrieff.

By the indictment the Prisoner was charged with administering or causing to be administered to Emile L’Angelier,[102] arsenic or some other poison, in coffee, cocoa, or some other food or drink, on the 19th or 20th of February, and on the 22nd or 23rd of February last, with intent to murder, and on the 22nd or 23rd of March, whereby he died on the day last named, and was thus murdered by the Prisoner. To which the Prisoner pleaded “Not Guilty.”

THE HISTORY OF THE CASE.

Pierre Emile L’Angelier, a Frenchman by birth, had been employed in Scotland since the year 1843, when he was with a firm of nurserymen at Dundee. How long he stayed with them was not proved, but according to his own statement he was one of the National Guard in the Revolution in Paris in 1848. He was always a poor man, and in 1851, when again in Scotland, was in such straits that he was living at a tavern in Edinburgh on the charity of its proprietor. When there he was at times in very low spirits, crying at night, and speaking of committing suicide, getting out of bed and walking about the room weeping, and on one occasion on the point apparently of throwing himself out of the window of his room had he not been prevented by his companion. Some love affairs—one with an English lady, another with a lady in Fife—were the causes he assigned for his melancholy and depression. In a[296] letter, probably of this date, he wrote, “I never was so unhappy in my life. I wish I had the courage to blow my brains out.” In 1852 he was in the employ of another nurseryman at Dundee, still harping on his disappointment in love, complaining bitterly of the last lady’s intended marriage with another—gloomy, moody, dull, and threatening to stab himself. Vain of his person, he was always talking of his success with ladies, and of what he should do if he was again jilted. On one occasion, when speaking of the use of arsenic for improving the coats of horses, and asked if he was not afraid of poisoning them, he said, “Oh, no: so far from doing that, he had taken it himself, without any bad effects.” From this employment he went to that of Messrs. Huggins and Co., of Glasgow, where he was looked upon as a steady, industrious clerk, “a well-behaved, well-principled, religious man.” Whilst with this firm he pressed a young friend to introduce him to Miss Smith; and thus sprang up the attachment which led to the catastrophe.

Miss Madeline Smith, to whom L’Angelier was introduced towards the end of 1854, was the daughter of an architect of position in Glasgow, and had lately returned from an English boarding-school. She was attractive in person, and just of the age to fall violently in love with such a plausible, goodlooking man as L’Angelier. As her parents naturally had little liking for a merchant’s clerk as their daughter’s husband, the love affair that arose at once after the introduction was carried on clandestinely by a voluminous correspondence, in which more than 200 letters passed from her to the deceased in the brief period of their attachment, and such stolen interviews in or out of her father’s house as could be arranged with the connivance of one of his servants. According to the theory of the prosecution, L’Angelier was an accomplished and deliberate seducer, who at last gained his purpose on the 6th of May, from which date Miss Smith’s letters to her lover speak plainly of matters of which even married persons would be reticent, and are couched in language suitable only to married persons. She was clearly in L’Angelier’s[297] power, who wished to marry her, and made more than one arrangement for an elopement. Towards the end of 1856, however, her affection for him began to cool, and with reason. She had accepted the attentions of a Mr. Minnoch, with the full consent of her parents, and shortly after actually fixed the day for her marriage with him. The danger of her situation pressed upon her. L’Angelier, when he knew of this, was not the man to sit tamely under such a slight, or to let another person marry one of whom he knew so much to her discredit. She wrote him to return her letters, begged and prayed him to do so, and let the engagement drop, to which she never could get the sanction of her parents. He refused. He had heard a rumour of the Minnoch engagement, and he threatened to send the letters to her father. Still it was not revenge that he wanted; he wanted his wife. Her letters at this time give the most painful proofs of the state of mind into which she had fallen. “On her bended knees,” she wrote, begging “him not to expose her, for her mother’s sake,” and “the dread of her father’s anger.” “As you hope for mercy at the judgment day, do not inform on me; do not make me a public shame. There is no one I love. My love was all given to you. My heart is empty, cold. I am unloved. I am despised. I told you I had ceased to love. It is true.” Such was her letter, presumably of the 11th of February, 1857. At this time she was engaged to Minnoch, and the day of the marriage, if not actually fixed, had been talked about. She begged for an interview. In the postscript to this sad letter, she added: “I will take you within the door; the area gate will be open. I shall see you from my window, twelve o’clock. I will wait till one o’clock.” The exact date of this letter could not be proved, as it had been delivered and not posted. It was dated only Tuesday evening, twelve o’clock; and however ingenious was the argument of the Lord Advocate, it failed to satisfy the court that it produced an interview on the 11th which led to another on the 19th—the day on which, according to the Crown, she first administered the poison to her lover, from which arose[298] the first of his illnesses, as described by Mrs. Jenkins, his landlady.

Previously to the trial, the following explanation of the connection with L’Angelier had been given by the prisoner, in her examination before the Sheriff Substitute of Lanarkshire on the 31st of March, “when,” he said, “she answered his questions without hesitation, and with great appearance of frankness and candour.”

DECLARATION OF THE PRISONER.

With this brief introduction, let us proceed to the details of his various illnesses, due, as the prosecution inferred, to arsenical poisoning.

THE SYMPTOMS.

Mrs. Jenkins, at whose house L’Angelier came to lodge in the July of 1856, and continued there till his death, spoke of her lodger as of civil habits, but wont to stay out at night, for which purpose he had the use of a latch-key. His health was usually good; but about the middle of February, 1857, he had a severe attack of illness, and another on the 23rd, of which she gave the following account:—

Nothing of importance with reference to the symptoms of his attacks was elicited in cross-examination. His first illness, according to the witness, was a great deal worse than the second. It was in January that he first complained of ill health. He then first complained of his tongue; then a boil came out on his neck, and shortly after another. She did not think that he ate what suited him, and especially too many vegetables, to which he said he was accustomed in France. On the morning of his death he complained about his mouth being sore. The doctor gave him some water, and he said it was choking him, or that it was going into his chest. When in bed that morning he always had his arms out on the bed clothes. She did not remember his hands being clenched. His right hand was clenched when he died. The remainder of the cross-examination related to the dress he usually wore, and the search by the officers for his papers.[106]

[304]

MEDICAL EVIDENCE.

Dr. Thomson, a physician in Glasgow, who had known L’Angelier for two years, gave the following evidence as to his health up to about the 10th of March:—

On cross-examination, the witness said—

Dr. Steven, physician of Glasgow, who was called in by Mrs. Jenkins on the 23rd of March, at the commencement of the fatal attack, carried on the case to the death of the deceased:—

[307]

The witness then described how the stomach and its contents were carefully preserved and sent to Professor Penny for analysis (see Appendix A., p. 355).

ANALYTICAL EVIDENCE.

Dr. Penny, the Professor of Chemistry in the Andersonian University, Glasgow, then read the following report of his analysis of the parts of the body handed to him by Dr. Thomson, made at the request of one of the procurators fiscal of the country.

(1.) Contents of Stomach.

(2.) Stomach.

(3.) Quantity of Arsenic.

Conclusions.

April 6, 1857.

Examination resumed.—“It is not easy to give a precise answer to the question ‘How much arsenic would destroy life?’ Cases are on record in which life was destroyed by two and four grains; four or six grains are generally sufficient to destroy life, and the amount I determined as existing in the stomach was 82 grains. On the 31st of March I attended the exhumation of M. L’Angelier’s body. I saw the coffin opened, and the portions of the body removed, which were carefully preserved, in jars of which I never lost sight, and I analysed the contents, and prepared the following

[310]

Report.

“On Tuesday, 31st March last, I was present at a post-mortem examination of the body of P. E. L’Angelier, made by Drs. Corbet, Thomson, and Steven, in a vault in the Ramshorn Church, Glasgow.

“At my request, portions of the following organs were removed from the body, and properly preserved for chemical analysis and examination: (1.) Small intestine and contents; (2.) Large intestine; (3.) Liver; (4.) Heart; (5.) Lung; (6.) Brain. These articles were taken direct to the Laboratory of the Andersonian Institution, and were there delivered to me by the parties named. I have since made a careful analysis and chemical examination of all the said matters, with the following results:—

(1.) Small Intestine and Contents.

“The portion of the small intestine contained a turbid and reddish-coloured fluid, measuring four ounces. On standing for several hours in a glass vessel, this liquid deposited numerous and well-defined octahedral crystals, which, being subjected to the usual chemical processes for the detection of arsenic, were found to be arsenious acid. Arsenic was also detected in the small intestine.

(2.) Large Intestine.

“This organ yielded arsenic, but in less proportion than in the small intestine.

(3.) Liver, Brain, and Heart.

“Arsenic was separated from the liver, brain, and heart, but in much less proportion than from the small and large intestines.

(4.) Lung.

“The lung gave only a slight indication of the presence of arsenic.

Conclusions.

“(1.) That the body of the deceased contained arsenic.

“(2.) That the arsenic must have been taken by or administered to him while living.”

[311]

The witness then spoke of the examinations he had made into the arsenic sold by the two chemists, Murdoch and Currie, at whose shops the prisoner had stated she had purchased it, for the purposes of a cosmetic. In that sold at Murdoch’s, 91·1 per cent. was pure white arsenic, and in that from Currie’s, 94·4 per cent., and the remainder inorganic matter; in Murdoch’s carbonaceous, in Currie’s indigo and carbonaceous matter. The quantity of indigo in this arsenic was extremely small, and capable of being removed by peculiar and dexterous manipulation, so that the arsenic would appear white to the unassisted eye. If of this an amount sufficient to cause death had been given, and prior to death great vomiting had taken place, the witness would not expect to find any portion of the indigo: the quantity was so small, that it would not colour wine of any sort. In the case of Murdoch’s arsenic, however, as it was mixed with carbonaceous particles, if that had been given and settled down from the contents of the stomach as in this case, he should have expected to find such particles—not, however, if it had been given a month before. Of the twelve bottles and two packages of medicines, and the cake of chocolate found at L’Angelier’s lodging, and submitted to him for analysis, none, except a weak solution of aconite were poisonous, and that was so weak, that had the whole two ounces in the phial been swallowed, it would not have destroyed life. Of the use of prussic acid or arsenic as a cosmetic he had never heard, and believed that both would be dangerous, and the latter might produce constitutional symptoms of poisoning. He had heard of its use as a depilatory, but then mixed with other matters, as lime, and it was not arsenious acid, but usually the yellow sulphide, that was used for this purpose.

On cross-examination by the Dean of Faculty, the witness said:—

Professor Penny, subsequently (on the fourth day), gave the following account of experiments made by him with arsenic purchased from Murdoch’s and Currie’s shops:—

Professor Christison, to whom, on the 11th of May, Dr. Penny had delivered similar portions of the body to those on which he had experimented, together with portions of the deposits from the stomach and intestines, made a chemical analysis of the white powder, and the fluids obtained from the stomach, and the small intestine, and of a portion of the liver. As from these he obtained unequivocal proofs of the presence of arsenic, he did not, at that time, proceed further. Subsequently, however, on the 28th of May, he analysed a portion of the great intestine, and was satisfied of the presence of arsenic; and in a portion of the brain he found “traces of arsenic, but not satisfactory evidence, which might be owing to the small quantity of material he had to analyse.”

Of the samples of Murdoch’s and Currie’s arsenic, which Dr. Penny had delivered to him, “The former,” he said, “contained the due proportion of soot; the latter was not coloured with the indigo prescribed by the Act—was not of a bluish, but greyish black colour, imperfectly mixed, and easily removeable by washing with cold water, which cannot easily be done with good indigo. The proportion was a thirty-sixth, and not a thirty-second, as the Act directs.”[110]

The cross-examination of this witness was first directed to[317] the probability of the colouring matter in the arsenic being detected in the portions of the body analysed.

“My attention,” said Professor Christison, “was not directed to colouring matter in arsenic. I got only one article in which it might have been found—the small intestine. The others had been subjected to a previous analysis. I was not asked to attend to the colouring matter. I did not see it, and did not search for it. Supposing soot or indigo to have been given with the arsenic, I think it might have been found in the intestines by careful examination. I can’t say it would have been found: many circumstances go to the possibility of its being found. Many component parts of soot are insoluble: it might have been removed by frequent vomiting. It is very difficult to remove soot from arsenic entirely. Indigo would have been found more easily from the peculiarity of its colour, and the chemical ingredients are so precise. Currie’s arsenic is not coloured with true indigo; it is waste indigo, or what has been used by the dyer. I don’t know how it is prepared. I did not analyse the colouring matter of Currie’s arsenic. I ascertained it was not the indigo directed by the Act to be used, and I ascertained the quantity. I separated the colouring matter from the arsenic, and subjected it to the action of sulphuric acid. Charcoal (more properly—carbon) is one of the constituents of good indigo, and necessarily of waste. The chief constituent of soot is charcoal also.”

The remainder of his cross-examination was directed to the amount of arsenic found in the stomach, and the symptoms of, and the period at which the effects are exhibited.

On the fifth day Professor Christison was recalled, and gave the following evidence as to the use of arsenic as a cosmetic, its taste, and its supposed presence naturally in the bodies of human beings.

Robert Telfer Corbett, physician in Glasgow, and senior surgeon in the infirmary, who had assisted at the post-mortem[324] examination and joined in the report, was called on the fourth day, and gave the following evidence.

“So far as he could judge without analysis the deceased had died from the effect of poison. The morbid appearances presented were of two kinds—one showing the result of recent action, the other of action at a period antecedent to it. The last of these appearances consisted of several ulcers, each about the ¹/_16th of an inch in diameter, with elevated edge, on the upper part of the duodenum. They might have been characteristic of the effect of irritant poison at the distance of a month, but it is impossible to fix any date. I think they were such as irritant poison, administered a month before, would have produced. They were of longer standing than immediately antecedent to death. In the duodenum and intestines the body had in colour and otherwise the appearances characteristic of arsenical poisoning. Inflammation and ulceration are the effect of inflammation; jaundice, I mean the yellow tinge of the skin, is an occasional, but not a necessary symptom of death by arsenic, but not a common one. Extreme thirst is one of the symptoms, and shows itself very early. It is not characteristic of British cholera in its earlier stages. The exact time a dose of arsenic takes to exhibit its symptoms is from a half to one hour—that is the average time. Longer periods have been known but are very unusual. They depend more on the mode in which the poison is given, and the state of the stomach, than on the quantity administered. If a person had been the subject of repeated doses, the irritability of the stomach would make it more likely to operate quickly. I have read of cases of murder where large quantities of arsenic have been found in the stomach. I can refer to cases in which details were not given, but the quantity was said to be large.”

The cross-examination of this witness was mainly directed to his assertion that the yellowness of the skin seen in jaundice, and, as he added, of the conjunctiva of the eye also, was a known symptom in arsenical poison, but he admitted that the statement in Dr. Taylor’s book was his only authority: he only “knew it to be a secondary symptom from arsenical poisoning in his routine.” He admitted also that the ulcers on the duodenum might arise from some enteric fever, and that any cause of inflammation might produce them.

[325]

On re-examination by the Lord Advocate, he repeated that from his reading and study he knew jaundice to be an occasional symptom of arsenical poisoning. To a question whether “in a person during life who immediately after taking food had been seized with severe pain and intense thirst, he should think, because he had a yellow colour, that might not be the effect of arsenical poisoning?” he replied “that might or might not be,” and “that the appearance of jaundice would not sway him materially one way or the other.” This witness, though he had made many post-mortem examinations, had only once before done so in a case of arsenical poisoning. With this witness the medical evidence for the prosecution was closed.

It will be convenient, as in Palmer’s case, to give in this place the evidence of the medical witnesses, called, at a subsequent period, for the defence.

MEDICAL EVIDENCE FOR THE DEFENCE.

Two physicians were called for the prisoner, with the object of proving (1), that arsenic could be used without danger as a cosmetic; (2), that the symptoms in L’Angelier’s last illness were consistent with the suggestion that he died of some form of cholera.

Dr. James A. Lawrie, a physician of Glasgow, many years in practice, who was first called, said—

“He had taken a quarter or half-an-ounce of arsenic, bought at Currie’s, and washed his hands freely with it, and on the previous Saturday had tried the same experiment with a half-an-ounce on his face, but washed his face afterwards with cold water. The effect was the same as using a ball of soap with sand—it softened the skin. He filled the basin with the usual quantity of water, and mixed the arsenic with it. It was a practice he should have no fear of repeating, and would not hesitate in using, if he had a case that required it, such as vermin on the skin. In consequence of the insolubility of arsenic, he did not think that increasing the quantity of arsenic would make any difference in the effect.”

[326]

On the second point this witness said:—

“I treated one case of poisoning by arsenic. Some years ago during the prevalence of cholera, I was asked to see a gentleman about seven or eight in the evening, and the account was that he had been ill since three or four in the morning. I found him labouring under premonitory symptoms of cholera, and I prescribed for him. I returned about ten, and found the symptoms very much aggravated, and the vomiting and purging still continued. His voice was not affected, and the vomiting was not the same as in cholera. It was a reddish yellowish matter, and I requested it to be set aside. I thought it was not a case of cholera, and asked him what he had taken. He said only his ordinary food, wine, &c., but nothing else. The symptoms went on still further, and I called a consultation of other medical men. He still said he had taken nothing. I was satisfied from the aggravation of the symptoms that something else was the matter, and at last he died about three in the morning. I next day learnt that he had purchased half-an-ounce of arsenic the day of his death. I had the vomit and contents of stomach analysed, and discovered arsenic in great quantities. Extreme thirst, as far as I know, is an early symptom in poisoning by arsenic—but not equally so in cholera, it belongs to a later stage in cholera.”

Dr. Douglas Maclagan, of Edinburgh, who had had some experience in arsenical poisonings, and devoted much of his time to chemistry, had the same opinion as Dr. Lawrie of the innocuousness of arsenic as a cosmetic (mainly from its insolubility).

EVIDENCE OF THE OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF POISON.

On the first charge, that of administering poison on the 19th or 20th of February, it was urged on the jury that there was no reliable evidence that the lovers had met on either of these days, that Madeline Smith had at that time poison in her possession, or that the illness which L’Angelier was supposed to have had at that time showed arsenical symptoms. On the 17th of February L’Angelier told Miss Perry, the confidante of their loves, that he expected to meet Madeline on the 19th, and, from some other circumstances—what they were is not stated—when on the 2nd of March he told her how ill he had been, falling on the floor of his room, she said that “she knew that he referred to the 19th of February.” Mrs. Jenkins, however, could not fix the date of this attack: it might have been eight or ten days before the second illness (February 23), and, like his illness in January, she believed it to be due to bile, the symptoms being something the same as her own but more violent, on both occasions accompanied by a good deal of purging and vomiting. From Dr. Thomson’s evidence, however, it appears that his first illness in that year, which Dr. Thomson places on the 3rd of February, was due to a cold, with cough and boils, for which he prescribed. The only attempt that Miss Smith made to purchase poison before that date was that of sending the page boy to Dr. Yeaman’s to buy some prussic acid, which the doctor refused to sell to her. The Lord Advocate admitted[330] that he could not prove that she had arsenic in her possession before that illness. “It would not do,” said the Lord Justice Clerk in his charge, “to infer, from her having arsenic afterwards, that she had it also on the first occasion.”[113]

On the second charge, that of administering poison on the 22nd or 23rd of February, the following evidence was offered. On the 21st of February Miss Smith openly purchased an ounce and a half of arsenic of the chemist Murdoch, ostensibly for the purpose—a false one, as the evidence proved—of killing rats at her father’s country house. It was mixed with soot, of which she some days afterwards spoke to the chemist, saying she thought arsenic was white. If, therefore, the lovers met on the 22nd, or 23rd, she had poison in her possession. Whether L’Angelier went out on the night of the 22nd, his landlady could not say:[114] she did not hear him come in, but, when she went into his room early the next morning, she found him suffering from his second attack of illness for which Dr. Thomson attended him, and from which he recovered in about eight days. That the symptoms were those of arsenical poisoning was hardly to be doubted,[331] and though Dr. Thomson at the time attributed them to billious derangement, he said, that, “had he known that L’Angelier had taken an irritant poison, those were the symptoms he should expect to follow.” The evidence that the lovers had met on the night of the 22nd, or morning of the 23rd, rested on a letter, which not only did not bear any date or day of the week, but the post-mark on which was so obliterated that the post-office official could not fix any date, though he thought he could see the “M” of March on the stamp, which counsel on both sides agreed in considering an error. In that letter Miss Smith wrote: “I am so sorry to hear you are ill. I hope to God you will soon be better—— you did look bad on Sunday night and Monday morning. I think you got sick with walking home so late, and the long want of food; so, next time we meet, I shall make you eat a loaf of bread before you go.” This letter the Lord Advocate assumed to be written on Wednesday, the 25th of February, and to refer to the meeting on the night of the 22nd and morning of the 23rd. To Miss Perry, on the 9th of March, L’Angelier spoke of having had a cup of coffee and chocolate from Miss Smith, which Miss Perry understood to refer to two occasions, and added, “I can’t think why I was so unwell after getting that coffee and chocolate from her.” “It ought not to be forgotten,” said the Lord Justice Clerk, “that the contents of the stomach on these two illnesses had not been examined, and therefore it was merely an inference that they were caused by arsenic—an inference drawn from the fact that on the 22nd of March he died from that poison.” With reference to the purchase of arsenic, the learned Judge added: “He attached little importance to the statements of the druggists as to what was said by the prisoner about rats; without stating some such objects she would not have got it at all; and it was not to be supposed, if she had wanted it as a cosmetic, that she would tell the druggist. Did she see the deceased on the Sunday night, before the arsenic was administered? Mrs. Jenkins did not see him go out of the house that night, and he asked the jury to consider whether[332] there was, on the whole, apart from the correspondence, evidence that they had met together that night? If there was no proof that the administration took place on the 22nd of February, then there was great force in the observation that the foundation of the case for the prosecution had been shaken.”

On the third charge—that of poisoning on the 22nd or 23rd of March, the following facts were proved. On his return to work, after his second illness, L’Angelier was so altered in health, his complexion wan, with a dark, hectic spot on each cheek, that leave of absence was given to him, for the first time since he had been in this employ. Miss Smith had advised him to take rest and change, and L’Angelier had apparently told her that he should go to the Bridge of Allan. On the third of March, however, Miss Smith writes that her family are going to the same place, and the next day suggests that he should go to the South of England. On the 5th of March he writes her a painfully earnest letter on the reports about her intended marriage with Mr. Minnoch, concluding: “Mind, I insist on having an explicit answer to the question you evaded in my last.” Next day the prisoner purchases another sixpenny-worth of arsenic, not again of Murdoch, but of Currie, and this time the excuse is that the house in Blythswood Square is so overrun with rats, that it is to be shut up and the servants sent away till the vermin is eradicated. This again was pure invention on her part. The family went to the Bridge of Allan, whence on Tuesday, the 10th of March, the prisoner wrote to L’Angelier that they would be home again in Glasgow on the next Monday or Tuesday, when she would write to arrange an interview, adding, “I long to see you, to kiss and embrace you, my only sweet love.” Before this the Minnoch marriage had been arranged, and the day talked about, if not definitively fixed. Again on the 13th she wrote him: “I think we shall be home on Tuesday, so I shall let you know, my own beloved sweet pet, when we shall have a dear, sweet interview; when I may be pressed to your heart,[333] and kissed by you, my own sweet love. A fond, tender embrace; a kiss, sweet love! I hope you will enjoy your visit here.” It had been previously arranged between them that L’Angelier should not come to the Bridge of Allan until her family had left.

During this visit of the Smiths to the Bridge of Allan, L’Angelier was taking his leave of absence. On the 6th of March he left for Edinburgh, and returned to Glasgow on the 17th, and, finding no letter for him, stayed at home all the next day waiting for it. On the 19th he left for the Bridge of Allan, where he was to stay for a week, his friend Thuau undertaking to forward his letters. On the 19th, after he had left, a letter came, and Thuau forwarded it that night, and it reached Stirling at nine the next morning. That letter was not to be found. In his tourist’s bag, however, the envelope of it was discovered, and, from a letter which he wrote to Miss Perry on the 20th, in which he said, “I should have come to see some one last night, but the letter was too late,” it may be fairly assumed that it contained the wished for appointment for the Thursday night. On the 18th the prisoner bought her third packet of arsenic at Currie’s. Several dead rats, she said, had been found, and it was feared some large ones still remained. This time she had a female companion with her, and, as she had to Murdoch expressed her surprise at the arsenic she had previously purchased not being white, she again used the same expression at Currie’s. This arsenic was coloured with indigo. On the 21st the last of the long series of letters reached L’Angelier’s lodgings, and was forwarded at once by Thuau. “Why, my beloved, did you not come to me?” she wrote. “Oh, my beloved, are you ill? Come to me. Sweet one, I waited and waited for you, but you came not. I shall wait again to-morrow night—same hour and arrangement.” That letter, which was found in his pocket, was received by him after nine on Sunday morning. He left the Bridge of Allan shortly after evening service began, and was at his lodgings by eight o’clock that evening. To accomplish this L’Angelier had walked to Stirling, taken the train from there to Coatbridge,[334] where a Mr. Ross found him, and, after some refreshment at the station, walked with him to Glasgow, apparently quite well, and walking briskly.[115] When he arrived at his lodgings he appeared greatly improved in health since he left on the previous Thursday, was in high spirits, and said that the letter had brought him back. He left his lodgings about nine o’clock, is seen soon after sauntering in the direction of Blythswood Square, but not near the Smiths’ house, as it was the hour there for family prayers. To wile away the time he calls on a Mr. M’Alister, who is not at home, and from that time till he came back to his lodgings, after midnight, all trace of him is lost. At two o’clock the next morning the door-bell rang violently; his landlady went down, and found L’Angelier at the door, standing with his arms across his stomach. He was suffering from his fatal illness, already too bad to be able to use his pass key. How that attack progressed, and what its symptoms were, and what was the result of the post-mortem and analytical examinations, has already been reported.

[335]

“Here,” said the learned Judge, “the proof stops. And, supposing you are quite satisfied that the letter brought him to Glasgow,[116] are you in a condition to say, with satisfaction to your own consciences, that, as an inevitable and just result of that, you can find it proved that they met that night?[117] That is the point in the case. That you may have the strongest moral suspicion that they met—that you may believe that he was able, after all their clandestine correspondence, to obtain the means of an interview, especially as she complained of his not coming on the Thursday, said she would wait again to-morrow night, same hour and place, and talked of wishing to clasp him to her bosom—that you may suppose it likely that, although he failed to keep his appointment on Saturday, she would be waiting on Sunday, which was by no means an uncommon evening for their appointment—all that may be very true, and probably you will think so; but remember you are trying this case upon evidence that must be satisfactory, complete, and distinct.

“A jury may safely infer certain facts from the correspondence.[336] They may even safely infer that meetings took place, when they find these meetings either mutually appointed or arranged for by the parties. But it is for you to say here whether it has been proved that L’Angelier was in the house that night. If you can hold that that link in the chain is supplied by just and satisfactory inference—remember, I say just and satisfactory—and it is for you to say whether the inference is just and satisfactory in order to complete the proof. If you really feel that in your own minds, you may have the strongest suspicion that he saw her; for really no one need hesitate to say that, as a matter of moral opinion, the whole probabilities of the case are in favour of it. But if that is all the amount that you can derive from it, the link still remains awanting—the catastrophe and the alleged cause of it are not found together. And therefore you must be satisfied that you can here stand and rely upon the firm foundation, I say, of a just and sound, and perhaps I may add, inevitable inference. That a jury is entitled often to draw such an inference there is no doubt; and it is just because you belong to that class of men to whom the Lord Advocate referred, namely, men of common sense, capable of exercising your judgment upon a matter which is laid before you to consider, it is on that very account that you are to put to yourselves the question, ‘Is this a satisfactory and a just inference?’ If you find it so, I cannot tell you that you are not at liberty to act upon it, because most of those matters occurring in life must depend upon circumstantial evidence, and upon the inference a jury may feel bound to draw. But it is an inference of a very serious character—it is an inference upon which the death of this party by the hand of the prisoner must depend.”[118]

[337]

CONDUCT AND STATEMENTS OF THE PRISONER AFTER L’ANGELIER’S DEATH.

In her declaration Miss Smith stated that she heard of L’Angelier’s death on the afternoon of Monday, the 23rd. On the Wednesday evening she was out at a party, and at eight o’clock the next morning she had left the house. In consequence Mr. Minnoch, and a brother of the prisoner, thinking apparently that she had gone to her father’s country house, took the rail to Greenock, and the steamer thence to Row, on board which they found her a little after two in the afternoon. She said she was going to Rowaleyn, and they went on with her, and from thence brought her to Glasgow in a carriage. “When we met her on the steamboat,” said Mr. Minnoch, “I asked her why she had left her house and her friends in such distress at her absence. She made no reply. I requested her not to do so among so many people. I renewed my inquiry afterwards at Rowaleyn. She said she felt distressed that her parents should be so much annoyed at what she had done.” The suggestion on the part of the prosecution was, that from conscious guilt she was fleeing from justice—on the part of the prisoner, that she was fleeing from the shame of an exposure of her love passages with L’Angelier. “But,” said the learned judge, “my opinion is, that having made a statement already about getting arsenic for the gardener to kill rats, and knowing that if it had been discovered that he got no arsenic for such a purpose, unpleasant consequences might follow, she wished to see him, in order to make an arrangement by which that[338] statement might be borne out. The steamer in which she went only sailed from Helensburgh to Gairloch and back, and therefore escape by it was nearly impossible; and, in point of fact, he did not believe she had any intention of attempting it.”

Previously, however, to this unexplained flight from home, she had been visited by the French consul, a mutual friend of the lovers, to whose searching questions in the presence of her mother she gave most decided answers. As this witness’s evidence was greatly relied on by counsel for the prisoner, it is reported in full.

M. Auguste Vauvert de Meau, the French Consul at Glasgow, who had known L’Angelier for three years, was acquainted with the prisoner’s family, and aware from L’Angelier’s own statements of the correspondence between the lovers, gave the following evidence:—

At the close of the case for the prosecution the Lord Advocate proposed to put in certain entries in a pocket book of L’Angelier’s to support the first and second counts of the indictment, which, after argument, was refused by the Court. (See Appendix C., p. 359.)

THE DEFENCE.

In accordance with practice of the Scotch Courts the counsel for the prisoner had the last word; and good use did the Dean of Faculty make of his privilege. The Lord Advocate’s policy had been to depict the character of the prisoner in the vilest colours—as the seducer, rather than the seduced, or, at any rate, for a long period the willing accomplice in all his acts. The Dean dealt not less hardly with the character of L’Angelier.

“We find him,” he said, “according to the confession of all those who observed him narrowly, vain, conceited, pretentious, with a[343] great opinion of his own personal attractions, and a very silly expectation of admiration from the other sex. That he was successful to a certain extent in conciliating such admiration may be the fact; but, at all events, his own prevailing ideas seem to have been that he was calculated to be very successful in paying attention to ladies, and that he was likely to push his fortune by such means. Accordingly, once and again we find him engaged in attempts to get married to women of some station at least in society. We heard of one disappointment which he met with in England, and another we heard a great deal of connected with a lady in Fife; and the manner in which he bore his disappointments on those two occasions is perhaps the best indication and light we have to the true character of the man. He was not a person of strong health, and it is extremely probable that this, among other things, had a depressing effect on his spirits, rendering him changeable and uncertain—now uplifted, as one of the witnesses said, and now most deeply depressed—of a mercurial temperament, as another described it, very variable and never to be depended upon. Such was the individual with whom the prisoner unfortunately became acquainted. The progress of their acquaintance is soon told. My learned friend the Lord Advocate said the correspondence must have been improper, because it was clandestine: yet the letters of the young lady at that first period breathe nothing but gentleness and propriety. The correspondence in the commencement shows that if L’Angelier had in his mind originally to corrupt and seduce the prisoner, he entered upon the attempt with considerable ingenuity and skill; for the very first letter of the series which we have contains a passage in which she says, ‘I am trying to break myself of all my bad habits: it is you I have to thank for this, which I do sincerely from my heart.’ He had been suggesting to her improvement in conduct or something else. He had thus been insinuating himself into her company. She had yielded, no doubt, too easily to the pleasures of this new acquaintance, but pleasures apparently of a most innocent kind at this period. Yet it seems to have occurred to her mind at a very early period that it was impossible to maintain this correspondence with propriety or her own welfare; for so early as April 1855 she wrote him—‘I think you will agree with me in what I intend proposing, that for the present this correspondence had better stop. I know your good feeling will not take this wrong. It was meant quite the reverse. By continuing it, harm may arise, by discontinuing, nothing can be said.’ And from then to September it did cease.”

[344]

Unfortunately the correspondence was renewed, discovered, and stopped by her father until April, 1856, when it is re-opened by a letter, of the 30th of that month, from Helensburgh, in which she writes:—“P(papa) has not been in town a night for some time; but the first night he is off I shall see you. We shall spend an hour of bliss. There shall be no risk: only C. H. (Haggart) shall know.” This letter was followed by that of the 3rd of May, inviting him on Tuesday, the 6th, to come to the garden gate, and adding, “Beloved of my soul, a fond embrace, a dear kiss till we meet! We shall have more than one, love, dearest.” Signed, “From thy ever devoted and loving wife, thine for ever, Mini.”

“Alas,” said the Dean, “the next scene is the most painful of all. In the spring of 1856, the corrupting influence of the seducer was successful, and the prisoner fell. This is recorded in a letter bearing the post-mark of the 7th of May, which you have heard read. And how corrupting that influence must have been, how vile the acts that he resorted to for accomplishing his nefarious purpose, can never be proved so well as by looking at the altered tone and language of the unhappy prisoner’s letters. She had lost not her virtue merely, but, as the Lord Advocate said, her sense of decency. Think you that without temptation, without evil teachings, a poor girl falls into such depths of degradation? No. Influence from without—most corrupting influence—can alone account for such a fact. And yet through the midst of this frightful correspondence, there breathes a spirit of devoted affection towards the man that had destroyed her—that strikes me as most remarkable.”

Then, after alluding to the precautions with which she sought to surround her interviews with L’Angelier at the Blythswood Square house; to the evident proofs that an elopement was projected, and to the strong probability that no interview took place without Haggart’s connivance, and that, therefore, the interviews at this time must be limited to the two spoken of by that witness, he urged that up to the month of February, 1857, he was entitled to say, “without a shadow of evidence to the contrary, that they were not in the habit of coming into personal contact.”

[345]

“We now,” continued the Dean, “come to a very important stage of the case. On the 28th of February Mr. Minnoch proposes, and if I understand the theory of my learned friend’s case aright, from that day the whole character of the girl’s mind and her feelings changed, and she set herself to prepare for the perpetration of what he has called one of the most foul, cool, deliberate murders that ever was committed. I will not say that such a thing is impossible, but I will venture to say it is very highly improbable. He will be a bold man to fathom the depths of human depravity, but this at least experience teaches us, that perfection even in depravity, is not rapidly attained, and it is not by such short and easy stages as the prosecutor has been able to trace in the career of Madeline Smith, that a gentle loving girl passes all at once into the savage grandeur of a Medea, or the appalling wickedness of a Borgia. Such a thing is not possible. There is a certain progress in guilt, and it is quite out of all human experience that, from the tone of the letters, there should be a sudden transition—I will not say from affection for a particular object—but to the strange desire for removing, by any means, the obstruction to her wishes and purposes that the prosecutor imputes to the prisoner. Think, in your own minds, how foul and unnatural a murder it is—the murder of one who, within a very short space, was the object of her love—an unworthy object—an unholy object; but yet while it lasted—and its endurance was not very brief—it was a deep, unselfish, absorbing, devoted passion. And the object of that passion she now conceived the purpose of murdering. Such is the theory that you are desired to believe. Now before you will believe it, will you not ask for demonstration? Will you be content with conjecture? Will you be content with suspicion, however pregnant, or will you be so unreasonable as to put it to me in this form, that the man having died of poison, the theory of the prosecution is the most probable? Oh, gentlemen, is that the manner in which a jury should treat such a case? Is that the kind of proof on which they should convict on a capital offence?”

The Dean, then, took up seriatim the three charges, examining the evidence on each in detail, making on each the criticisms, already reported in the previous summary of the evidence, showing how the first charge had failed even in the opinion of the prosecutor: how doubtful, to say the least, it was that the interview on which the second charge was[346] based had taken place, and the weakness of many of the proofs on which the charge of murder was rested. Passing, then, to the suggestion of suicide, he continued—

“I might stop here, for nothing could be more fallacious than the suggestion of the Lord Advocate, that it was necessary to explain how this man came by his death. His lordship will tell you that a defendant has no further duty than to repel the charge and stand on the defensive, and maintain that the case for the prosecution is not proved. No man probably can tell at the present moment—I believe no man on earth can tell—how L’Angelier met his death. Nor am I under the slightest obligation even to suggest to you a possible manner in which that death may have been compassed without the intervention of the prisoner. Yet it is but fair, when we are dealing with so many matters of conjecture and suspicion, that we should, for a moment, consider whether that supposition on which the charge is founded is preferable in itself, in respect to its higher probabilities, to other suppositions which may be fairly made. The character of this man, his origin, his early history, the nature of his conversation, the numerous occasions on which he spoke of suicide, naturally suggest that as one mode by which he may have departed this life. Understand me, I am not undertaking to prove that he died by his own hand—but I think there is more to be said for suicide than for the prisoner’s guilt. But I entreat you to remember that that is no necessary part of my defence. But of course I should be using you very ill—should be doing less than my duty to the prisoner—if I had not brought before you the whole of that evidence which suggests the extreme probability of that man dying by his own hand at one time or other. From the very first time at which we see him, even as a lad, in the year 1843, he talks in a manner to impress people with the notion that he had no moral principle to guide him. He speaks over and over again of suicide at Edinburgh, Dundee, and elsewhere—ay, the prisoners letters shew that he had made the same threat to her[120]—that he would put himself out of existence. And is it half as violent a supposition as the supposition of this foul murder, that upon this evening—the 22nd of March—a fit of[347] that kind of madness which he himself described, came over him, when he met with disappointment—finding, it may be, that he could not procure access to an interview which he desired—assuming that he came to Glasgow for that purpose—assuming even that he mistook the evening of the meeting, and expected to see her on the Sunday—can anything be more probable than that, in the excited state in which he then was, he should have committed the rash act which put an end to his existence.”[121]

Again, in answer to the motive imputed by the prosecution; re-reading the letter of the 10th of February, in which on her bended knees Miss Smith besought him, “as he hoped for mercy at the judgment, not to inform on her—not to expose her;” asked him “to pardon her if he could; to pray for her as the most wretched, guilty, miserable creature on the earth;” told him “she could stand anything but her father’s hot temper;” when she wrote, “Emile, you will not cause my death. If he is to get your letters, I cannot see him any more; and my poor mother, I will never kiss her. It would be a shame to them all. Emile, will you not spare me? Hate me, despise me, but do not expose me.” The Dean said—

[348]

Passing on, then, to the incident of her sudden flight from her home, when she heard of L’Angelier’s death, the Dean repudiated the notion that she was absconding from justice. She had left Glasgow early in the morning, and at half-past three in the afternoon was found on board a steamer going[350] from Greenock to Helensburgh. Any one going by rail could easily have overtaken her.

“If her flight means anything,” he said, “it means flying from what she could not bear—the wrath of her father, and the averted countenance of her mother. But she came back again without the slightest hesitation, and upon the Monday morning there occurred a scene as remarkable in the history of criminal jurisprudence as anything I ever heard of, by which that broken spirit was altogether changed. The moment she was met by a charge of being implicated in causing the death of L’Angelier, she at once assumed the courage of a heroine. She was bowed down, and she had fled, while the true charge of her unchastity and shame was all that was brought against her; but she stood erect and proudly conscious of her innocence when she was met with this astounding charge of murder. You heard the account that M. de Meau gave of that interview with her in her father’s house on the Monday. That was a most striking statement, and given with a truthfulness obviously that could not be surpassed. What was the import of that conversation? He advised her, as a friend, if L’Angelier was with her on that Sunday night, for God’s sake not to deny it. And why? Because, he said, it is certain to be proved. A servant, a policeman, a casual passenger, is certain to know the fact, and if you falsely deny it, what a fact that will be against you. What was the answer? In answer to five or six suggestions of M. de Meau, she said at length that she would swear that she had not seen him for three weeks. If she did not see him on the Sunday that was true.”

On the purchases of arsenic, the Dean called the attention of the jury to the improbability of her having purchased it at the time when she was urging L’Angelier not to go to the Bridge of Allan whilst she was there with her family, and to her throwing it away on the 17th of March, and then buying more on the 18th;—“throwing it away, it was said, when just coming within reach of her victim, and then buying more, with circumstances of openness and publicity inconsistent with the hypothesis of any legitimate object? Why expose herself to the necessity of a repeated purchase, when she had got enough to poison twenty or a hundred men.”

[351]

Then, citing the behaviour of Eliza Fenning, in the well-known disputed, and even now disputed case, as a parallel[352] instance of such behaviour as the prisoner showed when taxed with the charge of murder:[124] repudiating the doctrine that juries have nothing to do with the consequences of their verdict, and that all questions of evidence must be weighed in the same scale, whether the crime be capital, or a mere case of pocket picking, and appealing to the jury not to raise their rash and imprudent hands to tear away the veil Providence has been pleased to place over this mystery, the Dean closed his most effective speech.

THE JUDGE’S CHARGE.

The most material comments of the Lord Justice Clerk have been already so fully quoted as notes to the several portions of the evidence, or to the points made by the counsel for the defence, that it will now suffice to give his concluding summary of the case.

After retiring for half an hour, the jury by a majority in each charge found the prisoner Not Guilty on the first, and a verdict of Not Proven on the second and third charges, in which findings the Lord Justice Clerk expressed his entire concurrence.

APPENDIX A., p. 307.

POST-MORTEM EXAMINATIONS.

Evidence of Dr. Hugh Thomson, M.D.

SECOND POST-MORTEM OF THE EXHUMED BODY,

April 3, 1857.

[358]

APPENDIX B., p. 319.

ON THE QUANTITY OF POISON FOUND IN THE STOMACH OF A PERSON MURDERED BY ARSENIC.

Extract from Letter from Professor Christison to the Edinburgh Medical Journal, December, 1857.

APPENDIX C., p. 342.

L’ANGELIER’S DIARY.

TRIAL OF ANN MERRITT.

Before The Lord Chief Baron Pollock and Mr. Justice Cresswell, at the Central Criminal Court, March 8, 1850.

For the Prosecution: Mr. Bodkin and Mr. Clark.

For the Defence: Mr. Clarkson, by the intervention of the Sheriffs of London and Middlesex.

Ann Merritt was indicted for the murder of her husband, James, by poison, at Clapton, on the 25th of January.

Merritt, who was a turncock in the employ of the East London Waterworks, had been at work in his usual health, with the exception of a slight cold, on Wednesday, the 23rd of January. When, however, a fellow-workman called upon him about nine the next morning, he was told by the prisoner that her husband was sick in the yard, and in a minute or two afterwards Merritt came in and told his comrade that he had been drinking some broth and a cup of hot tea upon it, and expected that it had turned his stomach. They started off to work, and on the way Merritt complained of being very thirsty, and went into a public-house and had some rum-and-water before they separated for their respective jobs. He seems, however, to have soon returned home unwell, as between ten and eleven a neighbour (Mrs. Gillett), who lived next door, who had been previously called in by eight o’clock in the morning, saw the deceased in his house very ill, and the prisoner emptying some thick gruel into a basin from a saucepan, and pouring water on it. The gruel had been made from oatmeal fetched from a corn-chandler’s by the witness’s son, at the prisoner’s request, who had given as a reason for making it that her husband had returned so very thirsty.[365] This gruel the deceased was seen eating at a quarter past eleven, and very soon after vomiting. However, at one o’clock, Merritt went out again to work with his comrade, but soon after felt so sick and ill that he asked his friend to do his work for him, and returned home. When his friend returned to Merritt’s house with his tools, between five and six in the evening, the prisoner told him to go upstairs and see “Jem,” as he was very ill, and wanted to see him. This witness went up to the deceased’s bedroom, followed by the prisoner, and found Merritt in bed complaining of being very sick, feeling cramp in his limbs; at which the deceased said, “he did not wonder, as what with the weather and the work they had to do, it was enough to kill a horse.” No more was seen of the parties until half-past nine at night, when Mrs. Gillett was again called in by the prisoner, and found the husband in bed retching violently, and complaining of a burning pain in his chest and stomach. Between ten and eleven Mr. Toulmin, the doctor, was called in, and at half-past twelve the husband died.[126]

MEDICAL AND ANALYTICAL EVIDENCE.

Mr. Toulmin, a general practitioner at Clapton, was first examined. He was called in between ten and eleven on the Thursday night, and found the deceased in bed sick, complaining greatly of pain in his stomach and cramps in his legs, his pulse very weak, and his skin below the natural temperature; he prescribed for him, and left. Subsequently he made a post-mortem examination of the body on the 28th, by the coroner’s order, with the assistance of Mr. Welch, a neighbouring surgeon, to which the prisoner at first objected. When the stomach was opened, it contained a thickish matter slightly pink, which was poured into a stoppered bottle and sent with the stomach to Dr. Letheby for analysis. On its[366] coats there were red spots, such as are observed in persons who have died of irritant poison.

Dr. Henry Letheby, professor of chemistry at the London Hospital, to whom the stomach and its contents had been forwarded, gave the following evidence, which, in consequence of the dispute which subsequently arose on his statement as to the time at which the fatal dose was taken, is given in full:—

[368]

PURCHASE OF POISON BY THE PRISONER.

This was proved by the son of a chemist of the name of Brown, of whom the prisoner purchased two pennyworths of arsenic on the 19th of January, which, at her request, he enclosed in two separate papers, each marked “poison,” as she said that one of them was for her sister who lived some distance off. The papers had something of the appearance of those of effervescing powders.

CONDUCT AND STATEMENTS OF THE PRISONER.

Mrs. Gillett gave some remarkable evidence as to the statements and conduct of the prisoner during the night of her husband’s fatal illness and after his death.

Other statements of a most unfavourable character were improperly extracted from her by Coward, the inspector of police. As the Lord Chief Baron said, with well-deserved reproof, he had evidently prepared a proceeding, and framed certain questions, which would enable him to observe the demeanour of the prisoner when she was confronted with a witness ready in attendance, in order to give his own view of her conduct afterwards to the jury.

Of this last statement of the inspector, the Lord Chief Baron added in his charge—

To Clarke, a police constable, she said, whilst in custody, that “she supposed she should be hung—they had told so many lies about it—she bought the arsenic for her husband.” To the female searcher at the police-station she said that she did not know on what charge she was brought there; and then, when told it, added, “I know he was poisoned, but not by whom.” And when told that Mrs. Gillett was the principal witness against her, declared that she was forsworn. On the second examination at the police-court, she told the gaoler that “she wished the magistrate to know something[371] about the case. All she had said was true, except as to not buying the poison. She had placed it in the same cupboard with her husband’s powders after taking off the papers marked ‘poison.’ If he had taken it, it must have been by mistake, and she threw the remainder of the poison and all his powders into the fire. She intended to have taken it herself if he went on as he had done.”

THE PRISONER’S STATEMENT.

“I have nothing to say except that I never intended my husband to take the poison. When I bought it I intended to take it myself, if he had come home as he had done several times before. I could not live with him had he gone on so. I thought no more of it till the Sunday, when I thought he might have taken it instead of the soda, and then I burnt it. What I said about hanging was this—‘If I am to be hanged this moment I am innocent of anything to my husband.’ I have nothing more to say.”

Mr. Clarkson, for the defence, after alluding to the difficulties under which he laboured in consequence of the prisoner not having made any preparations for her defence, and the brief having only been handed to him as the case was opened, attacked the evidence of Coward in language which the Lord Chief Baron entirely adopted, and asked the jury to dismiss it from their consideration. He also characterised the declarations of the prisoner as told by witnesses clearly unfavourable to her. “With regard to the testimony of Dr. Letheby, if they relied on it, it would be necessary,” he said, “to come to the conclusion that the prisoner had continued administering poison to the deceased during the whole of the day—as it was proved that he was ill as early as eight in the morning. But he asked the jury if her conduct would justify such a conclusion. Her story might be true, and if the deceased took the poison through her culpable negligence in putting it in the cupboard with his soda powders, the offence would not be murder, but manslaughter.”

The strong remarks of the Lord Chief Baron on the conduct[372] and evidence of Coward have already been given, and as the remainder of his charge consisted only of an analysis of the evidence, and its application to the different points of the case, it is needless to report it. As was characteristic of this kind judge, every point that could be made in favour of the prisoner was brought clearly out in his able charge. After a brief deliberation, a verdict of guilty, coupled with a recommendation to mercy on account of her previously good character, was returned, and sentence of death was pronounced by the learned judge.

A medical man of large experience, who was present during the trial, was so astonished at the statement of Dr. Letheby as to the time when the arsenic had been administered, that he communicated with the sheriffs, who brought the case before Sir George Grey, by whom it was referred to Sir Benjamin Brodie, Dr. Billing, Dr. Leeson, and other medical men of repute. These, it was understood, agreed that the time of administration could not be fixed. On this, at the urgent request of Dr. Pereira, Dr. Letheby wrote to the Home Secretary that it was his duty to admit that it was within the range of possibility—nay, even probable—that the arsenic might have been taken, as the woman asserted, early in the morning of her husband’s death, and in consequence the capital sentence was commuted for one of penal servitude for life. This case was used by Mr. Bright in his speech in the House of Commons in favour of the abolition of capital punishments, as a strong example of their danger.

How much more satisfactory would it have been could a court of appeal have reheard such a case instead of its being left to the Home Secretary’s judgment of evidence known only to himself.[130]

CHAPTER VII.

ARSENIC.

The element (arsenicum)—The oxide (white arsenic)—Arsenicum—Arsenicum trioxide. Forms of: (1) Crystalline—(2) Amorphous—Solubility. Uses and occurrences: (1) Steeping wheat—(2) Preservation of skins—(3) Antiseptics—(4) Glass making—(5) Fur in boilers—(6) Candles—(7) Preservation of wood—(8) Sheep washes—(9) Scheele’s green and emerald green as pigments in sweets (case of Franklin and Randall), wall papers, toys, &c.—(10) Medicinal—(11) For horses—(12) Tooth-stopping—(13) Aniline dyes—(14) Fireworks—(15) Rat and fly poisons (case of Maria Gage)—(16) For cleansing metals—(17) Arsenic eaters—(18) Cosmetics—(19) For bronzing metals—(20) Beer brewed from glucose—(21) American paper collars—(22) Speculum metal—(23) Inhalation for asthma and bronchitis—(24) Mineral waters. Sulphides of Arsenic: (1) Orpiment (case of M. A. Burdock)—(2) Realgar. Arsenic acid—The arsenates—Arsenic trichloride—Arseniuretted hydrogen—Methods of extraction—Tests—Modifications of old processes suggested—Marsh’s test, distinction of results in arsenic and antimony—Reinsch’s test—Doses—Antidotes—Physiological effects—Remarks—Did L’Angelier commit suicide?

The name “arsenic” is applied to two things: in chemistry it means the element As; in popular usage it signifies the oxide As₂O₃. In our report, the element will be called arsenicum, the oxide simply “arsenic” or “white arsenic.”

ARSENICUM,

Symbol As, is an element of steely metallic lustre, tarnishing to dull dark grey, met with in crystalline (rhombohedral) fragments, so brittle that they can be easily reduced to a dark grey powder, insoluble in water, but slowly absorbing oxygen and dissolving, insoluble in pure hydrochloric and in vegetal acids, and in alcohol, soluble (by oxidation) in strong sulphuric and in nitric acid, in chlorine, in solution of bleaching powder. Tasteless, and inodorous until heated, when it sublimes,[374] without melting, at 110° C. (Guy), and gives a strong odour of garlic. Sp. gr. 5·8. The characters of the metal are utilized in Marsh’s and other tests, hereafter described. Heated in air, it oxidizes to white fumes of As₂O₃. It is employed chiefly to harden lead in making shot, in the proportion of 0·3 per cent. The use of these in cleaning bottles, &c., may contribute a trace of As: the presence of a larger amount of lead would in this case indicate the source. Common Britannia metal, used for teapots, spoons, &c., often contains As. It occurs also in many minerals.

When oxidized it is poisonous, but pure arsenicum passes through the body of animals unaltered (Wagner’s Chem. Technology, trans, by Crookes, 1872, p. 86). The vapour is very poisonous.

Arsenicum has two oxides, the trioxide and the pentoxide.

ARSENICUM TRIOXIDE.

Synonyms.—Arsenious oxide, arsenious acid, arsenious anhydride; popularly, “arsenic,” “flour of arsenic,” or “white arsenic:” in mining districts it is sometimes called “mercury:” Latin, acidum arseniosum.

Chemical formula As₂O₃, or two atoms (150 parts by weight) of arsenicum, to three atoms (48 parts by weight) of oxygen.

Forms.—(1.) Crystalline. By sublimation and slow condensation on moderately heated surfaces, also by deposition from solution, we obtain regular octahedra, often so modified as to appear like equilateral triangular or hexagonal plates, or even elongated into triangular prisms, but never in the form of regular tetrahedra such as tartar emetic yields. For figures, see Guy and Ferrier’s Forens. Med., 1881, pp. 440 and 670. The crystals are transparent and highly refracting. Sp. gr. 3·69. Volatilizes without melting, except under increased pressure.

(2.) Amorphous or vitreous. Suddenly cooled, As₂O₃ condenses as clear transparent drops, finally cohering into a[375] glassy mass, sp. gr. 3·74. When kept, this becomes opaque, perhaps owing to a change into the crystalline variety, constituting the “porcellanous” form found in commerce. If the lumps be broken, layers of still transparent As₂O₃ will be seen.

The solubility depends on the variety, temperature, length of time it is digested, fineness of powder, &c. So that exact figures cannot be given, as hardly two authorities agree. It is certain, however, that the amorphous form is less soluble than the crystalline.[131] The accepted statement is that given by Taylor (Med. Juris. 1, 250): that digested with cold water, from ¹/₅₀₀ to ¹/₁₀₀₀ dissolves, equal from one half to one grain per fluid ounce; if boiled for an hour and allowed to cool, an average of twelve grains per fluid ounce remains in solution; if boiled for a shorter time, less is dissolved. See also Woodman and Tidy’s Forens. Med., 1877, pp. 133, 134. Organic matter is said to decrease its solubility; I have not found that it does so to any notable extent. Dr. Blondlot (Med. Times and Gazette, Feb. 11, 1860) states that fats, such as bacon, diminish the solubility; this must be by coating the particles and preventing contact with water. Powdered white arsenic in all cases refuses for a long time to become moistened by water, floating on the top, and collecting in little lumps as if greasy: the appearance is so peculiar as to have led sometimes to its detection. Commercial powdered white arsenic is generally the opaque form pulverized, but it may be crystalline.

As₂O₃ is very soluble in potash and soda and their carbonates, forming arsenites. It is less soluble in ammonia. In hydrochloric acid it dissolves easily, forming chloride of arsenic. It is less soluble (1 in 2,000) in alcohol than in water. One part dissolves in 200,000 of chloroform. It is insoluble in pure ether. It is heavy to feel, tasteless, very faintly acid to test paper, and so feeble in affinity that its[376] soluble salts are strongly alkaline, and are decomposed by all acids with separation of As₂O₃. The powder and its vapour are inodorous, but when heated with charcoal or organic matter it is reduced to arsenicum, with its odour of garlic.

Uses and Occurrence.—1. As a preservative against insects and fungi, for steeping seed-wheat. Many accidents have resulted. Birds poisoned by it and afterwards eaten by man have occasioned severe symptoms. From 1830 to 1840 in France 235 accusations of arsenic poisoning occurred, of which 110 were against agricultural persons, proving that the use of the drug in farming gives dangerous facilities for crime. Sulphate of copper, or, better, a mixture of sulphate of soda and lime, are more effectual as preservatives, and the latter mixture is not poisonous. (Lancet, 1849, Jan. 20.)

2. For preserving skins and furs (arsenical soap). This use has also caused serious results in the operators. Stuffed birds, &c., kept in living rooms may prejudicially affect the inmates by giving off arsenical dust.

3. As an antiseptic it is injected in solution through the vessels of subjects for dissection. Of course in this case the body would show signs of the anatomical examination it had undergone. In the trial of Professor Webster for the murder of Dr. Parkman, at Boston, U.S., March, 1850, the absence of arsenic and other preservative substances in the corpse proved that it had not been a subject for dissection.

4. In glass making and the production of opaque white enamels. Here most of the vapour passes up the chimney and is diffused.

5. Some of the patent preparations for preventing “fur” in boilers have contained alkaline arsenites.

6. Formerly wicks of candles were steeped in arsenic solution to prevent a long “snuff” forming. Moreover, it was incorporated with the candle itself to improve its appearance. The result was a constant diffusion of arsenic vapour in the room. Tapers were also coloured with emerald green (copper aceto-arsenite), which likewise gave rise to arsenical fumes. These objectionable practices have been[377] fortunately given up, owing to the strong representations of scientific men.

7. Wood is sometimes preserved by a solution of arsenic, and then tarred. This use would be practically free from danger, except to the operatives.

8. An alkaline arsenite is used for washing sheep to destroy vermin. The workmen sometimes suffer. (Lancet, 1857, p. 281.) Streams have been poisoned, the solution has been drunk in mistake (Ibid, 1856, p. 447), and lastly, the sheep themselves have been killed (Taylor’s Med. Juris., i. 272). Carbolic acid would probably answer better.

9. Cupric arsenite (Scheele’s green) and aceto-arsenite (Schweinfurth or emerald green) are used as pigments. In one case, where a baker’s shelves had been painted with this colour, emerald green was found adhering to the bottoms of the loaves (Med. Times and Gaz., 1854, p. 326). Blancmange (R. v. Franklin & Randall, Northampton, 1848[132]), ornaments on cakes (Lancet, 1849, Feb. 17th), sweets, dresses, and artificial flowers (Husemann, Jahresbericht, 1872, p. 480), lamp-shades, insides of pasteboard cigar-holders, toys,[133] wrappings for chocolate, &c., wafers, water and oil colours, and wall papers have all been coloured with emerald[378] green. Whenever such things have been swallowed, the green colour is seen in the vomit. Boxes of paints should never be given to young children. Cakes of emerald green and of other poisonous colours have often been sucked or eaten with fatal result; they are the more tempting as they are generally made up with honey or glycerine. Bright green wall papers have gone out of fashion, still many of the dull colours have emerald green in their composition. Such papers certainly give off arsenical dust, even if they do not evolve arseniuretted hydrogen or other arsenical gas, and the symptoms they produce have been well authenticated. In a new house the papers should always be tested. Messrs. Woollams, of Marylebone Lane, were, I believe, the first to disuse arsenical pigments in paper-hangings.

These arsenites of copper give, with a little ammonia, a blue solution (due to the copper), in which a crystal of silver nitrate becomes covered with a yellow coating of silver arsenite. The As can also be easily found by the other tests.

Dr. Raseden of Mersberg finds that arsenical papers cause rheumatic pains, neuralgia, cough, lassitude, and emaciation (Lancet, 1849, April 7th). They also cause skin eruptions. These effects disappear when the patients are removed. In Germany the use of these pigments is prohibited; it should be so in England. Unfortunately no other permanent green colour is so bright in tint.

The copper arsenites are insoluble in water, but soluble in acids, hence are dissolved by the gastric juice, and then absorbed.

10. In medicine, arsenic is used for skin diseases, ague, and as a tonic; externally for cancer and lupus. Liquor arsenicalis B.P., Fowler’s solution, or “ague drops,” is composed of arsenic 80 grains, potass, carbonate 80 grains, water 1 pint, flavoured with lavender. It is a solution of potassium arsenite. Liquor arsenici hydrochloricus is arsenic dissolved in hydrochloric acid, giving arsenic trichloride, of the same strength as liquor arsenicalis. Among unofficial preparations are “Donovan’s Solution of Arsenic,” containing[379] mercuric and arsenious iodides; strength 0·69 grain arsenicum per fluid ounce: “Davidson’s Cancer Remedy” equal parts of arsenic and hemlock (Dr. Paris): “Cancer Paste,” containing 8 per cent. of arsenic, with cinnabar and dragon’s blood: “Hydrophobia Pill,” ¹/₁₆ to ¹/₁₂ grain arsenic, with 1 grain pepper, an absurd remedy much used in the East Indies. (Blyth’s Pract. Chem., 1879, p. 376.) The pharmacopœial preparations of arsenic acid will be described under arsenic pentoxide.

11. It is given by grooms to horses, to render their coats sleek, and improve their wind, under the name of “condition balls or powders” (strength 2½ to 5 per cent. of arsenic), also for worms, and as a tonic.

12. For destroying the nerves of decayed teeth, about ¹/₂₅ grain is placed in the cavity. In the Lancet a case is recorded in which inflammation and caries of the jaw followed this practice, which is a very dangerous one.

13. In the manufacture of some aniline dyes, and in the reduction of indigo, arsenic is often used. Dyed stockings, &c., have caused skin irritation, supposed to be due to arsenic, but more probably owing to the dye itself.

14. Firework preparations commonly contain some compound of As, and therefore give poisonous vapours. “Bengal light” consists of 24 of potass. nitrate, 7 of sulphur, and 2 of realgar (arsenic disulphide). See also Blyth, Prac. Chem., p. 379.

15. Rat Poisons:—No. 1. Arsenic 6 per cent., made into a paste, with equal parts of flour and suet, variously coloured and scented. No. 2. Equal parts of arsenic and carbonate of barium (itself poisonous), coloured with rose pink, and scented with oils of anise and rhodium.[134]

Fly Poisons.—“Fly powder,” a grey mixture of As and[380] As₂ O₃. “Fly water,” a solution of arsenious acid, or arsenite of soda or potash, of varying strength, sweetened with sugar, treacle, or honey. (Med. Times and Gazette, Sept. 13th, 1851.) Some also contain orpiment (arsenic trisulphide).

16. For cleansing metals, arsenite of soda has been used on account of its strong alkalinity. It is an absurd preparation to use for this purpose, as washing soda or potash would act better. In December, 1857, 340 children were poisoned by water from a boiler that had been “cleaned” by this compound (Taylor on Poisons, 2nd ed., p. 378). In 1863, a man died from drinking beer out of a pot which had been thus cleansed (Taylor, Med. Juris., 1, 273).

17. The well-known “arsenic eating” of Styria has been ridiculed as impossible, but has yet been authenticated on further examination. A Styrian wood-cutter was seen by a medical man to eat a piece of arsenic weighing 4½ grains, and next day another 5½ grains, yet remaining in his usual health. It is also eaten by the natives of Ceylon (Med. Times and Gaz. 1862, p. 454, and 1866, p. 375). Workmen in arsenic factories often become habituated to its influence. See a paper by Roscoe, Mem. of Lit. and Phil. Soc. of Manchester, 1860. I myself can testify to this fact. A student in the College of Science, Dublin, was accustomed to take out of the arsenic bottle little lumps about 3 or 4 grains each and eat them, without apparent ill effect.

18. As a cosmetic, applied externally, it would probably be useless. Unless the skin were abraded, or it remained very long in contact, no absorption, and hence no poisonous effect, would result, but any scratch or wound would be dangerous. (See Christison’s Evidence, case of Madeline Smith, p. 320.) And if in protracted contact with the skin, it will cause symptoms. (Memoirs of Lond. Med. Soc., ii., 397, Amer. J. of Med. Science, July, 1851.)

19. A solution of chloride of arsenic has been employed for “bronzing” metals. The fumes would be highly pernicious.

[381]

20. Ritter, of Rouen, states that glucose or starch-sugar frequently contains arsenic, derived from the sulphuric acid employed in its manufacture being made from arsenical pyrites. He finds that by this means the arsenic is introduced into beer brewed with glucose, into confectionery, syrups, liqueurs, &c. (Reimann’s Färber Zeitung, No. 3, 1878.)

21. It is said that certain paper collars and cuffs which are extensively made in America have proved poisonous from containing a considerable proportion of arsenic. (Les Mondes, Nov. 11th, 1880.)[135]

22. Speculum Metal, for telescope mirrors, is an alloy of copper, tin, and 3 per cent. of arsenic.

23. In America, a paper soaked in a solution of arsenic and other drugs is burnt, and the smoke inhaled for asthma and bronchitis. (Year Book of Pharm., 1873, p. 345.)

24. Traces occur in mineral waters.

SULPHIDES OF ARSENIC.

Orpiment, As₂S₃, Auripigmentum, or King’s Yellow, trisulphide of arsenic, obtained by precipitating a solution of arsenic with sulphuretted hydrogen, is a yellow inodorous powder, insoluble in water and in hydrochloric acid, but slowly oxidizing in air to arsenious acid, and therefore poisonous. It is found native. By heat it melts to a reddish liquid: if air be excluded, it volatilizes at about 700° C., and condenses unchanged: if air be present, it is oxidized to sulphur dioxide and arsenic trioxide, which condenses in the crystals before-mentioned. It is soluble in alkalies and their carbonates, and reprecipitated by hydrochloric acid. Commercial “King’s Yellow,” formerly used as a pigment, but now replaced by Chromate of lead, is a very poisonous mixture[382] of As₂ O₃ and As₂ S₃. It is sometimes employed in printing indigo. A mixture of orpiment, water and lime is used in the East as “Rasma” (see page 320) for a depilatory. In a corpse, by putrefaction, the arsenic is frequently converted into sulphide.

Realgar, the disulphide, As₂ S₂, is red, exists as a mineral, and is also made artificially for fireworks. It contains about 75 per cent. of arsenic, but varies. Formerly it was used as a pigment, and in tanning to remove hair.

These sulphides have rarely been used for criminal purposes. Orpiment was employed by Mary Ann Burdock, 1833.[136] Being insoluble, they would only be absorbed after oxidation into As₂ O₃. Ossikovszky (J. Pract. Chem. 2, xxii., 323) finds that this change happens rapidly in contact with organic bodies. But the opposite change, by putrefaction and development of sulphuretted hydrogen, of As₂ O₃ into As₂ S₃, is far more likely and frequent.

ARSENIC ACID

is obtained by oxidizing As₂ O₃ by nitric acid. It is a white deliquescent solid, inodorous, very soluble in water to a syrupy solution, which is corrosive, strongly acid and metallic in taste. By heat it first gives the pentoxide, As₂ O₅, then it [383]breaks up into As₂ O₃ and oxygen, finally completely volatilizing. It is said to be less poisonous than As₂ O₃. (Wöhler and Frehrichs, Ann. Chem. Pharm., lxv., 335.)

The arsenates are very like the phosphates. Like them they give with acid molybdate solution a yellow, with magnesium sulphate a white crystalline, precipitate. But with sulphuretted hydrogen, after acidifying, they give slowly a yellow precipitate of sulphide of arsenic and sulphur; and with silver nitrate a liver brown precipitate of silver arsenate.[137] Sulphurous acid reduces arsenic acid to arsenious.

Sodium arsenate is in the British Pharmacopœia, and is employed in calico printing. A brominated solution of potassium arsenate (strength = 1 per cent. As₂ O₃) is used in Russia for epilepsy. “Pearson’s solution” is 1 grain sodium arsenate to 1 oz. water. “Macquir’s neutral arsenical salt” is a binarsenate of soda. “Papier Moure” consists of paper soaked in solution of potassium arsenate (Tidy).

Fischer (Ber. deutsch. Chem. Gesellschaft, xiii., p. 1778) proposes ferrous chloride as better than sulphurous acid for reducing arsenic acid to arsenious (see process for separation, post).

Arsenic Trichloride, As Cl₃, is a volatile, colourless liquid, very pungent, and fuming in air. It has been discarded from medical use on account of its dangerous properties. A case of poisoning by it is mentioned in Taylor (Med. Juris. 1, p. 278). It is obtained in the process for separation from the organs. Arsenic Triiodide, a dull red crystalline solid, is used in ointments.

Arseniuretted hydrogen, As H₃, is a colourless gas of a garlic odour, almost insoluble in water. It burns with a livid bluish-grey flame, forming water and a white cloud of As₂ O₃. By heating to redness it is decomposed into hydrogen and a deposit of arsenicum (the “mirror”). It is formed whenever hydrogen is evolved in contact with arsenic compounds, hence has caused accidents in making hydrogen from[384] impure zinc. It is probably the most deadly compound of As, and proved fatal to its investigator, Gehlen, and in several other cases.

EXTRACTION AND TESTS.

If arsenic has been given in the solid form, the greater part will remain insoluble, and will be found either in lumps or powder in the stomach, or as a white powder adhering to its lining. Any substance so found should be washed with water and tested for arsenic. It is absurd to say, as Dr. Letheby did in Ann Merritt’s case (ante, p. 366), that the quantity was too small for examination: if a white powder can be seen, it can be tested. In the contents, or in any fluid food, the heaviness of powdered arsenic will cause it to readily separate as a sediment. Soot or indigo, the legal admixtures, should also be sought.

Arsenic is not naturally present in the body (Sonnenschein, Gerichtlich. Chemie, p. 122; and others). As it occurs in soils, in cases of disinterment a portion of the earth surrounding the coffin should be tested.[138]

When absorbed, it may pass into every part of the body, but more especially into the liver and spleen. De Poncy and Livon have supposed that it was capable of replacing phosphorus in the actual brain substance (Comptes Rendus, 23, June 9th, 1879), and that it is mainly localized in the brain. Another author finds it concentrated in the bones. Prof. E.[385] Ludwig of Vienna, in the case of a woman who suffered from making artificial flowers coloured with magenta containing arsenic, found arsenic in the liver, spleen, kidneys, and stomach, but not in the bones or urine (Lond. Med. Record, Dec. 15th, 1877, p. 509). He found also that in human beings as well as dogs poisoned with arsenic, in both acute and chronic cases, the liver contained the largest amount, the kidneys sometimes a considerable quantity, and the bones, brain and urine, only small traces (Jahresb. für Thierchemie, 1879, 85). These results have been discussed by Johnson and Chittenden (American Chem. Journal, 2, 332), who, in a woman poisoned by arsenic, found, a year and a half after burial, over 5 grains of As₂ O₃, almost evenly distributed. The conclusion to be drawn is, that, of the absorbed arsenic, the main part will be in the liver, and the rest in varying proportions in other tissues, so that as much as possible of the whole body should be examined.

As the large quantity of organic matter is in the way of the tests, it has been proposed to get rid of this by different processes. That of Fresenius and V. Babo consists in oxidizing the substances by strong hydrochloric acid and chlorate of potash. There is a great objection to this, as loss is liable to occur from volatilization of arsenic trichloride, unless it is done in a retort, which is practically impossible on account of the bulk and frothing, and the danger of explosion from the oxides of chlorine formed.

The following modification of an old process has been found by the author to be satisfactory. It may be used also for antimony and mercury. Weigh the whole, cut up finely, and grind the matters to a pulp with water, reserving a weighed portion of about one third; render strongly alkaline with potash or soda previously tested for arsenic. Pass in a current of chlorine, stopping before the alkalinity is destroyed. Boil the solution down to a low bulk, not to dryness, till a portion taken out and treated with acetic acid gives no chlorinous odour, showing that the hypochlorite has been completely decomposed. Arsenic trichloride does not escape from[386] alkaline solutions, so there is no loss. Add sufficient pure aqueous sulphurous acid, to reduce the arsenic acid to arsenious. Now transfer to a large retort provided with a tube-funnel and condenser, the end dipping into water in a well-cooled tubulated receiver, itself connected by a tube with a flask containing dilute potash solution. Through the tube-funnel pour in pure concent. sulphuric acid in volume about equal to the liquid, adding it gradually, as there is much heat and effervescence. Mix well by shaking, and distil slowly from a sand bath. In distilling a moderately strong solution of mixed arsenious and antimonious chlorides in concent. hydrochloric acid, I have found that the arsenic all comes over in the first third of the distillate, and that after two-thirds have passed over, the antimony also begins to distil. Hence, in the above process the distillation should not be carried beyond half the volume of the liquid in the retort, when all the arsenic, in whatever form it originally existed, will be found as chloride in the receiver, except a little which may have escaped into the potash. Test a portion of the potash solution by Marsh’s or Reinsch’s process as hereafter described: if any arsenic be present, add the remainder to the liquid in the receiver, taking care that excess of free acid is left. Pass into the distillate washed sulphuretted hydrogen in excess (or add a solution of the gas in water), warm, cover, and allow to stand. (The excess of sulphuretted hydrogen may afterwards be removed by warming and passing in carbonic acid gas.) If any arsenic be present, a yellow precipitate of arsenious sulphide, As₂S₃, will appear; if the precipitate be pale, it will consist mainly of sulphur, formed by the action of the sulphuretted hydrogen on the sulphurous acid which is present. Some organic matters are also generally present. Collect the precipitate on a filter, wash with sulphuretted hydrogen water, dissolve in a dilute solution of ammonium carbonate, and again precipitate with hydrochloric acid. The precipitated arsenious sulphide is now nearly pure: it may be collected on a small filter, washed rapidly, again dissolved in ammonia, the solution received in[387] a porcelain dish, evaporated to a low bulk, transferred to a weighed porcelain boat, and heated cautiously in a current of carbon dioxide to a temperature not above 400° C., sufficient, in fact, just to melt the arsenious sulphide. [Sulphur boils at 446° C., As₂S₃ at 700° C.] Any remaining sulphur is thus removed, and the arsenious sulphide may then be weighed. The weight multiplied by 0·805 gives the amount of arsenic trioxide.

A less preferable way is to collect the arsenious sulphide on a weighed filter, to dry, and dissolve out any sulphur by carbon disulphide. Yet another method is to oxidize by nitric acid, evaporate, precipitate the arsenic acid by a mixture of ammonic chloride, magnesic sulphate, and strong ammonia —“magnesia mixture”) as ammonio-magnesic arsenate, and weigh, either as that salt, or, after ignition, as pyroarsenate of magnesia. The former, dried at 100° C., contains 39·57, the latter 48·29 per cent. of As. Lastly, if the sulphide, oxidized by nitric acid, be alkalized with ammonia, and warmed to 70° or 80° C. with a solution of ammonium molybdate in nitric acid, as used for the ordinary determination of phosphates (see Fresenius, Qual. Anal., p. 54), a yellow precipitate of arsenomolybdate of ammonia appears, which can be weighed: it contains 3·3 per cent. of As (Bull. Soc. Chem., Jan. 7th, 1877).

But where such importance may hang on quantities, the use of weighed filters for such small amounts is simply courting error. When the As₂S₃ has been weighed in the porcelain boat, calculate it into As₂O₃, or into As (it contains 61 per per cent. of As), then cover it with a mixture of pure potassic cyanide and sodium carbonate, place it in a piece of combustion tubing drawn out at the end into a long thin point, pass washed dry carbon dioxide over it, and heat cautiously till all the water is expelled. Finally raise the temperature to full redness, and pass a slow continuous current of the gas, keeping the narrow part of the tube cool with moistened blotting paper. The sulphide will be reduced to As, which will deposit in a metallic coating on the narrow portion. Seal this part, and preserve it as evidence.

[388]

It is obvious that the residue in the retort may be tested for other metals.

The presence of arsenic ascertained, and the quantity known, it would seem as if nothing more was necessary. Still, it is useful to confirm results by the other tests. The reserved portion may now be divided and used as follows:—

MARSH’S TEST.

If hydrogen be evolved in presence of arsenical compounds, it combines with the element to form “arseniuretted hydrogen,” or arsine, AsH₃, a colourless gas of alliaceous odour, extremely poisonous, giving, when passed into silver nitrate solution, a precipitate of silver and a solution of As₂O₃; decomposed at a red heat into As and hydrogen, and burning with a livid flame into As₂O₃ and water. The flame yields, when a cold surface, such as a porcelain crucible-lid or dish, is depressed into it, a steel-grey lustrous stain or ring of metallic arsenic.

To evolve the hydrogen, Marsh originally used zinc and sulphuric acid. As it is so difficult to obtain zinc pure, magnesium has been proposed. But the evolution is then too rapid. Moreover, the reputed “pure” acids of commerce are scarcely ever free from a trace of arsenic. This difficulty affects equally the galvanic method. Hence it is better to employ sodium amalgam (Edmund Davy, Chem. News, xxxiii., 58, and ditto, 94). One part of sodium, scraped free from oxide, is melted under solid paraffin, and gradually added to ten parts of mercury (previously purified by nitric acid) with constant stirring, the paraffin poured off, and the amalgam cleaned by washing with pure dry benzine. The result is a solid crystalline alloy.

A few fragments of this alloy are placed with water in a flask provided with a thistle funnel, and with a delivery tube dipping into a 4 per cent. solution of silver nitrate. The horizontal part of the delivery tube is heated to just below redness by a lamp, meanwhile being supported to prevent its bending. If, after about an hour, no As ring appears in the[389] tube, and if the silver nitrate, after precipitation of the silver by hydrochloric acid and filtration, gives no arsenious sulphide on addition of sulphuretted hydrogen, the amalgam is pure. Now add to the flask the suspected liquid, put in more amalgam, and continue the heating of the tube and passing of the hydrogen till no further evolution of As occurs. The portion of tube containing the deposit of As may be cut off, weighed, the As dissolved off by aqua regia, and the tube washed, dried, and weighed again. The silver nitrate solution contains the remainder of the As dissolved as As₂O₃: after removal of the silver by hydrochloric acid and filtration, the arsenious acid solution may be divided, a portion titrated by iodine (see Blyth’s Pract. Chem., p. 392), and the rest tested qualitatively by sulphuretted hydrogen, ammonio-silver nitrate, and ammonio-cupric sulphate (see these tests, post).

If the original liquid be rendered strongly alkaline before adding the amalgam, no antimony will pass off with the arsenic. But from acid liquids, arsenic and antimony pass off together. They both give metallic rings in the tube, and stains on a cold surface. The chief distinctions between them are as follows:—

1. Arsenic.—More volatile, hence deposited further from the flame; bounded by a “hair brown” fringe of suboxide; heated in a current of sulphuretted hydrogen gives yellow As₂S₃, unchanged by passing dry hydrochloric acid gas: heated in air, it gives easily a sublimate of As₂O₃ in glistening octahedral crystals. It is soluble at once in chloride of lime solution.

2. Antimony.—Less volatile, hence forming close to the flame; no brown fringe; heated in a current of sulphuretted hydrogen, gives orange or black Sb₂S₃, volatilized by passing dry hydrochloric acid; heated in air, it gives a white oxide, volatile with great difficulty, and not generally crystalline. It is insoluble in chloride of lime solution.

By the above process, Edmund Davy has detected one-millionth of a grain of As; ¹/₁₀₀₀ grain gives a very decided [390]effect in a few minutes. It is applicable not only to As₂O₃, but to all other arsenical compounds in powder, whether soluble or insoluble. Organic matter interferes very little.

It must be observed that hydrogen alone may give a slight reduction and precipitate in solutions of silver nitrate.

To prepare pure sulphuric acid and pure zinc, see Selmi, Chem. Soc. Journal, May, 1881, p. 311.

REINSCH’S TEST.

If a fragment of pure copper be boiled with pure hydrochloric acid for ten minutes, no discolouration occurs. If now a solution containing arsenic be added, the copper turns black or grey, from formation of an alloy of copper and arsenicum. On drying the copper, and heating it in a small glass tube closed at one end, the arsenicum is oxidized, with production of crystals of As₂ O₃. Organic matter does not interfere. Antimony, sulphides, and some metals produce a similar grey deposit, but do not yield a crystalline sublimate. Mercury also precipitates on the copper, but the sublimate consists of metallic globules.

Any compound of arsenicum, mixed with dried potassium cyanide and carbonate of soda, introduced into a piece of hard glass tubing drawn to a point, and heated in a slow stream of dry carbon dioxide, gives a deposit, in the narrow portion, of the whole of its arsenic in the metallic form (Fresenius).

As₂ O₃ heated in a tube with dry potassium or sodium acetate gives cacodyl-oxide (Bunsen) of an exceedingly offensive alliaceous odour.

In solution, arsenious acid gives:—

1. With ammonio-silver nitrate (prepared by adding silver nitrate to dilute ammonia till a precipitate just forms) a yellow precipitate of silver arsenite, soluble in ammonia and in nitric acid.

2. With ammonio-cupric sulphate (prepared by similarly treating cupric sulphate), a bright green precipitate of cupric arsenite.

3. With sulphuretted hydrogen a yellow colour (the intensity[391] of this has been proposed as a method of estimating small quantities of arsenic by comparison à la Nessler), but no precipitate till hydrochloric or other acid be added, when yellow arsenious sulphide falls. This is a most delicate test, as arsenious sulphide is only soluble to the extent of one part in one million of water (Fresenius, Quant. Anal. p. 137), and not much more soluble in acids. The precipitate may be weighed, or treated as already mentioned (pp. 386-7). Tin and cadmium solutions also give yellow sulphides, but they are insoluble in ammonia, and do not yield the other tests.

4. Stannous chloride (protochloride of tin) gives a brown deposit of metallic arsenic. With acids containing traces of arsenic it gives a brown colour.

DOSES.

1. Medicinal (British Pharmacopœia).—Acidum arseniosum (As₂ O₃), ¹/₆₀ to ¹/₁₂ grain in solution. Liquor arsenicalis (solution of potassium arsenite), 2 to 8 minims. Liquor arsenicalis hydrochloricus (solution of chloride of arsenic), 2 to 8 minims. Sodæ arsenias (sodium arsenate), ¹/₁₆ to ⅛ grain. Liquor sodæ arseniatis (solution of the preceding), 5 to 10 minims. Ferri arsenias (ferric arsenate), ¹/₁₆ to ½ grain.

2. Poisonous.—Smallest recorded: one grain, (Lancet, Dec. 16th, 1837), two grains, (Provincial Journal, 1848, p. 347); average smallest, 2½ grains. Recoveries have been described after enormous doses, up to 1½ ounce, taken solid and therefore not dissolved, rejected by vomiting or purging, or prevented from irritant action by abundance of food (see a case in the Lancet, Jan. 13th, 1849, when 1oz. was taken with recovery).[139]

Idiosyncrasy may cause smaller doses to be dangerous; on the other hand, habit may cause tolerance of the poison, as already mentioned with regard to arsenic eaters. Nitre is[392] said to increase the poisonous action (Med. Times, 1844, p. 216). Antimony by its prostrating action would have the same effect.

PHYSIOLOGICAL EFFECTS.

The symptoms usually commence in ½ to 1 hour after administration (Taylor), but vary with dose, form, &c. They have also been immediate (case of Lofthouse, York, 1835); in ten minutes (Guy and Ferrier); in ¼ hour (Taylor); in 5, 7, 8, and 10 hours (Med. Gaz. xlvii. 722); in 23 hours (Med. Times, Oct. 21, 1848); in four days (Woodman and Tidy, Forens. Med. p. 134).

As to the character of the symptoms, irritation of the stomach and intestines is the main feature. Burning pain, vomiting and purging, cramps and occasionally tetanus (Orfila, i., 449) occur. Rarely there is insensibility and no pain. Great thirst, constriction of the throat, headache, and finally exhaustion are common. Sometimes epilepsy or paralysis has been caused. The truth is, that every variety of constitutional disturbance may be caused by the violent irritation of the alimentary canal, except that the intellect is rarely affected. In many cases the effects closely resemble those of acute diarrhœa or English Cholera. One anomalous case is on record when death occurred in four hours after sound sleep, and no inflammation of the stomach was found (Lancet, xii., 194). For a detailed list of cases, see Guy and Ferrier’s Forens. Med. p. 457.

Fatal period.—Shortest, twenty minutes (Taylor); average, about twenty-four hours. Death in three to eight hours is common. But the end has been sometimes far more protracted, even to two years (Ibid., Med. Jur. i., 256).

The vomit is usually yellowish (L’Angelier) from bile: occasionally it is tinged with blood; rarely white. If the arsenic has been mixed with soot or indigo, these will affect its colour.

Post Mortem Appearances.—The lining membrane of the stomach and intestines is almost always inflamed and reddened,[393] rarely darker from congestion. White patches, covered with mucus, should be examined for solid arsenic. Perforation, ulceration, and gangrene are rare. In bodies long buried, the arsenic is often converted into sulphide by putrefaction, and then appears as a yellow coating. Occasionally inflammatory appearances are found in the mouth, throat and other organs. Congestion of the brain is uncommon.

Among the effects of chronic poisoning by arsenic may be noted inflammation of the eyelids (conjunctivitis), skin eruptions, irritability of the stomach, jaundice, and local paralysis (for cases see Taylor’s Med. Jur., i. 252).

TREATMENT AND ANTIDOTES.

Vomiting should be encouraged by emetics or tickling the throat; the stomach pump being used if judicious. To obviate the irritation, demulcents such as arrowroot, mucilage, &c., are useful. Albumen (white of egg) has proved serviceable (Lancet, Jan. 13th, 1849). To render the arsenic insoluble, magnesia or chalk may be given. But the best chemical antidote is hydrated ferric oxide, freshly prepared by precipitating ferric chloride or tinct. ferri sesquichlor. with carbonate of soda (washing soda), or by similarly precipitating ferrous sulphate (copperas), and then shaking the mixture with air till it turns red, or by the following formula:—

(Hoglan, Year Book of Pharm. 1881, p. 211).

M. Lucas of Beauvais has stated, that in nine cases of arsenical poisoning, calcined magnesia arrested the symptoms and eventually removed the effects (J. Chim. Medi. 1850).

REMARKS.

Arsenic has been given in pessaries by the vagina, in ointment for skin diseases and by “cancer doctors,” also[394] inhaled as vapour for asthma, in each case with dangerous result.

The frequent occurrence of this poison in common articles of use gives an opportunity to the defence which has led to analyses of multitudes of articles—wall-papers, clothing, cooking vessels, &c. It may be positively affirmed that if white arsenic in the solid state be found in the stomach, it could not have come from any of these sources. The trace that could be derived from wall-papers would be infinitesimal. The tests for arsenic are almost inconveniently delicate, so that the slightest impurity of the reagents will make it appear to be present. Reichardt (Archiv. der Pharm., xiv. 1-23), states that ¹/₁₀₀₀ milligramme of As₂O₃ evolved as arseniuretted hydrogen will precipitate silver nitrate, and that by this means he has found it in the urine of patients suffering from arsenical wall-papers. The effect of such papers is certainly pernicious, though it may be mentioned that in Silesia mortar is made with arsenical sand, and people living in houses thus built do not suffer (Lancet, 1849, April 7th). On the whole it may be concluded that in a trial, traces of arsenic will not be sufficient, a tangible quantity found and weighed will be the only sufficient evidence of poisoning by the mouth.

To illustrate the value of a knowledge of chemistry to a medical man in such cases the following may be quoted. A child of ten was supposed to have eaten a quantity of meal mixed with arsenic for rats. An emetic of sulphate of zinc was given: the first vomit gave with ammon. sulphate of copper a bright green, with ammon. nitrate of silver, a yellow precipitate, thus establishing that the poison was arsenic. Emetics and diluents were continued, then albumen was given. Some hydrated ferric oxide was hurriedly made from common green vitriol (ferrous sulphate) and ammonia: the washed precipitate was administered in successive teaspoonfuls. Recovery on the third day. In the vomit 10 grains of white arsenic were found. (Lancet, 1849, p. 311.)

The following is a curious form of attempted poisoning. A person lately presented this prescription in Paris:[395] “Decoct. barley, 8 oz.; hydroch. acid, 1 drachm; arsenious acid, 10 grains.” The signature of a physician was appended, but, on suspicion being aroused, was found to be a forgery.

In Ann Merritt’s case, Dr. Letheby stated that arsenic had been taken not more than two or three hours (afterwards he said four) before death, because he found undigested gruel in the stomach, containing arsenic in solution, and because the intestines contained very little arsenic. This conclusion was considered by weighty authorities to be rash, and probably wrong, because:—

1. He found 2 grains (a poisonous dose) in the liver. This could hardly have got there within so short a time.

2. In a stomach irritated by arsenic or disease, food may remain undigested for seven, eight, or more hours.

8. A previous dose of arsenic, adherent to the coats of the stomach, might be dissolved by an influx of warm gruel.

4. The portion in the intestines might have been evacuated by purging.

5. The “pinkish liquid” described by the surgeon who performed the post-mortem, pointed to admixture with blood, therefore to inflammation of some standing, and certainly did not tally with Dr. Letheby’s description of “gruel.”

With reference to the alleged administration of arsenic in cocoa in Madeline Smith’s case, the following details will be illustrative.

100 grains of white arsenic were found to be a small teaspoonful, not heaped. This quantity was mixed with two teaspoonfuls of Epps’s cocoa. The colour was rendered lighter, but still looked natural. On making up with boiling water and milk, as directed, a cup of cocoa was obtained, in which neither appearance, taste, nor smell, betrayed anything unusual. On standing the milk rapidly curdled, and the arsenic deposited, but this would not be seen in an opaque cup. With arrowroot or gruel a similar result was obtained.[140]

[396]

It has been stated that arsenic trioxide volatilizes with the vapour of water. I have not found this to be the case to any appreciable extent, but it does volatilize slowly at 100° C., and still more at 120°. About ½ gramme of As₂ O₃ lost, after six hours on the water-bath, 3 per cent. of its weight; after six hours at 120° C. it lost six per cent. When chlorides are present, as in the body, it is still more liable to volatilization as arsenic trichloride. Hence matters containing it cannot be boiled down or dried without danger of loss, unless previously rendered alkaline.

R. Otto has stated that ordinary sulphuretted hydrogen may contain arsenic from the sulphate of iron used. He proposes to prepare the gas by the action of pure hydrochloric acid on pure calcium sulphide obtained by roasting gypsum with charcoal (Ber. Chem. Ges. xii. 250). I have tested water into which sulphuretted hydrogen has been repeatedly passed, and have found no arsenic: if really present in the gas, the As H₃ is not absorbed in the liquid.

CHAPTER VIII.

POISONING BY ANTIMONY.

The cases under this head are very numerous, and, therefore, difficult of selection. I have given, as the leading cases, full reports, (1), of that of Dr. Pritchard, of Glasgow, tried in the High Court of Justiciary, in July, 1865, for the poisoning of his wife by repeated small doses of antimony, and his mother-in-law by antimony and aconite; (2), of that of Dr. Smethurst (the Richmond poisoning case), tried for the poisoning of his mistress by small doses of antimony and arsenic, at the Central Criminal Court, August 15th, 1859[141]; (3), I have added a report of the Liverpool poisoning case—that of Thomas Waislow, for the poisoning of Ann James, by antimony, tried at Liverpool, August 20th, 1860.

TRIAL OF DR. PRITCHARD.[142]

Before The Lord Justice Clerk (Right Hon. John Inglis), Lord Ardmillan, and Lord Jerviswoode, at the High Court of Justiciary, Edinburgh, July, 1865.

For the Prosecution: The Solicitor-General (now Lord Young), Mr. Gifford, and Mr. Chrichton.

For the Defence: Mr. Rutherford Clark, Mr. Watson, and Mr. Brand.

By the first count of the indictment the prisoner was charged with the murder of his mother-in-law, Mrs. Taylor,[398] by administering to her, between the 10th and 25th of February, 1865, in Battley’s sedative solution, tapioca, porter, or some other medicine or food, to the prosecutor, unknown, tartarised antimony, aconite, and opium, or one or more of them. In the second count he was charged with the murder of his wife by administering the like poisons, or one or more of them, between the 22nd day of December, 1864, and the 25th of March, 1865, in egg flip, cheese, porter, beer, or wine, or some other articles of food, to the prosecutor, unknown. To the relevancy of the indictment several objections were taken, but overruled, and the prisoner pleaded “Not Guilty.”

THE HISTORY OF THE CASE.

Edward William Pritchard, a native of England, and member of the Royal College of Surgeons since 1846, before he came to Glasgow, had been a traveller in the Polar and Pacific Seas, and in the countries bordering the Mediterranean, and first set up in practice at Filey, in Yorkshire, where he married the daughter of a Glasgow silk merchant, by whom he had a family. In consequence of this connection, about 1859 he removed to Glasgow, where, from his writings on several diseases, he became favourably known as a person of superior attainments, and gradually obtained a fair practice. Whilst thus apparently in the enjoyment of popularity and success, he, in 1863, became the subject of much adverse report, from the suspicious circumstances attending a fire in his house, by which a maid servant was killed—the Insurance Company refusing to pay his claim, and the doctor not taking legal steps to enforce its recovery. The ugly rumours about this affair, however, gradually subsided, and his social and professional position was retained, until the sudden death of his mother-in-law, whilst staying in his house to nurse his sick wife, was quickly followed by that of the wife herself. As the mother-in-law was 70 years of age, the statement that she had died of apoplexy was at first accepted. When, however, the death of the wife so quickly followed, suspicion was[399] excited, inquiries were instituted by the police, and on the 21st of March, 1865, Dr. Pritchard was arrested on the charge of poisoning her. A post-mortem examination of her remains had proved that her death had not been due to natural causes, and a subsequent examination of the body of his mother-in-law, exhumed for the purpose, led to the same result in her case. Chemical analyzations of the interior portions of both bodies disclosed in that of the wife the presence of antimony in sufficient quantities to account for her death; and in that of the mother-in-law to reduce the powers of her constitution so far as to increase and facilitate the effects of a narcotic poison.

THE SYMPTOMS.

The details of the progress of the lingering illness of Mrs. Pritchard until her death, and of the sudden seizure of Mrs. Taylor with what proved to be a fatal attack apparently of apoplexy, were given in great minuteness by several non-professional witnesses, servants in the house at the time, pupils of Dr. Pritchard’s, and a girl whom Dr. Pritchard had seduced and promised to marry when his wife died.

Up to October, 1864, Mrs. Pritchard, never apparently a very strong woman, had been in her usual state of health. Towards the end of that month, however, she began to look pale and lose her strength from frequent vomitings, and had to keep her bed, as she believed, from a severe cold, for four or five days. About this time, on her temporary recovery, she went on a visit to her parents in Edinburgh, and there gradually recovered, returning home about Christmas in her former state of health. After a week or so the vomiting returned, and on the 1st of February, 1865, she had a severe attack of cramp. Some few days after, as the prisoner said, Dr. Cowan, a relative, saw her, and prescribed small doses of champagne as a stimulant. However, the vomiting returned, and about midnight on the 8th she was seized with such a violent attack of cramp that, at her request, Dr. Gairdner was called in, who at once stopped all stimulants.[400] Dr. Pritchard told every one that his wife was suffering from gastric fever. Dr. Gairdner, however, could not find any feverish symptoms, and based his advice on their absence, confessing himself “puzzled with the case.” On the 10th Mrs. Taylor, her mother, came from Edinburgh to nurse her daughter. She was a hale, hearty woman, though 70 years of age, but at times affected with severe headaches, as a remedy for which she had been accustomed for some years to have recourse to Battley’s sedative solution. On the 13th, at her suggestion, some tapioca was bought, brought into the house, and left for some time on the lobby table. Of this, afterwards, a cupful was made, and fetched by Mary McLeod, the younger servant, and by her carried up to her mistress’s bedroom. Whether Mrs. Pritchard partook of this or not was not known, but Mrs. Taylor ate a portion of it, and the cook tasted it before it left the kitchen. Both Mrs. Taylor and the cook were violently sick after taking the tapioca, the old lady saying that she feared she was suffering from the same complaint as her daughter. The tapioca had not been tampered with when purchased, but when the remainder of it was analysed it was found to be charged with nearly five grains of tartarised antimony. On the 16th the old cook left, and Mary Patterson came. She found her mistress suffering from continual vomits, and gradually getting weaker—as Mrs. Taylor said, “one day better, and two days worse.” For the next twelve days this state continued, and then a dreadful scene occurred. Mrs. Taylor, who, whilst at Dr. Pritchard’s, had sent for a bottle of Battley’s solution, was violently sick in the evening of the 24th of February, and about nine on that night rang the bell violently, and was found by the servant vainly endeavouring to vomit and asking for hot water to assist her. By the prisoner’s orders this was twice brought, and when on the second occasion Mary Patterson entered the room Mrs. Taylor was sitting in her chair with her head down, apparently insensible, and with her eyes closed. She was lifted into bed, and died in about three hours. Whilst dressing her corpse a bottle, about two-thirds full of Battley’s[401] solution, was found in her pocket, and identified as that which she had last purchased. That this also was pure and free from poison when sold was clearly proved. When, however, it was analysed, it was found to be charged with antimony and aconite. Dr. Pritchard declared that she had died of apoplexy following on paralysis; but Dr. Paterson, who had been called in at the last moment, distinctly declared that there were no such symptoms. An attempt was made by the prisoner to get Dr. Paterson to give the usual certificate of the cause of death, and on his indignant refusal, the prisoner himself filled up the form with the words, “Paralysis for twelve hours, followed by apoplexy,” and the first victim was buried.[143]

Mrs. Pritchard still lingered. She had been sick on the day before her mother’s death, but not for two or three days afterwards. Then, however, the attacks returned, coming on, as before, within an hour or two after her meals, which were uniformly sent to her by her husband—generally by the hands of McLeod. It was during the last three weeks of her miserable existence, that on one occasion he sent to her from the supper table a small bit of cheese, which McLeod tasted at Mrs. Pritchard’s request, when it gave her a burning sensation in the throat, and made her thirsty. At another time he sent her a jug of camomile tea, after taking a wine-glass of which, from time to time, as ordered, she uniformly vomited. At another time, he had some egg-flip prepared for her in the kitchen, and brought down the pieces of sugar for it, taking them, as the witness believed, into his consulting room, where he kept his drugs and poisons, before he put them into the glass. Patterson, who tasted it, was struck with the taste, and Mrs. Pritchard, who drank it, was sick very soon after, and in the following night. In the week in which Mrs. Pritchard died she drank some port wine which Dr. Pritchard had sent up, and again was sick. On the 17th of March, the day before she died, Patterson, who had gone[402] up to her bedroom to speak about some linen, found Dr. Pritchard handing his wife a glass of porter, which she drank. At that time Mrs. Pritchard was in her senses. About five o’clock the bell rang violently. McLeod called Patterson to come up at once. She did so, and found her mistress raving about her mother, and calling on them to leave her and assist Mrs. Taylor; her hands severely cramped—speaking wildly about her children. After her hands had been rubbed, Mrs. Pritchard seemed to get more calm, and Mary Patterson left, having handed the patient’s supper to her husband. Until about half-past one the next morning Patterson heard nothing. Then she was called up by McLeod to get a mustard poultice, which the latter took up to the bedroom, and in a few minutes after the bell again rang violently. She hurried up, and found the prisoner in bed by his wife’s side. Her mistress was dead. The long agony of months was at an end.

EVIDENCE OF THE MEDICAL ATTENDANTS.

Dr. James Moffat Cowan, her second cousin, in consequence of a letter from the prisoner, saw Mrs. Pritchard on the 7th and 8th of February. She was then in the drawing-room, and complained of great irritability of the stomach, combined with an inability to keep down her food, and vomiting for some time back. He visited her rather as an old friend than as a professional man, recommended her to go to bed, and advised small quantities of champagne with ice to be taken at intervals, and as she expressed a desire for food, recommended her husband to try injections of beef tea. She was seized with vomiting during the evening, but when he saw her before he left on the following day, seemed better, and he never saw her again alive. He spoke to the apparent happiness in which she lived with her husband, and to the fact that, after her death Dr. Pritchard, to enable the servants to take a last look at their mistress, had the coffin opened. Mrs. Taylor, with whom he was intimately acquainted, Dr. Cowan described as a person of very temperate habits.

[403]

Dr. William Tennent Gairdner, who was sent for during the night between the 8th and 9th of February, immediately after Dr. Cowan left, was told by the prisoner that for some time his wife had suffered from sickness and spasms, and that Dr. Cowan had recommended stimulants, and that she had had champagne and chloroform.

“I found her,” said the witness, “in bed, lying on her back, with a considerably flushed face, and in a state of pretty considerable excitement. She told me of Dr. Cowan’s previous visit and of her wish that I should be sent for, and we had a good deal of general conversation about her symptoms. I found her to a certain extent exhausted, but by no means extremely so. She had a pretty good pulse. There was nothing in her symptoms to indicate immediate danger, and the most remarkable thing about her symptoms was the violent state of mental excitement she was in and the spasms of the hands. She held her hands outside the bedclothes above her head, and I saw that the wrists were turned in, and the thumbs somewhat inverted towards the wrists—a very peculiar state of the hand. I thought she was intoxicated from the combination of champagne and chloroform. When I turned to the fire to warm my hands before feeling her, she called me very unfeeling, and begged me not to leave her, using expressions for which I thought she was not responsible, from her temporary intoxication. I then examined her belly, and asked particularly if there was any chance of her being pregnant,—that being a frequent cause of vomitings,—and found there was none; and, after various inquiries, feeling her pulse and her skin, spoke strongly against the use of stimulants, which I ordered to be at once discontinued until I saw her again. Next day when I saw her, she assured me that she felt better and had had no return of the vomiting, but had still the remains of the spasms in her hands. I repeated my injunctions of no stimulants or medicine, and that her only food should be a plain boiled egg and bread and milk—that is, nothing that could produce sickness or sit heavy on her stomach. I told her that if her stomach had fair play it would digest the simple food I indicated. I was very much puzzled as to what was the matter with her, and, had I been attending her as a general practitioner, should probably have seen her once or twice a day; but there was a doctor in the house, and my habit is to act as a consulting physician, and not as a general practitioner. I had to leave town for a distant engagement, but before I left I wrote to[404] Dr. Pritchard to inquire how his wife was, and received the reply that she was better. I wrote also to her brother, Mr. Michael Taylor, as I was very much puzzled with the case, and asked to be backed up by him in forbidding the use of stimulants. On my return Dr. Pritchard called, and left word that his wife was better, and that I need not call again. I do not think that there was any fever at all.”

In his cross-examination Mr. Clark, in consequence of Dr. Pritchard having said to the witness that it was a case of catalepsy, elicited that Dr. Pritchard was somewhat careless in his nomenclature of disease—“that he spoke occasionally a little at random, and was not a model of wisdom, accuracy, and caution, in applying names to things;” and that, in writing to her brother—who had been a fellow-student with him—“he had not indicated to him that there had been any foul play, but nothing more than improper treatment.”

Dr. James Paterson, who gave his evidence with an apparently strong feeling against the prisoner, a man of very large experience, living within two hundred yards of Dr. Pritchard’s house, had been called in a little before eleven on the night of the 24th of February, to see the mother-in-law.

At this visit Dr. Paterson’s attention was forcibly attracted to the appearances presented by Mrs. Pritchard.

“She seemed,” said the witness, “exceedingly weak and exhausted. Her features were sharp or thin, with a high hectic flush on her cheeks, and her voice was very weak and peculiar—in fact, very much resembling a person verging into the collapsed stage of cholera. The expression of her countenance conveyed to me the idea of a kind of silly or semi-imbecile person at the time. At first I was inclined to attribute her appearance to the recent severe attack of gastric fever, which I was told by the prisoner she had had, and her symptoms aggravated, of course, by the great consternation and grief not unnaturally caused by the sudden and alarming condition of her mother. At the same time I must say that I could not banish from my mind the idea, or rather conviction, that her symptoms betokened that she was under the depressing influence of antimony—that conviction came upon me while in her presence, and I could not get quit of it. I did not put a single question to her.”

At half-past eleven Dr. Paterson went home, and about one the next morning he was sent for again, but refused to go, as he was certain he could do nothing, but sent word that he would do so if Dr. Pritchard thought he could be of any use. No answer came, and it was not until the Saturday morning that he heard of Mrs. Taylor’s death, when her husband called on him to ask him to certify the cause of death, and the duration of her disease. This he refused, telling Mr. Taylor that that document was not given to friends of the[407] deceased, but only to the Registrar. Soon after Dr. Paterson received from the Registrar the usual form to fill up, which he returned at once in blank as it came, with this note:—“Dear Sir,—I am surprised that I am called on to certify the cause of death in this case. I only saw the person for a few minutes a very short period before her death. She seemed to be under some narcotic; but Dr. Pritchard, who was present from the first moment of the illness until death occurred, and which happened in his own house, may certify the cause. The death was certainly sudden, unexpected, and to me mysterious.” The words “the cause of death” he rendered emphatic by underlining them. That was the only communication which he made to anyone, beyond speaking about it in his own family. The certificate was eventually given by Dr. Pritchard, assigning as the cause of death “paralysis for twelve hours as the primary cause, and the secondary, apoplexy,” the duration of which had been one hour.[145]

On the 1st of March he met Pritchard accidentally, who asked him to come and see his wife, which he did the next day.[146]

From then until the day before her death the witness did not see Mrs. Pritchard. On the 5th of March Dr. Pritchard had called on him, and reported that his wife was better for his advice, but still very weakly, and her stomach irritable, and had been strongly advised by Dr. Paterson to continue the treatment he had recommended.

“On Friday evening,” continued the witness, “Dr. Pritchard called upon me personally and requested me to come and see his wife. I did so. She was in bed in a sitting posture, supported by pillows, and I was very much struck with her terribly altered appearance. She seemed quite conscious. I went up to her bedside and she caught my hand, and I could see a half-smile of recognition on her countenance. She very soon began to mutter[409] something about her having been vomiting. Dr. Pritchard was standing beside me, and he volunteered to say that she had not been vomiting—that she was raving. She complained of great thirst, and Pritchard poured some water out of a carafe into a tumbler and gave it her, and she drank it. I observed her countenance very much changed from what it had been when I saw her last. Her cheeks were hollow, sharp, pinched-looking, and still very much flushed. There was a peculiarly wild expression: the eyes were of a fiery red and sunk-looking. Her pulse was very weak and exceedingly rapid. Her tongue was a darkish brown colour, very foul; and she immediately began to grasp with her hand as if to catch some imaginary object on the bedclothes. She muttered something about the clock, but there was none in the room. I expressed my surprise at the great change and alarming appearances, and asked Pritchard how long she had been confined to bed since I saw her. He said only since morning, that yesterday and yesterday afternoon she was in the drawing room amusing herself with the children. I again expressed my surprise at her alarming condition. He said she had not slept for four or five nights, and I replied that we must endeavour to procure some refreshing sleep. We went downstairs, and I then prescribed 30 drops of solution of morphia, 30 drops of ipecacuanha wine, 10 drops of chlorodyne, and an ounce of cinnamon water, to be taken every four hours if the first dose did not give relief. Pritchard wrote the prescription at my dictation. I said it was unnecessary; it was simple, and he might mix it himself. I was anxious to save time, and give relief as soon as possible. He said he kept no medicines but chloroform and Battley’s solution; he did not keep a small stock for any emergency, which I thought strange.[147] I then left the house, and at one o’clock the next morning a message came that Mrs. Pritchard was dying, and in less than three minutes after another that she was dead. I never entered Dr. Pritchard’s house except on the occasions I have mentioned. I never told him that I thought his wife had taken too much wine, and I never recommended Dublin stout for her.”[148]

[410]

The cross-examination of Dr. Paterson was confined to two points, the grounds on which he held that Mrs. Taylor had not the appearance of having been in the habit of using opium, and his conduct in not disclosing to some member of her family the impression he had formed that Mrs. Pritchard was being slowly poisoned by antimony. “When a person is in the habit of taking opium to a great extent,” he said, “you generally find that they are not very good in colour. They are generally thin in features and hollow about the eyes—in fact, not of a healthy appearance. Mrs. Taylor being stout and healthy-looking, my impression was that she was not an habitual consumer of opium, though she might take it occasionally as medicine.” On the second point he stood on professional etiquette as a consulting physician, and not the regular medical attendant, insisting that he had no right to revisit his patient unless sent for, and saying that he believed he should never have been called in the second time had he not accidentally met Dr. Pritchard in the street.

“His first impression arose simply from seeing Mrs. Pritchard at the time of her mother’s fatal seizure, when he formed his diagnosis from the symptoms that were present, just as he was in the habit of forming his opinion of any patient he saw for the first time—judging from symptomatology, the science of the signs of disease. It was not his duty to interfere in the family without being invited, as there was another doctor in the house, and he did the best he could by apprising the registrar when refusing to sign the certificate of Mrs. Taylor’s death. Had he been called in consultation with another medical man, he should have felt it his duty to state his medical opinion; and had there been a post-mortem examination of Mrs. Taylor’s body at the time, he believed that in all probability the drugging of Mrs. Pritchard with antimony would have gone no further, at least at that time.”

When called in the second time on the 2nd of March, he said:—

“I believed her to be suffering under poisoning by antimony,” [411] and I prescribed accordingly. I saw her alone, but I did not give her any indication of what I thought her ailment. I did not mention antimony or poison in the slightest. I did not give her any idea that she was labouring under any but a natural disease, because the treatment which I prescribed for her, provided she got nothing else, was in my mind quite sufficient to have very soon brought her round, taking it for granted that my advice was carefully walked up to. I did not mention to Dr. Pritchard that his wife was being poisoned by antimony. It would not have been a very safe matter to have done so. I did not go back the next day to see if my advice had been acted on. I did not consider that she was my patient at all. I had no right or title to go back and see her. In any case where a consultation is held, the consulting physician has no right to go back to see the patient; it would be a breach of the etiquette of the profession.”[149]

[412]

On re-examination Dr. Paterson stoutly adhered to his opinion that his being called in to see Mrs. Pritchard was purely accidental, and that it would not have been very natural to have communicated his suspicions to the husband.

PURCHASE AND POSSESSION OF MEDICINES AND POISONS BY THE PRISONER.

The prisoner, when it was suggested by Dr. Paterson that he should mix in his own consulting-room the prescription, on the 17th of March, told the doctor that he did not, like other medical men, keep in his house a small stock of medicines for any emergency. It was, however, proved that in the presses in his room were at least five-and-thirty bottles of medicinal preparations, and several papers and bottles of poisons; and that he had been a constant purchaser of poisons, and especially of Fleming’s tincture of aconite and tartarised antimony, from September, 1864, to as late as the 16th of March, 1865.[150] According to the witnesses for the prosecution, the quantities of antimony and tincture of aconite bought by him were largely in excess of the amounts sold to other medical men, though not so according to the experience of two druggists called by the prisoner. Anyhow,[413] as will be seen by the list in the note, the purchases were larger than could have been required in any ordinary practice. Besides the phials and papers subsequently proved to contain poison, in one of the presses was a bottle labelled Battley’s solution, which was found to contain an appreciable quantity of antimony, to the extent of 1·5 of a grain per fluid ounce, and the remainder of the tapioca to be charged with 4·62 grains of antimony to the pound. A phial containing 3·5 grains of tartarised antimony, and three others containing tincture of conium, and six other phials with small portions of tincture of aconite, conium, and digitalis, were found in the prisoner’s cupboard. In the chloroform, no metallic poison was discovered; but in a small wooden box with a screw cover were 15·5 grains of tartarised antimony and arsenious acid (the common poison of arsenic), in nearly equal proportions; 35 grains of tartarised antimony in a pasteboard box, and about ten drops of aqueous solution of corrosive sublimate were found in a quart wine-bottle.[151]

MEDICAL AND CHEMICAL ANALYSES OF THE BODIES OF MRS. TAYLOR AND MRS. PRITCHARD.

Mrs. Taylor.

On the 29th and 30th of March the exhumed body of Mrs. Taylor was medically and chemically examined by Dr. Maclagan, the professor of medical jurisprudence in the university[414] of Edinburgh, and Dr. Henry Duncan Littlejohn, surgeon of the Edinburgh police. In accordance with the admirable practice of the Scotch courts these experts gave in formal certificates “on soul and conscience,” which were read in court before any personal examination was allowed. The medical report, after detailing the healthy condition in which the different portions of the body were found, concluded by stating that the examiners “had not been able to discover in the body any morbid appearances capable of accounting for death, and that they were of opinion that the cause of death could not be determined without chemical analysis, and that for that purpose they had secured the alimentary canal and its contents, the heart and some of the blood, the liver, the kidneys, the bladder and uterus, and a portion of the brain,” which had been entrusted to Dr. Maclagan, of whose report the substance is now given:—

Mrs. Pritchard.

On the 21st of March a similar examination was made of the body of Mrs. Pritchard three days after death by the same medical men, who reported “that it presented no appearances of recent morbid action beyond a certain irritation of the alimentary canal, and nothing at all capable of accounting for death.” They had therefore secured for chemical analysis those parts of the body which they deemed likely to disclose the cause of death. As a portion of this analysis had been conducted during the temporary absence of Dr. Maclagan in London by Dr. Gamgee and Dr. Littlejohn, previously to the report being read they were called to prove that Dr. Maclagan’s report of what they had done in his absence was correct. The[416] following was the substance of the report of the chemical analysis:—

Dr. Maclagan then stated what portions of the bodies he had handed to Professor Penny for further analysis, and described the result of his examination of the solid residue obtained from Mrs. Pritchard’s body by the process adopted by Dr. Gamgee and Dr. Littlejohn.

“I determined the presence of mercury, and found a considerable quantity of antimony remaining in it. I got a clear fluid by operating on that residue with chlorate of potash and hydrochloric acid; and then passing sulphuretted hydrogen, I got a precipitate of a dirty orange colour, which was collected, washed and boiled in strong hydrochloric acid. The yellow colour disappeared, and the precipitate became black. The hydrochloric solution was then mixed with water and tartaric acid, and it gave an orange precipitate which, when collected and weighed, amounted to 0.082, equal on the whole to 1.265 of sulphuret of antimony—rather more than[418] a grain and a quarter—in the whole of the solid residue. This was in addition to what had been found in the intestines after the precipitate had been obtained by Dr. Gamgee and Dr. Littlejohn. A grain and a quarter of sulphuret of antimony is equal to two and a half of tartar emetic; the amount of tartar emetic in the whole of the intestines would be about five grains and three-quarters (5.712).”

In cross-examination, Dr. Maclagan deposed to the discovery of about the three hundredth part of a grain of mercury in the 50 grains of sulphuret; that in some cases he was not content with the mere presence of the deposit on the foil, but boiled the copper foil in potash—namely, with the contents of the intestines and with the liver—but otherwise was content with the coloured deposit.

Dr. Frederick Penny then gave in his reports on the portions of the bodies of Mrs. Taylor and Mrs. Pritchard, given to him by Dr. Maclagan. The following is the substance of the report in Mrs. Pritchard’s case:—

In the case of Mrs. Taylor, Dr. Penny reported:—

“That all the articles submitted to him (liver, stomach, heart, kidney, rectum, blood, and dried contents of intestines), and subjected to analysis, contained antimony; (2), that the contents of the intestines contained the largest proportion of antimony (0.583 parts in 1,000 parts); next, the liver and stomach (0.047 of a grain in 1,000 grains in each); then the blood, and, in less quantity, the heart, kidney, and rectum; (3), that part of the antimony in the contents of the intestines was in a form soluble in water; (4), that the kidney was the only article in which mercury was detected; (5), that neither the stomach, nor the contents of the intestines, contained aconite or morphia in quantity sufficient to be detected by known chemical processes; (6), that the articles subjected to analysis contained no other metallic poison than antimony and mercury as reported above.”

Dr. Penny also handed in his reports of the examination of the contents of the cupboards in Dr. Pritchard’s consulting room, the substance of which has already been given. In the first of these reports, that of the 17th of May, Dr. Penny had stated that he was at present engaged in testing the bottle of Battley’s solution (in which he had discovered antimony) for other substances, the result of which inquiry he now detailed:—

[420]

Dr. Penny then detailed his experiments with pure and impure Battley’s solution on rabbits. Genuine Battley, when injected under the skin, did not kill; 40 grain drops from the bottle found in Mrs. Taylor’s dress did.

The Battley’s solution used by Dr. Penny was not purchased from “Murdoch Brothers,” but he had purchased and analysed some from that house, and it was exactly similar to[422] that which he had used. He had also been present when the same experiments as his were tried on rabbits by Dr. Maclagan, in the presence of Drs. Christison, Gamgee, and Littlejohn, with the same result as in his experiments. Dr. Penny was then examined on Dr. Maclagan’s report of his post-mortem examination of Mrs. Pritchard’s body, and on the symptoms exhibited by her from the time she was taken ill in 1865 down to her death. Replying purely as a chemist, and not as a medical man, he declared them to correspond with the action of tartar emetic or tartarised antimony. He further accounted for the presence of the small portions of mercury by the administration of Dr. Paterson’s powders, Hydrargyrum cum creta, shortly before death. In Mrs. Taylor’s case he considered the vomitings to be the result of the antimony, which had been traced by the analyses, and repeated the conclusions, already given, to his reports on both bodies.

Dr. Maclagan, who was recalled, declared that the whole of the symptoms in Mrs. Pritchard’s case, from Christmas, 1864, until her death—the sickness and vomiting, muscular depression, irritation of the bowels, and cramp in the stomach—were symptoms of poisoning by antimony, and could not, as a medical man, suggest any natural disease to which they were due, that he could assign as the cause of death. He had never seen antimony when rubbed into the skin (referring to the prisoner’s statement that he had done so for a swollen gland in his wife’s neck) produce any constitutional effect. The fact of Mrs. Pritchard some years ago having taken antimony internally for inflammation of the eyelids would not account for the symptoms; and he agreed with Dr. Penny that the traces of mercury were due to the powders prescribed by Dr. Paterson. “There was nothing in the case,” he added, “to indicate to a medical man of ordinary intelligence that she was suffering from gastric fever, or any other fever”; and he adhered to the conclusions already given in his report, that she had been poisoned by minute doses of antimony in the form of tartar emetic given at intervals over a long period of time.

[423]

Dr. Maclagan attributed Mrs. Taylor’s death to something more than antimony—some powerful, depressing poison.

“The symptoms,” he said, “might be produced by aconite—being found with her head fallen on her neck, and hardly observed to breathe, her pulse almost if not absolutely imperceptible, and the dozing, torpid state in which she lay, were such as would result from aconite. Though he might know in a case that aconite had been taken, he might not be able to find it by chemical analysis: these organic poisons—all the alkaloids—are very often not found, though known to have been taken. The administration of opium might diminish the effect of antimony in causing vomiting and purging, but its depressing effect on the muscular system would still remain; and if opium, aconite, and antimony were being administered at the same time, he should anticipate symptoms such as appeared in Mrs. Taylor’s case. Taking the symptoms and the results of the post-mortem examination together, the idea of apoplexy was satisfactorily excluded from his judgment; and assuming the correctness of Dr. Paterson’s description of the symptoms he saw, he should not have concluded that it was apoplexy, nor did he think any other medical man would have. He was satisfied with the presence of aconite in the Battley’s solution, without the experiments on the rabbits, which only confirmed it.”

The cross-examination of this witness was directed to the question whether the symptoms in Mrs. Taylor’s case did not indicate poisoning by opium, probably arising from an overdose of Battley’s solution.

“I saw,” said the witness, “no precise indications of poisoning by opium, though I cannot say that she had not taken some. I think aconite was the leading feature in the final part of the case. The symptoms described by Dr. Paterson did not, in my mind, indicate poisoning by opium or laudanum at all. They were not inconsistent with her having taken opium, but they were not consistent with her having been poisoned by it, and with the ordinary symptoms. The symptoms of aconite predominated. If she had taken opium alone I should have expected to find the pulse full and slow, and probably the breathing laborious and stertorous. Though these were absent, I could not say that she had not taken opium, particularly if she had been accustomed to its use.” When reminded from the judge’s notes that Dr. Paterson had described the breathing as “laborious,” he said, “It does not make much, indeed[424] not any, modification of my view, because the condition of the pulse showed the action of aconite on the heart. Laborious breathing is an indication of many things besides opium.” When reminded that Dr. Paterson spoke of her being in a state of “coma,” he admitted that that generally indicated opium and not aconite, but added that here “it was more oppression than true coma,” and assumed that Dr. Paterson did not use the word scientifically, but as many persons did to describe insensibility. “But,” said Mr. Clark, “you pointed to the absence of ‘coma’ as indicative of poisoning by aconite.” “I spoke of her,” replied Dr. Maclagan, “being in a torpid condition, which I think was connected with the weakened state of the circulation and not from fulness of the brain. Opium, like aconite, is a vegetable poison, and is absorbed into the system: a person may be poisoned by it without any trace remaining in the stomach or the system capable of being detected by chemical analysis. All mineral poisons are more easily detected, but I am not prepared to give into the statement broadly that a person cannot be poisoned by antimony without it being capable of detection, though I cannot recollect such a case. The quantity here found in both cases was considerable. The expectation is that the chemical analysis will detect it, but there may be exceptions. The fact that Mrs. Taylor’s eyes were contracted is an indication of poisoning by opium, but it also occurs in aconite, though the cases vary a good deal in that respect, from people, as I think, having observed the symptoms at different stages; and the probability is that contraction had been produced at first, and then relaxation at the time all the muscular parts became relaxed—namely, at the time of death. Aconite is applied externally in neuralgia.”[152]

Dr. Littlejohn, who was next called, concurred in the opinion that there was nothing to indicate gastric fever in Mrs. Pritchard’s case, and that her death was due to the continuous administration of small doses of antimony from the commencement of her illness to the day of her death, and that the result of the chemical analysis was such as he[425] should, on that supposition, have expected. On the cause of Mrs. Taylor’s death he was not so certain.

“It seemed to me,” said the witness, “that she might have died from a dose of antimony administered shortly before death, or else from some sedative narcotic poison. I have no difficulty in saying that she died of poison, but only as to the particular poison which killed her. I am inclined to believe that the symptoms in her case were mixed to some extent, like the symptoms of narcotic poison, and to some extent like the symptoms of antimony. There was nothing to show that she died of apoplexy, and the post-mortem examination did not indicate any such. In the failure of circulation and great depression and spasms, and the state of insensibility, I recognise the action of antimony; in the later stages of antimonial poisoning we have generally great insensibility. The hot taste in the mouth and burning sensation in the throat after taking the bit of cheese suggest a large dose of antimony, and also suggest a strong dose of narcotic poison—they suggest many things besides cheese. That it caused violent sickness in the case of one of the servants for some hours is quite consistent with antimonial poisoning. In large quantities it would produce a burning sensation in the throat. I have tried it in large quantities, and the secondary sensation is always in the throat, and it did produce a burning sensation. That the egg flip gave the same effect in the case of the servant points to the use of antimony or some substance resembling it. Various other emetics might produce these effects. Egg flip is a convenient medium for administering antimony, as it readily dissolves in it, and sufficient antimony could be dusted on loaf sugar to produce sickness. Sugar is very porous, and antimony, being a white powder, could be dusted over it, and a large quantity absorbed in it—sufficient, not to kill, but to keep up the illness.”

In cross-examination, the witness adhered to his opinion as to the suitableness of egg flip when the hot water had been poured on it, as a medium for antimony, and to the possibility of a sufficient quantity to produce sickness being conveyed into the cup on two pieces of loaf sugar. Though he had not made any special experiments to support this opinion, he considered himself, from his special acquaintance with tartar emetic, entitled to answer in the way he had done. He did not consider opium as a sedative but as a narcotic, and, in[426] his opinion, aconite was a sedative narcotic. There was nothing impossible for Mrs. Taylor to take opium, and for that to contribute to the symptoms.

Dr. Paterson, who was re-called, was quite confirmed in his previous opinion of the cause of Mrs. Pritchard’s death from the evidence he had heard. Mrs. Taylor’s death, he thought, had been caused by opium, but there might have been some other narcotic combined to him unknown, and he thought that aconite and opium combined would contribute to the effect and hurry the termination; but he never in his practice had seen any person poisoned by such a combination. He had not the slightest suspicion of antimony, and the narcotic effect was such when he saw Mrs. Taylor that he did not believe that he could recognise the effect of antimony. The narcotic effect would overpower the other, and laudanum would interfere with the usual effect of antimony. What he called stertorous breathing was rather oppressed breathing—snoring and stertorous breathing were the same thing. “By coma,” he added, “I meant insensibility—it means that, especially insensibility under opium; and my impression was that it was opium alone, or some of its preparations: it might be morphia.” Now that he had heard of the discovery of antimony in the body, he believed the death to be due to a combination of antimony and opium, a smaller dose of the latter being likely to have a greater effect, in consequence of the condition of the body produced by the former. If the opium contained upwards of five per cent. of aconite, the effect, he considered, would be much more rapid and more likely to be fatal.

On the conclusion of the medical testimony witnesses were called to prove that at two banks in Glasgow, where Dr. Pritchard had accounts, these were overdrawn on the 20th of March—that he borrowed to the extent of £255 on his life policy, the last advance being as late as the 13th of May—that his mother-in-law had advanced him £500 towards the purchase of his house, and that under her will he would be entitled, in the event of the previous death of his wife, to the[427] interest on two-thirds of her property for the benefit of his children until they attained twenty-one years, and then “for his own use as he might consider proper.” Letters of Mrs. Taylor and Dr. Pritchard were identified, in one of the latter being an entry under February 7th, “Dr. J. M. C. here; on February 8th Dr. J. M. C. left”—namely, Dr. Cowan.

THE PRISONER’S STATEMENTS.

In accordance with the Scotch practice, two declarations were made by Dr. Pritchard before the sheriff, one on the 22nd of March, and the other on the 21st of April. The first declaration was as follows:—

“I have always attended my wife in all her ailments of every kind during the whole period of our married lives, now fifteen years, and some of these illnesses were very severe; but I never saw her so ill as she was on the occasion which terminated fatally. As far as my judgment goes, her last illness was gastric fever, which commenced about the beginning of the present year. I gave my wife no medicines during her illness excepting wine, champagne, and brandy, to support her strength; and I gave her no medicines at all. I trusted to nature to right itself, with the assistance of these restoratives. During the last six weeks her power of sleeping entirely went away. In order to procure sleep I gave her, at the commencement of her sleeplessness, a small quantity of chloroform, but it entirely disagreed with her, and I discontinued it. I then called in Dr. Gairdner, professor of medicine in the university, and he visited and saw her several times; and he continued to attend her till her old medical friend, Dr. James M. Cowan, returned, and he came from Edinburgh to see her.[153] I then wrote to her mother to come and nurse her, and she arrived about the 11th of February last; and her arrival had a beneficial effect upon Mrs. Pritchard for some time, but still the sleeplessness continued; and shortly after her mother’s death, which happened on the 25th of February, she relapsed and became much worse, and very apprehensive about herself, and she suggested to me the adoption of a[428] medicine with which her mother was very familiar—Battley’s solution of opium—but I declined to give her any without first consulting Dr. J. Paterson, who lived close by. I saw him, and consulted him, but he did not see Mrs. Pritchard on that occasion, and he did not approve of using the solution of opium. He prescribed granulated citrate of magnesia, calomel, mercury, and chalk, and I acted on his advice and administered the medicine, and it seemed to have a beneficial effect.[154] Some time after, finding her sleeplessness still continued, I, at her own suggestion, applied a solution of atropine to the external parts of the eye, and it had a little effect for some time, but the effects soon ceased. After her mother’s death, she became rapidly worse; indeed, I ascribed her decease to the agitation consequent on her mother’s death. At the time of the last event she was strongly impressed with the idea that she would herself die at the same time as her mother; in fact, she did die on a subsequent day at exactly the same hour. On the night preceding her death she was apprehensive that, unless she got sleep, she should not get through the night. I went for Dr. Paterson, who came immediately and sat for a considerable time by the bedside, and afterwards dictated a prescription, which was made up at the Glasgow Apothecary Company’s shop at Elmbank-street. It will be found in my desk at home. It was for two draughts to be given four hours after the first if it did not succeed. She got the first draught as prescribed by Dr. Paterson about ten o’clock, but she said after drinking it that it was not half strong enough, and asked if she might have some of her mother’s medicine. I refused to give it her, and said I dare not do it. I gave her a glass of port wine, and sat carefully watching for a short time. I then went down stairs and had supper, and, after being absent for some time, returned to see if she had got to sleep. I found her awake, and she wished me to give her something to make her sleep. I[429] refused, and she then asked me to come to bed, as I must be tired with the weary nights of watching. It was then about twelve o’clock. I tried to persuade her that I should sit up to watch her till past the time when her mother had died; but to please her I got into bed, and almost immediately I fell asleep from the state of exhaustion I was in; was awoke by her pulling at my beard, and found my wife struggling to get into bed. She appeared to have got out of bed. She said, ‘Edward, I am faint.’ I assisted her into bed, and asked her how long I had been asleep, but she answered, ‘Don’t speak; look! do you see my mother?’ I said ‘No, it is only a vision; only imagination,’ and asked if she felt pain. She said she felt cold, and I need try no more skill; that I had failed this time, and that she was going to her mother. I got alarmed and rang the bell violently, and the youngest servant came. I desired her to make a mustard plaster as quickly as she could, and on that my wife turned round and said, ‘Edward, I’m in my senses; mustard plasters will do no good,’ and almost immediately she fell back in my arms and died. The servant came with the mustard plaster, and found her in that position. I did not give her any other medicine at that time except a little brandy applied to her lips.[155] During the whole course of her illness I never gave her any antimony, nor any medicine in which there was any preparation of antimony. Antimony is a poison, but it is used occasionally to subdue inflammations, and I applied it to her neck, in October last, when she was plagued with a swelling gland in the neck. I rubbed it in externally on that occasion, and I have never given her any antimony since. On that occasion I recommended change of air, and I gave her a little bottle of antimony with her for the same purpose of rubbing in behind the ear. She went to Edinburgh at that time, and she returned to Glasgow very much better, and I have never seen the bottle of antimony since she got it away with her. There was a considerable quantity of antimony in my repositories at the time of my wife’s last illness, as I used it extensively in my practice, and it was kept in a cupboard of which I had the key, but which was not always locked. I did not see any of it brought out, or lying about, during her illness.[430] The cupboard where the antimony was is in the consulting-room on the ground flat, and she was so weak on the day of her death—Saturday—and on the Friday preceding, that I do not think she had strength to have gone to the cupboard herself. My wife took the antimony internally on one occasion when she had a tendency to inflammation of the eyelids. This was years ago, and I never knew her to use it internally, except on this occasion. I never administered antimony to her internally on any occasion, nor any other substance calculated to injure or destroy life.”

In the second declaration, made on the 21st day of April, 1865, he confirmed the correctness of the former one when read to him, denied the charges as laid in the indictment, and elected to make the following voluntary statement with reference to Mrs. Taylor’s death:—

“I never administered poison to her. I did, and I do believe, that she died from paralysis and apoplexy. I have no further statements to make, and by the advice of my agent will make none, with the exception that I am entirely innocent of the charge preferred against me.”

Being asked by the Procurator Fiscal whether he ever administered or caused to be administered to the said Jane Cowan or Taylor tartarised antimony, declares:—

“My agent recommended me to say nothing, and I decline to answer the question, and, as I act under my agent’s advice, it is unnecessary to put any further questions.”

EVIDENCE FOR THE DEFENCE.

With this evidence the prosecution was closed late on the third day, and on the next the defence was opened by calling witnesses on the Prisoner’s behalf.

Dr. Michael Taylor, Mrs. Pritchard’s brother, had seen her on the 28th of February, a few days after his mother’s death, when she objected to Dr. Gairdner again visiting her, and to following her brother’s advice to have a nurse, as she did not like strangers about her. He also identified as her writing two letters from Edinburgh to her husband at the[431] time of her visit to her parents in November, in which she spoke of the slowness of her recovery and her inability to go out, except two or three times.

Mr. Simpson, a partner in Duncan & Co., Chemists, in Edinburgh, remembered Dr. Pritchard, some four years ago, purchasing Battley’s solution at their shop, and that shortly afterwards other purchases of this compound were frequently made in his name by one Thomson, whom he recognised, down to the beginning of 1865. Fairgrieve, another chemist in Edinburgh, spoke to repeated purchases of this compound by or for Mrs. Taylor for several years before her death, once in a 5-oz. bottle, but generally in bottles of 2 oz.[156]

Two other witnesses proved that they consulted Dr. Pritchard for affections of the ear, and that to the first he gave a bottle labelled “poison—2 drops in each ear every night,” and to the other a tonic of glycerine and strychnia; the object being to account for the numerous poisons found in the cupboard in his consulting room.[157] Dr. McHattie proved that there were not the necessary drugs in the cupboard to enable the Prisoner to make up Dr. Paterson’s prescription,[158] and afterwards his eldest son certified that his father and mother lived happily together, and his daughter, who lived chiefly with her grandparents, that they were fond of each other. The evidence for the defence then was closed.

THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL’S SPEECH.

In addressing the jury on the evidence, the counsel for the prosecution drew their especial attention to (1) the fact—not contested and not contestable—that though none of the[432] medicines prescribed by the medical attendants on both of the ladies had contained any preparation of antimony, antimony was found in their bodies—in that of Mrs. Pritchard in such proportions as could only be accounted for by a long continuous administration of that drug—in Mrs. Taylor’s sufficient to so reduce her system as to increase the operation of any narcotic poison; (2) that the notion of this having been taken by accident was excluded even by the prisoner’s own statement, and that the idea of suicide was entirely at variance with the characters of the sufferers, and in the case of the wife with the fact that suicides do not choose “a long, lingering, and painful death;” (3) that the prisoner had in his possession the means of administering poison as well as the opportunities; (4) that in the three cases in which symptoms of antimonial poisoning were felt by those who tasted the cheese, the egg flip, and the tapioca, the prisoner had the opportunities of dealing with these articles of food before they were sent to his wife; (5) that in the remnant of one of them—the tapioca—antimony to a large extent was found; (6) that in a bottle of Battley’s solution found in the pocket of Mrs. Taylor after her death aconite in deadly proportions was detected; and (7) that there was a pecuniary motive, paltry as it might be represented to be, to induce the prisoner to commit both these murders.[159] Who, then, he said, put the antimony into the food? who put that and the aconite into the Battley’s solution?

“Who, then,” continued the Solicitor-General, “was the murderer? For there was a murder—a deliberate, cold-blooded, cruel murder—committed in that house. Who was it? We know the inmates. There were the two students of medicine. I suppose you may lay them aside as having nothing to do with it. Suspicion does not attach to them, neither had they the opportunity. The servants change in the course of the enacting of this dreadful tragedy—all but one. Catherine Lattimer was there until the 13th of February. The poisoning went on after she left—the deaths both occurred after she left. She was not the poisoner, nor was[433] there a breath of suspicion about her. Mary Patterson comes on the 16th of February. The poisoning, indeed, goes on after she comes; but it had commenced long before—weeks before. We, therefore, lay her aside. There was Mary McLeod, a girl under seventeen, the only remaining grown person in the house during the whole course of the administration to which I need refer. I need not take any notice of the children, who were the only other inmates of the house. See, then, to what we have come. There was a murderer in the house—a murderer practising the dreadful art of slow poisoning from the end of December till past the middle of March. The only two grown persons, except the boarders, who were in the house during that time—the only two who had access to the patients—were the prisoner at the bar and Mary McLeod. This is narrowing the case to a very short question. I have excluded every other idea from the case, by fair, legitimate, convincing argument, upon evidence that is not open to dispute. I have excluded the notion of natural death. I have established the fact of death by poison. I have excluded the idea of death by accident, by suicide, by the administration medicinally. You are shut up, therefore, to murderous administration.... I find that the only two who had access to these miserable victims, and had any opportunity to perpetrate the murders with which they are charged, were the prisoner and this one girl. Now, pray, consider, with respect to the wife, upon the question whether or no the prisoner is not the man clearly proved by irresistible evidence to be so, what was the nature of the murder? It was a murder in which you almost detect a doctor’s finger. It is gradual poisoning—poisoning so as not to kill but to weaken; leaving off for a day, and then resuming again—one day better, two days worse. During the whole time the patient exhibited the symptoms of vomiting and purging, the result of the action of antimony. You have that going on for a long time under the very eye of a medical man, the husband of the victim, who was in close attendance upon her. Do you think anybody else—do you think a girl of seventeen could have done that deed? She knew nothing about antimony.[160] If she did not do it, the prisoner must have done it. And what is his case? His case respecting his own wife, who was thus demonstrably being poisoned by inches under his very eye during this long period—what is his case? “I thought it was gastric fever,” he says. Gastric fever! Nobody could have[434] thought it was gastric fever. Nothing like gastric fever in it. Nothing like anything except what it was—slow, cruel poisoning, which brought, in the course of two or three months, this poor woman to the grave, with such an amount of poison in her body.”

Referring, then, to the false statements made by the prisoner in the case of Mrs. Taylor—that she had tumbled off her chair in his consulting room in a fit, and been carried up to bed, when it was proved that she had walked up to her bedroom from his consulting room—had during the evening called to one of the servants to go out and get sausages for supper—had had no tumble or fit, and that the doctor himself knew nothing about her attack till the bell rang violently three times—that hot water had been taken up by the servant to make her vomit—the strange statement to Dr. Paterson before the bottle of “Battley” was found in Mrs. Taylor’s pocket, that she had purchased half-a-pound of it a few days before—the false certificate of her death, “paralysis for twelve hours and apoplexy for one hour,” when there was no paralysis except the paralytic affection caused by the aconite, and that was not before she went upstairs at nine o’clock in the evening, only four hours before her death: then referring to the tapioca purchased entirely for Mrs. Taylor’s use, into which antimony was put by some one; the Solicitor-General said:—

“Keep in view that the method of poisoning alleged against the prisoner here is not the giving a dose that would kill, but the introducing it into the food in such quantities that the taking would not kill, but produce sickness merely—the intention being to produce and continue the sickness for months, the fatal termination then supervening. A poisoner in this way practises the dreadful art successfully, and could not be very apprehensive of even himself or any one else taking the food accidentally, as it would only make them sick. He knows that to produce death it will be necessary to continue it for a long time. Into this tapioca antimony is introduced—sufficient to produce sickness in anybody taking it, but not death. But Mrs. Pritchard does not get this tapioca. It is taken by Mrs. Taylor, and she is seized[435] immediately by symptoms of poisoning by antimony. She is sick in the same way—I think she expressed it—as her daughter was; because the effects were the same. That tapioca was not put away, as it might be required again; and if Mrs. Pritchard had wanted tapioca again, she would have got that, and the poisoning would have been carried on by its means. If anybody else got it, it would be a misfortune, but not much more. And who could have introduced it but the master of the house, who was an adept in such a mode of poisoning.—I do not know how many, if more than one, partook of poisoned food; but some food had been poisoned. I take that for granted, and that it had been taken by one of the boarders, Connell, I think. But that is not presented as part of the case. He was one day more or less sick. The prisoner does not seem to have been alarmed about it—he does not seem to have been alarmed even when he himself was sick upon some occasion in February. He knew very well there was no occasion for alarm, for sickness was the end of it; that it would require a long sickness in order to produce anything like a fatal result.”

Briefly, then, reviewing the points he had made, the Solicitor-General concluded his exhaustive address.

THE DEFENCE.

Mr. Rutherford Clark, in the opening of his speech, urged on the jury that the enormity of the double crime required it “to be proved by evidence strong, clear, overwhelming, that brought home to their minds and consciences, without the slightest suspicion on the testimony, the guilt of the prisoner,” and that “the motives assigned for it were not such as could ever have, in the slightest degree, actuated any human being to the commission of such hideous offences.” Whilst he could not deny that he had the opportunity of committing the crime, he contended “that it went a very short way—indeed no way at all—in even suggesting or indicating his guilt.”

“If,” he said, “you find a case where crime is committed, and where the person charged with committing it has made an opportunity for himself—has been zealous in obtaining opportunities—then[436] opportunity is of the greatest possible importance and the strongest possible evidence; but to say that he has opportunity in this case is nothing more than to say it was likely, as indeed it was true, that the husband who was attending the sick bed of his wife, should carry to her some of her meals, and send up others with her meals. But that he should do so is, I am sure, nothing unnatural—nothing to suggest guilt. It would have been frightfully suggestive of guilt, if, instead of sending up these meals, and taking them up himself, he had always chosen some other agent to carry them up and to administer the food she was taking. If that had been the case, I should have been inclined to say that the Crown would have had a case much more strong to indicate guilt, than they have when, as it is stated here, that he was administering to the comfort of his wife while upon her death-bed.”[161]

On the point that the prisoner was in possession of the means of poisoning, “he was,” he said, “by profession a doctor, and had, no doubt, as most doctors have, considerable quantities of drugs in his possession. Whether he had more than most medical men kept in their houses was a matter of opinion, but it was absurd to suppose that he accumulated these large quantities of most powerful and destructive poisons—a minute dose of many of which would have been fatal—for the purpose of murder.”[162]

[437]

“But,” continued Mr. Clark, “it is not unimportant, in considering this question, and it is very important especially in considering the argument of the Solicitor-General, that these poisons were kept, not in any locked press, but, on the contrary, within the reach of the household. It is a remark I have made, that there was not one of the poisoned articles of food which ever reached the lips of Mrs. Taylor or Mrs. Pritchard without passing through other hands than the prisoner’s, and it is odd enough that, in regard to each of them, the person who administered it and who carried away the food left, is this girl, Mary McLeod. It will not do for the Solicitor-General to say, ‘I have established that one of two persons must have committed these crimes,’ and that you can trace the particular finger of the medical man in connection with them. Probability will never support a conviction. It will not do for him to say, as regards the death of Mrs. Pritchard, that it was the act either of the prisoner or Mary McLeod, and that it was not likely that a girl of under seventeen would have the skill to do it. Do you not think that he shrinks from the onus of proof when he accepts this convenient mode of getting rid of the difficulty, as he must prove that it is one of those two who did it. He must prove by evidence that it was not Mary McLeod or some one else in[438] the house, and it was only by showing that it was not Mary McLeod, that he can bring this charge home, to the prisoner.” [Mr. Clark then noticed that the question was put to Lattimer whether she put anything into the tapioca, but that that question was not put to Mary McLeod.] “It is a singular omission in the case of the Crown, which necessarily depends upon being able to select between those two persons, whom the Solicitor-General stated were the only two who could have committed the murder, that they did not venture to put the question to exclude upon her evidence the fact that she might have been guilty. And this is all the more strong that I shall trace every article of poisoned food immediately through her hands.”[163]

Subsequently he reviewed the evidence as to each of the three poisoned articles of food.

“Let us see,” he said, “about this tapioca:—it was suggested, apparently through Mrs. Taylor, that Mrs. Pritchard would like some. Accordingly some tapioca is brought by a little boy, and it is brought in, and received by Mary McLeod. She says she placed it for some short time on the lobby table. Catherine Lattimer says Mary McLeod took it down to her, but Mary says Mrs. Taylor did. Now the suggestion of the Crown is that the prisoner put antimony in this tapioca, so nicely adjusted to the quantity bought as to produce sickness leading to death, but not so as to produce death itself. It would certainly have been of some importance to have shown that he had any opportunity of administering or putting any poison into it, but it is not proved—there is not a shadow of evidence that he had any opportunity, or to show that he was in the house at the time. He was a man accustomed to exercise an active profession, and, of course, would naturally be out at that period of the day; but at all events it is not shown that he was aware that his wife desired tapioca, or that his mother-in-law had ordered it. It is not even shown that there was the least possibility of his introducing antimony into that bag. It is prepared and carried up by Mary McLeod to her mistress, who declines to take it, and it is taken by Mrs. Taylor, who was taken ill after partaking of it.”

Again, as to the poisoned bit of cheese:—

[439]

“It is spoken to by Mary McLeod. She tells you she had taken up the tray for supper, and that on it was the cheese and other things which were placed on the table at which Dr. Taylor and the other inmates of the house are sitting; that she came out, and that, on returning again, Dr. Pritchard handed to her a piece of cheese to take to her mistress. She did not see him cut off the piece of cheese, but he handed it to her sitting at the table; and it is perfectly obvious it must have been cut off the cheese eaten by the family at supper. If he placed antimony upon it, it must have been in the presence of the persons at supper—a piece of yellow cheese which must have indicated the powder of tartarised antimony, if placed upon it.[164]—It was not asked if it were possible to put this tartarised antimony upon the cheese while sitting at supper. I leave you to judge if it were possible. It was taken up oddly enough—I cannot help noticing the coincidence—by Mary McLeod. She says she ate part of it, and that it did her no harm; but the residue was taken down into the kitchen and eaten by Patterson, and she suffered from vomiting.”

Again, as to the poisoned egg-flip:—

“The doctor comes and tells his servant to prepare some, a thing not unnatural to be taken by a person with a delicate stomach, and for a medical man to order. But it is said this was a plot for Dr. Pritchard to get in his drugs in this way. He supposes that he went through the dining-room and got the sugar, and then into the consulting-room, and then into the pantry, and dropped the pieces of sugar, on which he had put antimony, into the egg. Does he give any proof of this? Does he suggest anything more than suspicion? The Crown seems to have doubted whether he could on the sugar have put in so much antimony as to have produced the effects which the servant girl says she suffered. Dr. Littlejohn thought it possible, but he had never tried the experiment. A possibility at the best—a large possibility—that he could have put in the drug. Was the egg-flip capable of producing the effects which are said to have been caused[440] by it? ‘Barely possible,’ according to Dr. Littlejohn. What is its history: does it pass through his hands? No. It was left by Patterson in the pantry, and Mary McLeod came down for it to the kitchen. She was told it was in the pantry, and she goes up to bring it down again. There, again, you have Mary McLeod intervening in the matter, notwithstanding the dilemma on which the Solicitor-General placed his case: she it is who carries it up to the bedroom, and she it is who administers it to the patient who is suffering there. There is another remarkable thing in this case. The amount of antimony introduced must have been a very powerful dose, because, taking only a teaspoonful of the egg-flip as Patterson did, she lay vomiting and suffering all night. Mrs. Pritchard took a wine-glassful, and vomited for about half an hour afterwards. Surely if a strong woman took only a teaspoonful, and a weak woman a wine-glassful, she would have been destroyed by the poison that had so powerful an effect on the former.”[165]

Again, with reference to the bottle of Battley’s solution found in Mrs. Taylor’s dress after her death, into which it was suggested that the prisoner had put the aconite and antimony discovered in it, said Mr. Clark:—

“He knew, no doubt, that she was taking it, but it is not in the least degree proved that he knew where it was, in what bottle it was, or where Mrs. Taylor kept the bottle. Mary McLeod did know, for she bought it for Mrs. Taylor. But what is the ground of suggestion that aconite had been put into that bottle before Mrs. Taylor had it? All that you have is that Drs. Maclagan and Littlejohn say there was, and that they were contradicted by the person who actually observed its effects. And what became of this bottle? It was found on her person after her death. Is it possible to suppose that he had the means of getting at the bottle before her death to introduce the poison? How could he? It was carried about her person, and there is not the slightest suggestion that he ever had access to it; and yet you are asked to act[441] upon that suggestion, because it is said, ‘You may probably trace the administration of a medical hand.’ No: probabilities are not in this case. It is proof, and proof alone, that we can go on. What was the history of the bottle? It was found in her clothes, no doubt, when the body was being dressed by Patterson and Nabb, and even they did not know the very great quantity, perhaps, that this old lady had taken. But still more, supposing that she should take no aconite, she had taken sufficient of the mixture to account for her death. Assuming that the highest mark on the bottle, as taken by Dr. Paterson, is a correct one, it would come to be not less than 2¾ ounces that had been taken. It was shown that the bottle was put by for some time; but if it was taken away after the murder, that is of very little consequence. If he had put antimony in it, would it not have been very easy for him to have thrown the bottle aside? But instead of that, we have him expressing his surprise to these two women that she had taken such a great quantity. He takes away the bottle, and brings it back again, and there it remains until examined by Dr. Penny, who then finds that it contains some aconite and antimony. But where is the shadow of a proof that he put it there? The bottle was lying open—was not locked up in any way: it remained in the house from the death of Mrs. Taylor till after the prisoner was apprehended, more than a month afterwards. Any person in the house might have access to it, and yet all that can be suggested to prove that the prisoner put in this antimony and aconite before her death was contained in the observation of my learned friend, that you could trace, or that you could probably trace here, the finger of a medical man.”[166]

[442]

The false statement in the certificate of death, Mr. Clark attributed to a desire of sparing the feelings of the husband. He did not justify the morality of the act, but, looking at the circumstances, asked the jury “if there was any degree of guilty knowledge when he asked Dr. Paterson to inform his father-in-law of the cause of death, and he was only forced to take that step by his refusal.” With Dr. Paterson’s manner in the witness-box he naturally dealt in the most severe language of reproof and censure.

“I do not believe,” he said, in concluding his remarks on this witness, “he saw any symptoms of poisoning, or he would have acted as any other medical man would have acted—unselfishly, nobly, and generously in this matter. And when you see that this is inconsistent with the whole conduct of the profession to which he belongs, I ask you to disbelieve many of the statements he makes. You cannot rely on these statements, given with a bias, for he tells you what is incredible, or only credible at the loss of his own honour, which I am sure he will strive studiously to guard. He has become a partisan in this matter altogether, and forgot what is due to his position and his profession. All that can be said of Dr. Paterson is this,—that he speaks about the prisoner, of his mother-in-law, and speaks further about what he said of her falling; yet even after all, this is merely an account of a circumstance given by him some months, or, if you like, a month after the case occurred. And because the prisoner made some statements not exactly consistent with the truth as now disclosed on the evidence, are you to believe, on Dr. Paterson’s statement, and upon his statement only, that these statements were made so as to show guilty knowledge. I can quite understand that after there is proof of administration you may support that proof by evidence of falsehoods which the prisoner may tell, if you have reliable evidence to prove that they were stated. But when you have no evidence of administration of poison, then the evidence is all the other way; then I think you cannot eke out the probabilities of the case by appealing to these probabilities, or to the falsehoods depending on evidence like that here, as showing conclusively, beyond a reasonable doubt, that this prisoner was the[443] person who committed that foul crime upon the person of his mother-in-law.”

Having thus commented on the evidence given for the prosecution on all the leading points of the case, in masterly, if not convincing arguments, in conclusion the prisoner’s counsel dwelt on the admitted terms of affection in which he lived with his wife and children—on the impossibility of believing in his commission of such a cold-blooded murder, on the evidence adduced. “The whole evidence of the Crown,” he said, “hangs upon probability, and can never justify you in believing, in the first place, that he was capable of committing the crime; and, in the second, it is hardly conceivable that anything so unnatural should be committed by such a man.”

THE JUDGE’S CHARGE.

On the fifth day, the Lord Justice Clerk summed up the evidence in this protracted trial with great minuteness, in the course of his charge reading to the jury nearly the whole of the evidence, and meeting the various objections to its relevancy offered by the prisoner’s counsel. There were three points, he said, for their consideration. (1.) Did the two ladies, or either of them, die from poison? (2.) If aye, was that poison administered for the purpose of destroying life? (3.) Was it the prisoner who administered it?

On the first point, after calling their attention in detail to the medical and analytical evidence in the case of Mrs. Pritchard, that she died from slow antimonial poisoning, he said, did not appear to have been contested by the prisoner’s counsel, and, upon the evidence, he did not think it admitted of a doubt. As the evidence showed that it was not from a large dose of antimony taken lately before death that she had died, the idea of accident or mistake was excluded. That it might have arisen from unskilful treatment by the prisoner was negatived by his assertion that he had never administered antimony to her, except once externally in October last, which[444] could have nothing to do with the state in which the intestines were found in March. The idea of suicide by slow poisoning, even if there had been any hint of a suicidal tendency on Mrs. Pritchard’s part, was equally inadmissible: she must, if killed by antimony, have had it administered to her for that purpose. In Mrs. Taylor’s case, into the details of which he fully entered, one was almost forced to the conclusion that her death was brought about by the combined action of aconite, antimony, and opium. As to the idea of accident in her case it was inconsistent with the fact that the Battley’s solution was pure when bought. “Was it then,” he added, “by accident that these two subtle poisons, aconite and antimony, found their way into her medicine-bottle: if not by accident, did she put them there herself, or had she any knowledge of such things as to enable her, if she were willing, so to poison herself by using her own medicine? There was no appearance of that, and the character and conduct of the old lady, her natural condition both of body and mind as you heard it described by the witnesses, is such as not to suggest the idea of suicide in her case as a possibility at all. Consider, then, with reference to both deaths, whether you can arrive at the conclusion, or whether you can resist the conclusion, that the poison by the means of which they were deprived of life was wilfully given to them for the very purpose of destroying life.”

Passing then to the third question, “Was the poison of which these ladies died administered to them by the prisoner?” the Lord Justice Clerk went with great minuteness through the painful details of Mrs. Pritchard’s long and lingering illness, the symptoms which it exhibited, the prisoner’s misrepresentation of it as gastric fever, when the medical men proved that there was no fever in the case, but clear signs of antimonial poisoning, and the various acts of the prisoner during it which were put forward as showing that he had, and that he used, the opportunities his position offered, for the purpose of administering the poison. The interest of this portion of the charge, as well as of that relating to the[445] symptoms and death of Mrs. Taylor, and the prisoner’s conduct in relation to it, depends so entirely on the judge’s method of marshalling the evidence, already reported, that it could not be satisfactorily given except verbatim. Many of the remarks of the learned judge, on these points of the evidence, have already been reported in the notes. It will therefore be sufficient to give, here, his remarks on the question of motive, and on the suggestion of the prisoner’s counsel with regard to Mary McLeod.

“In regard to the matter of motive, I would suggest to you that the motive that his pecuniary difficulties would be relieved by the death of Mrs. Taylor, does not seem to have been made out satisfactorily. You will consider the evidence, but I confess I do not think it worth while to set it before you again. Then, the question comes to be, was there a motive? What is there in the shape of a motive that may be supposed to account for the perpetration of two such horrid crimes? That is the way it was stated, and ably stated, by the prisoner’s counsel. But there are some considerations applicable to that part of the case which I am bound to suggest to you. The absence of motive, in the ordinary sense of the word, is not a very uncommon thing in the experiences of a criminal court. In truth, the existence of any adequate motive for the perpetration of a great crime is a thing impossible. Still there may be what is called an intelligent motive—the existence of some foul passion, or some immediate and strong excitement, which, in a moment of half frenzy, drives a man to the commission of murder. These are all very evident and intelligible incentives to crime. But when we find that, in the opinion of the prisoner’s counsel, there is no motive, it means no more than this, that the motive has not been discovered. There must have been a motive or incentive, and yet we may never discover what it was. You are never in a condition to say that there was no motive, but only that the motive was not discovered; and the motives of human action, we know from history and experience, are often inscrutable. Another motive or incentive has been suggested—the illicit relation between himself and Mary McLeod. This is a very important part of the case undoubtedly, and one to which you are bound to give due attention. The prosecution suggests that the existence of that intercourse was the reason or the desire that led him to get rid of his wife. If that was the incentive, I do not think there will be much difficulty in explaining the incentive to the commission of the[446] other murder; because her presence in the course of the chronic poisoning of his wife would have been a great obstruction and interference with his plans.[167] But it is for you to say whether it is a sufficient motive. It is a fair question for your consideration, and I should desire you to turn your minds to it very seriously; keeping only in mind this view, that even supposing you find it impossible to assign an intelligible motive for the commission of one or both of these murders, the absence of evidence of motive is not sufficient reason for acquitting the prisoner, if you are satisfied from the other evidence in the case that he was guilty. Motive, after all, can but create a presumption one way or another. It is not evidence of the fact of murder, that a man has an obvious motive to commit it; and just as little can the absence of proof of the existence of a motive be a reason for finding the prisoner not guilty, if the evidence of the fact of the murder be satisfactory against him.”

Again, after having shown how no imputation could rest on the servants Lattimer and Patterson, the learned judge thus dealt with the imputation thrown out by the prisoner’s counsel against Mary McLeod:—

“He has said that there was another girl there who stands in a very different position, and that it appears, singularly enough, that whenever an article of food was to be carried to Mrs. Pritchard, Mary McLeod’s is the hand that bears it. In short, if I understand aright his theory, it is Mary McLeod who caused these murders, and he invites you to choose between her and the prisoner, and to pronounce upon a balance of probabilities which of the two it was. This is a very painful position for you to be placed in. If it be necessary that you should decide absolutely between the two it must be done. At the same time the prisoner’s counsel did not seem sufficiently to advert, in considering the point, to the possibility that both might have been implicated, and, if that was so, I suppose we should have little doubt which was the master and which was the servant; and, although the one might be the active hand that administered the poison, if two were concerned, you would have very little doubt who was the actor, and who set on the other. And, in fact, if you should arrive at this conclusion, every article that the prisoner’s counsel alluded to for the purpose of throwing the guilt on Mary[447] McLeod would be an article of evidence to implicate the prisoner at the bar. But I do not desire you to take this theory. On the contrary, I think it quite right that you should consider on the balance of probabilities, as has been very well said, which of the two is the perpetrator of this crime; and in considering this, it is necessary for you to advert to this—that the poison was administered in doses—in doses any one of which was insufficient to kill, but which was quite sufficient, in the agony it produced, and by the gradual reduction of the strength of the patient, at length to lead to a fatal termination. Is it conceivable that a girl of fifteen or sixteen years of age, in the position of a servant maid, could of herself have conceived and executed such a design, within this house, under the eye and subject to the vigilance of the husband of her victim, himself a medical man? That is very hard to believe. On the other hand, if you can suppose that the prisoner was the person who conceived and executed this wicked design, it is not so difficult to believe that Mary McLeod may have been the perfectly unconscious instrument of carrying out his purpose—suspecting nothing, knowing nothing of what was being done, and seeing nothing but great kindness on the part of the prisoner to her mistress, and seeing them dying, not rapidly as in the case of Mrs. Pritchard, and though rapidly in that of Mrs. Taylor, still in a way the prisoner accounted for as a medical man. You may understand easily enough that a girl in the position of Mary McLeod might be made the unconscious means of carrying out these designs, and perfectly innocent on her part. But there is no difficulty in this question. If you are satisfied that murder was committed, somebody did it. Some of them are plainly innocent, and therefore the probability of guilt is reduced to two. Of these two, one or both of them are guilty of this deed.”

Then with a remark on the suggestion of the prisoner’s counsel, that Mrs. Taylor died of an overdose of opium in the Battley’s solution, the learned judge left the case to the jury, who, after about an hour’s deliberation, found the prisoner “Guilty,” and he was sentenced to death.

After his conviction, in the hopes of exciting commiseration, Pritchard drew up a confession implicating Mary McLeod, but the transparent falsehood failing to gain for it any credence, he was induced to put forward a second, and, subsequently, a third and apparently full confession of his[448] guilt. In this last he made the following statements: “I am guilty of the death of my mother-in-law, Mrs. Taylor, and of my wife. I can assign no motive for the conduct which actuated me, beyond a species of ‘terrible madness,’ and the use of ‘ardent spirits.’ I hereby freely and fully state that the confession made on the 11th of this month (implicating McLeod) was not true, and I confess that I alone, and not M. McLeod, poisoned my wife in the way brought out in the evidence at the trial. Mrs. Taylor’s death was caused according to the wording of the indictment and the main facts brought out at my trial. I hereby fully acknowledge and now plead wholly and solely guilty thereto, and may God have mercy on my soul.” He was executed on the 27th of July, at Glasgow, in the sight, it was reported at the time, of nearly one hundred thousand persons.

THE RICHMOND POISONING CASE.[168]

Before The Lord Chief Baron Pollock, at the Central Criminal Court, July 7 and 8, and August 15 to 19, 1859.

For the Prosecution: Mr. Serjeant Ballantine, Mr. Bodkin, Mr. Clerk, and Mr. Mereweather.

For the Defence: Mr. Serjeant Parry and Mr. Giffard.

FIRST TRIAL—July 7 and 8.

Thomas Smethurst, æt. 48, surgeon, was indicted for the wilful murder of Isabella Bankes. The prisoner was a person of small stature and insignificant appearance, with reddish-brown moustaches, probably older than he stated, and, though appearing careworn, maintained great self-possession throughout the proceedings, and especially during the second trial.

[449]

HISTORY OF THE CASE.

Serjeant Ballantine, in stating the case to the jury, said it was alleged that the prisoner took away the life of a fellow creature by poison, and likewise contrived to throw around the means employed to destroy life some more than ordinary difficulties in the way of the detection of the crime; that in order to effect this purpose he had availed himself of the knowledge he possessed, and made use of a slow irritant poison, which he had administered with his own hands, until, by the accumulation of poison and irritation, she died.

The prisoner was represented to be a member of the medical profession: he had considerable knowledge of medicine, and was known as Dr. Smethurst. He was a married man, and had a wife considerably older than himself now living. At the time when he should first refer to Dr. Smethurst, he was living with his wife in a respectable lodging-house in Bayswater. While they were living there, in the autumn of 1858, Miss Isabella Bankes also came there to reside. She was a lady of delicate constitution,[169] and possessed of property under her own control of between £1,700 and £1,800, and a life interest in £5,000, which, at her death, went to other members of her family. The result was that an intimacy sprung up between the parties. In November of that year, the landlady, considering that there was too great intimacy between Miss Bankes and the doctor, spoke to her, and, in consequence, she left the house. On the 9th of December, Miss Bankes and the prisoner went through the form of marriage at Battersea Church, and, two days after, commenced to reside at Richmond. From a letter to his wife found on him when in custody, it was evident that the doctor did not intend this to be a permanent marriage. Until the 28th of January, 1859, nothing was heard of them; then Miss Bankes’s sister Louisa received a letter from her, but[450] not dated from the place where they were living. On the 15th of February, the sister received another letter from her. At that time they were living in Old Palace Gardens, Richmond. Miss Bankes was then in good health, but, about the 28th of March, her illness commenced. On the 3rd of April, Dr. Smethurst determined to have medical advice. The landlady advised Dr. Julius, as he and his partner, Dr. Bird, were the most eminent practitioners in Richmond. They were accordingly called in. The former treated her for diarrhœa, in the usual way, the complaint from which he understood she was suffering, taking his account of her symptoms from Dr. Smethurst. Dr. Julius all through consulted with the prisoner, who took a most active part in the matter, and sometimes pressed upon him the use of various medicines. He, however, was only on two occasions allowed to be alone with his patient. On the 15th of April, on the landlady at Old Palace Gardens asking a few shillings more rent, they removed to Alma Villas—Miss Bankes so weak that she had to be taken in a cab and carried upstairs. Dr. Julius, when he found that his remedies had a contrary effect to what was intended, asked Dr. Bird to see her, but did not mention his own suspicions, though they were very strong. On the 18th of April Dr. Bird saw her, prescribed for her, but with the same result as his partner. At this time she was sinking, and becoming continually weaker. On that day the prisoner wrote a letter to her sister Louisa marked “private and confidential.” It stated that her sister was very ill, and wished to see her: she was to ask for Dr. and Mrs. Smethurst, and not to breathe a word of the contents of the note to anyone. The sister was not at this time aware of the marriage, and had her own views of her sister’s conduct. She went, however, and found her sister in a very feeble state. The deceased said to her, “Oh, don’t say anything about it; it will be all right when I get well, won’t it dear?” turning to Dr. Smethurst, who said, “Yes, it will be all right soon.” Dr. Smethurst showed every kindness and attention to the deceased during her illness, and to the time of her death[451] she treated him with love and affection. Miss Louisa, however, was never allowed to be for a moment alone with her sister. Whilst she was there the prisoner gave the patient a saline draught, and she vomited immediately, and complained of its bad taste. Miss Louisa offered to make some tapioca, but the prisoner objected on the ground that there was not any milk. She then offered to make some arrowroot, but again he objected on the ground that the landlady might not like it. That evening the sister left, and next day wrote to the deceased, to which letter she received the following reply from the prisoner:—“After your departure, dear Bella had a very bad evening and night of it, purely from the excitement of seeing you, and the fatigue consequent thereon. Vomiting and purging set in at a fearful rate, which of course prostrated her greatly. The doctor at once forbade any visitors for the present, or he would not be responsible for the effects attendant thereon.” The prisoner had no doubt made such representations to Dr. Bird as induced him to say that she had better not receive visitors for the present. On subsequent days the sister received other letters from the prisoner postponing her intended visits from time to time; describing her sister’s condition, and mentioning that he had insisted on having a consultation with “Dr. Todd, the first physician of the day, and the two regular attendants who were the first doctors in the place.” One of these letters was dated April 30, but made no mention of his having on that day instructed an attorney in Richmond to draw up a will upon what he said was a draft by a barrister in London, but was really entirely in his own handwriting. On the following day (Sunday) he called on the attorney, and, representing that the case was urgent, induced him to come to the lodging, where the will was formally executed. By this will the whole of her property was left to the prisoner.[170] The consultation[452] with Dr. Todd took place, and he agreed with other medical attendants that the patient was suffering from unfair treatment. The prisoner, however, on the 29th, wrote to the sister that Dr. Todd not only acquiesced in what was being done, but recommended a perseverance of the treatment, with some slight additions of his own. This was not the fact, but the prisoner was not made aware of the suspicions entertained by the medical attendants. They, however, caused the evacuations of the deceased to be tested, and the result was so confirmatory of their views, that they communicated with the police, and the prisoner was arrested. A number of bottles containing drugs and medicines were taken possession of, and on his person was found the following letter to his wife, sealed and stamped for post:—

The case not being, in the opinion of the Richmond magistrates, strong enough to justify his committal, the prisoner was discharged. On the following day, the 3rd of May, Miss Bankes died, a coroner’s inquest was held, and the result was the re-arrest of the prisoner, and his subsequent committal for wilful murder, for which he was put on his trial on the 7th of July.[171]

EVIDENCE OF MEDICAL ATTENDANTS.

Dr. Julius said:—

“He was called in on the 3rd of April to the deceased, who was represented to be suffering from vomiting and diarrhœa. The prisoner said he believed that her liver was overloaded with bile. The witness prescribed accordingly, but without any abatement of the symptoms. There was no appearance of bile in the evacuations after the third or fourth day that he saw her, yet the symptoms of diarrhœa and vomiting continued, with a burning sensation in the bowels and soreness of the mouth. She complained of a parching throat and a burning thirst. He could not account for any of these appearances from any natural disease, and began to entertain an opinion that something of an irritant character was being administered, and in consequence desired that his partner, Dr. Bird, should see her. Did not communicate his suspicions to Dr. Bird, who, taking the prisoner’s account of the symptoms, and knowing the witness’s prescriptions, adopted his mode of treatment, but with the same want of success. The medicines were varied, but the symptoms continued the same. On this the witness communicated his fears to Dr. Bird, and he on further observation[454] agreed that the patient was suffering from some irritant, of the administration of which they knew nothing. During this period the prisoner always saw the medical attendants, and was always present in the room when they were with the patient, and recommended or dissuaded the use of various medicines. He displayed a considerable knowledge of medicine. On the 28th of April the patient was very ill, and she repeatedly said to Dr. Bird in the prisoner’s presence that she should like some one else to be called in. On the same day the prisoner (who had always expressed a desire that the best medical advice should be obtained) suggested that Dr. Todd should be called in. On Dr. Todd’s arrival, witness gave him an outline of the case and treatment, but did not say anything of the suspicions that had arisen in his mind. Subsequent to Dr. Todd’s attendance witness procured some of the evacuations, and in consequence of the examination of them, thought it his duty to communicate with the magistrates, and the prisoner was arrested, but released on his own recognizances. Witness was unable to ascribe the symptoms to any natural cause, but if small doses of some irritant poison were administered from time to time, it would have accounted for all the appearances that had exhibited themselves. Antimony and arsenic would be the character of poisons likely to produce such results. There was neither antimony nor arsenic in any of the medicines he prescribed for her. The prisoner told him that she was not in the family way. Dr. Todd had prescribed a pill containing a quarter of a grain of sulphate of copper and a quarter of a grain of opium, to which the prisoner objected, as the copper often produced symptoms of poisoning. On the Saturday the prisoner said this medicine had produced intense burning in the mouth and throat, constant vomiting, and fifteen bloody motions—that the burning was from the “mouth to the anus.” In my judgment it could not have produced these effects. The evacuation which I obtained was previous to her taking any of these pills, as they did not arrive until afterwards. When in prison Dr. Smethurst wrote to me three letters for the particulars of the medicines that had been given, which I answered. In the first he also wished to know what solutions of arsenic were kept in our surgery, and in the third letter ashed for the date of the prescription for antimony, which had never been prescribed. He also told me that she had been ill just a week—that previously she had been in very good health, able to take long walks, in fact out a good deal.”

[455]

On his cross-examination, Dr. Julius

“Admitted that Smethurst’s communications to him of the symptoms were made in the clearest and plainest manner, and tallied with his own observations—that twice he believed he saw the patient without the prisoner being present; that previous to the 15th of April the prisoner had suggested to the witness that Drs. Hills or Hassell should be called in, and a different treatment—one of a very sedative character, which the witness considered as too powerful, and, therefore, gave in a more diluted form; that witness had not, whilst in attendance on Miss Bankes, the slightest suspicion of her pregnancy, but that, if he had known of it, he should not have made any difference in his treatment, and now that he did know of it, it made no difference in his opinion as to the cause of her death. Whilst admitting that the delivery of a woman who had a first child at the age of forty-three would be very critical, he stated decidedly, as the result of his experience, that the period of pregnancy would be far less critical than in a younger woman. Vomiting was well-known to be an early—the earliest—sign of pregnancy, but diarrhœa was not; and though he had heard of a case in which it was accompanied with diarrhœa, he had not heard of one in which the diarrhœa would not yield to any ordinary treatment, and the life of the mother was only saved by the destruction of the fœtus.”[172]

On re-examination Dr. Julius stated that “vomiting in early pregnancy had nothing to do with the burning sensation in the mouth and throat; that the sickness of Miss Bankes was decidedly not of the same character as that of pregnancy, nor was the diarrhœa such as pregnant women sometimes suffer from.” Dr. Bird, and not the witness, prescribed bismuth, acetate of lead, and nitrate of silver.

Dr. Bird, who from service in the Crimea in 1855 had had great experience and opportunity of studying bowel complaints, confirmed the evidence of his partner.

“None of the symptoms were in his opinion reconcileable with any known disease, but were such as could be accounted for from the administration of small doses of antimony or arsenic. The[456] prisoner, he said, told him, on one occasion, that the deceased had seen her sister, and that it had very much excited her, and in consequence witness told him that it would be better if she did not come again. On the 30th he told the prisoner that he wished to take away a portion of one of her evacuations, that it might be examined under the microscope to see if any purulent matter was in it, that we might judge if there was any ulceration of the bowels—that the prisoner poured out a portion into a tumbler, which he tied over with an old newspaper, and that the witness took it to his surgery, marked it No. 2, sealed it with his own seal, and preserved it intact until delivered to Dr. Taylor with the bottle No. 1 which Dr. Julius had obtained. A third portion of an evacuation was shown to him by the prisoner, which he put into a white jam-pot, and marked No. 3. He was downstairs at the moment Miss Bankes died, but saw her every minute or two before that. He gave an ample quantity of every ingredient used in his prescriptions so as to afford a sufficient opportunity for analyzation.”

On cross-examination, he described the various remedies he prescribed, none of which would account for the symptoms, and stated that he formed his opinion that it was a case of slow poisoning by an irritant, not only from what Dr. Julius and the prisoner told him, but from the vomitings, the motions, and the lady’s own account of her symptoms.

Mr. Caudle, the assistant of Messrs. Julius and Bird, described the medicines he compounded, and Dr. Buzzard detailed the transmission of the bottles of evacuations to Dr. Taylor.

POST-MORTEM EXAMINATION.

Mr. Barwell, Assistant-Surgeon of the Charing Cross Hospital, who, with Mr. Palmer, of Mortlake, made a post-mortem examination of the body on the 4th of May, said:—

In his cross-examination, the earlier portion of which was occupied with questions to test the accuracy of the notes of his report, the witness explained that the hardness of the liver, which he observed, was not a stage of Cirrhosis, as he had at first written in his memoranda, “but a normal hardness, nothing extraordinary;” that the use of the term “hard” did not imply that the liver was diseased, but that the term “fatty” does.

Dr. Samuel Wilks, who had subsequently examined the intestines with Mr. Barwell, confirmed his statements as to their[459] condition and that of the liver, and “should think Miss Bankes’ death was most probably to be attributed to an irritant.”

On cross-examination, he allowed that “severe dysentery produces great inflammation of the intestines, particularly of the larger; that inflammation, if continued, results in ulceration and destruction of the tissues; that the cæcum and rectum would be affected in that way by dysentery, and that dark spots of effused blood are also a consequence of severe dysentery.” His admission, however, rested on his reading, and not from his experience of cases of acute dysentery, as he had seen only “two cases, which they were obliged to call by that name, not being able to arrive at any other conclusion as to the cause of death.”

MEDICAL EXPERTS FOR THE PROSECUTION.

Dr. Todd, Physician to King’s College Hospital, was then called.

[460]

On cross-examination, Dr. Todd said:—

“I have never known any case or cases of early pregnancy of a woman of about forty to forty-five years of age in which there has been violent vomiting, violent diarrhœa, and severe dysentery, which no ordinary medicines would stop, and in which the life of the mother has only been saved by the abortion of the fœtus. No such cases have come under my cognizance. I think it possible that excessive vomiting and great diarrhœa may be caused by the early stage of pregnancy, and symptoms somewhat allied to those under which this lady died; but I think it quite impossible that pregnancy alone, in an early stage, or in any stage, could, produce extensive ulceration of the bowels. I think, where it is a doubtful case, it is conclusive evidence against the theory that the symptoms were caused by early pregnancy that you found such extensive ulceration as existed in this case.”

Dr. Buzzard, who had been a staff-surgeon in the Crimea, Dr. Copland, and Dr. Bowerbank, who had had great experience of acute dysentery in tropical climates, gave it as their opinion that the symptoms were not reconcileable with that disease, but were those of the presence of irritant poison. Dr. Babington, Physician to Queen Charlotte’s Lying-in Hospital, who had attended more than 2,000 women in their confinement, did not consider that the death was in any way attributable to the fact of her being in an incipient state of pregnancy. On cross-examination, whilst admitting that cases of violent vomiting and diarrhœa in early pregnancy are recorded, said that he did not remember any one of so severe a character as to endanger life; that he did not think that the lady’s advanced stage of life had anything to do with it; that it was a complication generally at a later period of pregnancy; and that a first pregnancy between 40 and 45 years of age was not more critical in the early stage. On re-examination, with reference to six cases of dysentery, in 1841, in which he had made post-mortem examinations, he said:—

“There was not the same amount of sloughing of the cæcum as in this case, nor destruction of the mucous membrane. The glands were in a different condition. In the dysentery cases, the glands were quite destroyed, and in three of the cases there was perforation[461] of the intestine. The symptoms in all six were different to those in this case; there was no burning sensation of the throat.”

ANALYTICAL EVIDENCE.

Serjeant Parry here called for the deposition of Dr. Taylor made before the magistrates, a portion of which was read. It stated that he had discovered arsenic in bottle No. 21, in which there was chlorate of potass; that the latter was a harmless saline mixture acting upon the kidneys, and that if poison had been given in it, its effect would probably be to carry off the noxious ingredient from the body very quickly, but that by repetition constantly of such a proceeding chronic inflammation would be created which would yield to no treatment, and would end in the death of the patient from exhaustion.

Dr. Taylor then continued:—

“At the time I gave this evidence I firmly believed that arsenic was contained in the mixture and that it had not come from my test, but had been placed there by some one. When before the coroner I expressed my opinion that the death was referable to antimony and arsenic. The finding of the arsenic in the bottle did not have any effect upon the opinion I subsequently formed with reference to the case. The moment I discovered the mistake I had made I informed Serjeant Ballantine. No arsenic was found in[464] the body of deceased. I did not form my theory to account for the absence of arsenic from the tissues of the body, that it had been carried off by the chlorate of potass. It did not enter into my consideration beyond this, that it acts generally as a diuretic. After Dr. Odling and myself had given our evidence relative to finding the arsenic in the bottle of chlorate of potass, we thought it was possible there might be some mistake, and we made other experiments to satisfy ourselves. We made seventy-seven experiments with the same kind of gauze, and in seventy-six no arsenic was discovered: and the only instance in which it was found was in the evacuation in bottle 2.” The witness also said that he could not, after hearing the symptoms and the treatment of the deceased, attribute the death to any other cause than the administration of some irritant poison.

This witness was also cross-examined at considerable length as to the symptoms of slow poisoning by arsenic and by antimony, in which he agreed with the previous witnesses, adding to their evidence the fact of its operation in causing enlargement of the liver, and the deposit of fat in it. Hence the use of sulphide of antimony to fatten the geese used in Strasburg, in the manufacture of Perigord Pies. On the subject of dysentery he could not speak, having ceased to practise as a medical man, and confined his attention to analyses.

On re-examination, Dr. Taylor said that “the half grain of copper, given in the pill during life, would not by any action of any acid in the stomach account for the quantity of arsenic found in the evacuation; that he had examined and found no arsenic in the copper pills; and that though arsenic was found in the sulphate of copper taken from the surgery, there was not a quantity to be seen; there was no arsenic in the bismuth, and no antimony in the medicines. Arsenic is sometimes found in bismuth.”

Dr. Odling, Professor of Practical Chemistry at Guy’s Hospital, who had assisted Dr. Taylor in his experiments, 2ì”confirmed Dr. Taylor’s account in every respect, and expressed himself satisfied that there was antimony in the body of the deceased. He agreed also in attributing the death to the administration of some irritant poison, and did not know any[465] natural disease that would account for the symptoms spoken of.”

William Thomas Brande, formerly Professor of Chemistry to the Royal Institution, and for fifty years engaged in the practice of chemistry, “had examined a portion of the liquid (the chlorate of potass), and come to the conclusion that it did not contain arsenic. Reinsch’s test for arsenic was reliable where chlorate of potass was not present.” “Our first object,” said the witness, on cross-examination, “was to get rid of the chlorate of potass, or to decompose it so as to render it inert, which we did; and we then examined the liquid in question, and found no arsenic in it.”

To the Court.—“I was not aware that Reinsch’s test would be inapplicable to such a compound, and if I had applied it, and the result appeared as it did to Drs. Taylor and Odling, I should have come to the same conclusion, that there was arsenic in the substance. The matter that has appeared since is to a certain extent new to the chemical world. We have always been aware of the presence of very minute quantities of arsenic in copper, but we have never considered it as interfering in any way until this particular case.”[175]

MEDICAL AND ANALYTICAL EVIDENCE FOR THE DEFENCE.

It will be convenient, as in the previous trials, to report at this period the medical and analytical evidence offered on the part of the prisoner, subsequent to the address of Serjeant Parry. This was devoted to the following points: (1), the absence of some of the well-known symptoms in slow poisoning by arsenic or antimony, or by both; (2), the similarity of the symptoms in this case to those exhibited in cases of acute dysentery; (3), the occurrence of severe diarrhœa, with vomiting in the early stages of pregnancy; (4), that the non-discovery of either arsenic or antimony in the tissues of the body could not be due to its being given in, or with chlorate of potass; (5), the probability that both the arsenic and the[466] antimony found in the evacuations and intestines might be due to the presence of arsenic in the bismuth, and of antimony in the grey powders administered as medicines. In support of these opinions four doctors and analysts, all belonging to what was known as the Grosvenor School of Medicine, were examined, two of whom (Dr. Richardson and Mr. Rodgers) had given evidence for Palmer at his trial, Dr. Richardson then suggesting that Cook’s symptoms were reconcileable with an attack of Angina pectoris, and Mr. Rodgers supporting the view that if strychnia had been given to Cook, it must have been discovered in his body by chemical analysis.

Dr. Richardson, after generally asserting that the symptoms in Miss Bankes’ case were not in the main reconcileable with either slow arsenical or antimonial poisoning, or both, enumerated the following as absent if it was a case of slow antimonial and arsenical poisoning:—

The witness then went on to show, by experiments on two other dogs, that the administration of chlorate made no difference either as regards symptoms, pathology, or the chemical result. Speaking again of the sweating as one of the symptoms in antimonial poisoning absent in Miss Bankes’ case, he admitted that he had seen it only in one case, and that, where it had been given in excess, for a long time, and in large doses medicinally, and that in two other cases of acute poisoning by antimony there was no particular eruption, because, as he said, the attack was not long enough. Such was all the experience he had had in cases of slow poisoning. As to the effects of antimony on the liver, he could only speak from some experiments on animals in 1856-7, and that, in reality, he had no experience at all in slow poisoning, except from experiments on animals. Of dysentery, too, he knew very little; had seen two or three cases, but had never met with it in the early stage of pregnancy; he had met with one between the third and fourth month, but not between the fifth and seventh week. He had analysed the bismuth usually administered in medicine, and had found nearly half a grain of arsenic in an ounce, and, in a case in which 90 grains of that drug had been given at the rate of 5 grains three times a day—for dyspepsia—with Drs. Thudichum and Webb he found about the fiftieth of a grain of arsenic in the urine.

[468]

The cross-examination of this witness was mainly occupied by questions about his evidence on Palmer’s trial, and in trying to elicit from him that these canine experiments had been made for the purposes of the present case. The latter he denied, but admitted that he had made them after reading the examinations before the magistrate and the coroner, and that though he did not communicate them to the prisoner, he talked about them so frequently to his colleagues at the Grosvenor School, that he was not surprised at being interviewed by the prisoner’s solicitor and asked to give evidence for his client. As to his evidence on Palmer’s trial, he maintained that he did not endorse the theory that Cook died of Angina pectoris; that he did not negative the idea of strychnia, but at last admitted that he could not deny that he went there to support the theory of Angina pectoris.[176] In the cases of the dogs his analysis was not quantitative: he was content with the fact that the arsenic was present. He negatived the idea that the ¼ of a grain of copper in the pill would produce a burning sensation from the mouth to the anus, but admitted that any irritant given for a long time would unquestionably produce that effect. The form of dysentery to which a lady with such a liver as Miss Bankes’ would be subject, would be subacute, not that arising from poison, but which is prolonged over a very considerable time: not chronic, but something between chronic and acute, but too severe to be strictly chronic; that would not harden the coats of the stomach; would produce a great deal of mischief in the bowels; would not thicken them, but probably lead to a deposit of false membrane: it would not harden them, but a false membrane would; if there was great congestion, the wall would be thicker. He had not acted as an accoucheur since 1854, but was of opinion that sickness accompanied by dysenteric diarrhœa, in the early stage of pregnancy, might have been the cause of all the appearances exhibited in this case. Diarrhœa was sometimes an incident of and caused by pregnancy; the opposite effect, constipation, was not more usual.

[469]

On re-examination, the witness qualified his admission as to the effect of the copper pill to this extent, that, “in a patient suffering from violent irritation, arising either from a natural or mechanical cause, sulphate of copper would have a tendency to increase that irritation; and he justified his reliance on the experiments on animals on their forming the great bulk of scientific knowledge in Europe on the subject of poisons and their operation on the human frame, and by the fact that the materials for forming a judgment of the effects of slow antimonial poisoning on the human subject were very bare,” and concluded by saying, that, “after his cross-examination, and his attention having been called to all the points deemed important, he still adhered to his opinion that the deceased lady might have died from natural causes.”

Dr. J. E. D. Rodgers, Professor of Chemistry in Knowle College, but for seventeen years at the Grosvenor School, agreed with Dr. Richardson that chlorate of potass would have no effect in eliminating arsenic or antimony from the human system; that the absence of arsenic or antimony from the tissues, and especially from the liver, would cause him to doubt whether the allegation of poisoning was correct, and that he did not think it possible to find it in the blood and not in the liver, “as the blood in the heart must be regarded as a sample of the whole 28 lbs. circulating in the system, and, if you find the poison in one small portion, you must find it wherever the blood flows.” He confirmed the amount of arsenic said to be in bismuth, and had found antimony in grey powder: should expect to find, in a case of slow poisoning, the symptoms spoken to by Dr. Richardson, and, if he did not find any arsenic in a body from which an evacuation containing one-sixth of a grain came, it would lead him to doubt whether the experiment had been correct.

Dr. J. L. W. Thudichum, Lecturer on Chemistry at the Grosvenor School, and a pupil of Liebig’s, attributed the death to what he called diphtheritic dysentery, of which he had seen two cases, and, on opening the body in one case, found the false membrane from which the disease takes its name.[470] The only medical work in which he had seen this form of dysentery described was Rokitansky’s Morbid Anatomy.[177] It was not, however, at all necessary to find the false membrane, as it might be broken up and discharged, and hearing that shreddy matters were found in the evacuations, would confirm his view. He quite concurred with the previous witnesses as to the symptoms they would expect to find in a case of slow arsenical or antimonial poisoning. He had analysed grey powder and bismuth. In the former he found caustic and carbonate of lime, mercury partly oxidised, silica, with phosphate of iron, arsenic and antimony—more arsenic than antimony; in the bismuth he found both arsenic and antimony—more than a trace—enough to answer the test two or three times—an appreciable quantity. “I dare say,” he said, “there was half a grain in 20 grains. It is almost necessary, from the mode of its preparation, that it should contain arsenic.”

On cross-examination, the witness admitted that he had not made any quantitative analysis, because they were so laborious; had used in his experiment about one-sixteenth of 2 ounces of the grey powder, which he dissolved; neither the grey powder nor the bismuth had anything to do with the death of Miss Bankes, but the fact of bismuth containing arsenic might account for the traces in the evacuation, and if antimony was taken in a medicine it might account for the analysis, but this would depend upon the quantity in the medicine.

Dr. Cornelius Webb, Lecturer on Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology at the Grosvenor School, and Physician to the Great Northern Hospital, said:—

“From all he had heard deposed to in court he was of opinion that the deceased died from natural causes that might be accounted for—that the fact of her being in an early state of pregnancy ought most decidedly to be taken into consideration; though he did not know of a case, he was of opinion, founded on practical experience[471] and general knowledge, that severe vomiting and severe diarrhœa which would not yield to ordinary treatment may arise from an early state of pregnancy—that Miss Bankes died from dysentery, made worse by the condition of early pregnancy, and that a burning sensation in the mouth is consequent upon dysentery, and the diarrhœa and vomiting of pregnancy. All the symptoms in her case might arise from the vomiting and diarrhœa of pregnancy. The ulceration in the stomach, obliteration and partial destruction of the mucous membrane, the effusion of blood under it, and the dark patchy spots and ulcers and injection generally of the membrane might, as Dr. Wilkes said, arise from dysentery. If the deceased at one time had an affection of the womb, for which she used nitrate of silver (a pint bottle of this was found in her room), it would indicate ulceration of the neck of the womb; and if there had been such a condition of the womb an appreciable time before pregnancy, it might add to the irritation of pregnancy. Unless he found other symptoms, the vomiting, diarrhœa, sensation of the throat and the intestinal canal, accompanied by ulcerous appearances in parts of the body, would not, in his judgment, necessarily lead to the conclusion that she must be the subject of irritant poisoning—unless he found other symptoms, it would not enter his head. In a case of antimonial poisoning he should expect to find a clamminess and cold perspiration of the skin. In arsenical poisoning he should expect to find arsenic in the kidneys and the spleen, as well as the liver; should expect to find it in the liver first—it is the great criterion. And from the absence of these symptoms and appearances in this case, he was fortified in his opinion that she died from natural causes.”

The cross-examination of this witness was mainly directed to his assertion that, “in such a case as this, had he been called in at its early stage, notwithstanding he was told that she was not pregnant, and that her courses were in order, he should have examined the patient for pregnancy, especially if he found that the remedies were useless in stopping the vomiting and diarrhœa.”

“Dysentery,” he said, “was a most common disease, and in such a state as Miss Bankes was, the quarter-of-a-grain copper pill might increase the irritation. Diphtheritic dysentery was a form of idiopathic dysentery, that is, occurring without any particular poison—the Eastern form; there is a dysentery that arises from[472] natural poison, just the same as fever. If I had been acquainted with all the symptoms I have heard described in court, I should not have dreamt of poison.”

Dr. G. F. Girdwood, who had delivered upwards of 3,000 women, strongly supported the view of the death being due to the effects of dysentery, combined with pregnancy. “Idiopathic dysentery would be its proper name—a special disease originating in itself, one single malady, one single suffering. He had had several cases of dysentery at early stages of pregnancy, one of them very severe, in fact, contemporaneous with it—he should say symptomatic of pregnancy: this would be much aggravated by a bilious temperament, and any affection of the liver.”

On cross-examination the witness explained that “in this country idiopathic dysentery assumed a less severe form than in warm climates—was what is called subacute or chronic, and that the state of the cæcum indicated a case of subacute, not of severe dysentery, of prolonged dysentery, and that it did not necessarily follow that such a case should commence with febrile symptoms.” On re-examination he stated, that “in early pregnancy the dysenteric motions have become bloody, the sign of dysentery which may come on immediately or not; in a day or two in acute dysentery, the result of neglected diarrhœa. Subacute dysentery is frequently the result of neglected diarrhœa, or chronic dysentery—you have acute, subacute, and chronic.”

Mr. James Edmunds, Surgeon to the Royal Maternity Charity, cited a case in his own practice of a woman of about forty years of age, who had been married ten or twelve years, and who in her pregnancy suffered from vomiting, purging, and severe pain in her abdomen, and who, from the post-mortem examination which he made, he was convinced died of dysentery, complicated by vomiting and irritability of the stomach attributable to pregnancy, and purging attributable to dysentery. “Purging,” he said, “was often a symptom at an early stage of pregnancy, and often of impending labour.”

On cross-examination, however, he admitted that when he[473] first attended this woman, when the symptoms first began, she had been pregnant five or six months.

Dr. Tyler Smith, the last medical witness called for the defence, in practice for fifteen years as an accoucheur, said that

“He was acquainted with cases in which excessive vomiting in pregnancy had caused death—where it went on after pregnancy had commenced, sometimes during the whole period, but these were exceptional cases. It would require considerable skill to determine accurately the age of a fœtus, as you may have a case in which it may die and remain in utero without development, though no decomposition takes place. He had known one case in which there was a great amount of vomiting and some amount of purging, in which the friends of the lady could not be brought to believe that her husband was not poisoning her. These symptoms might become so violent as to be mistaken for a case of poisoning; the expression on the face in such cases was that of death by starvation.”

On cross-examination, he admitted that though he had seen cases of death in pregnancy from vomiting conjoined with purging, he believed the vomiting to be the great cause of death, and that ordinarily, if dysentery is excessive, abortion is produced. On re-examination, he said “that in the case of a woman of from forty to forty-five years of age, doses of irritant poison were more likely to procure abortion than idiopathic disease.” To a question by a juryman, he said, “any irritating medicine would tend to keep up dysentery.”

With the evidence of a dentist (Pedley) who had attended the prisoner about the middle of February last, and recommended the use of chlorate of potass for foulness of breath, the evidence for the defence was closed.

THE JUDGE’S CHARGE.

The Lord Chief Baron, in his address to the jury, which occupied eight hours and a half, and of which, therefore, only the leading points can be given, said:—

[474]

On the medical testimony, the Chief Baron said:—

“The medical witnesses called for the defence thought the symptoms of this case inconsistent with slow poisoning, and that had arsenic or antimony been the cause of death, some portions of those substances would have been found in the body.[181] These statements were, however, the opinions of scientific men, the result of reading and study, and the jury would have to consider how far it weighed against the evidence of those scientific witnesses who had seen the patient when living, and had observed personally all the symptoms that manifested themselves. The medical men first called in found themselves baffled by the disease; the medicines not only did not alleviate the symptoms, but did not produce even their natural effects. They, therefore, came to the conclusion that something was being administered which counteracted their medicines.[477] Dr. Todd, one of the most eminent physicians of the day, was called in, and came to the same conclusion. These gentlemen, and other competent witnesses, who had not seen the patient while living, were equally of opinion that the symptoms were not ascribable to any natural causes; but were those which would arise from the administration of an irritant poison. The counsel for the prisoner had laid much stress upon the mistake made by Dr. Taylor in one of his tests, and asked them to dismiss Dr. Taylor’s evidence from their consideration. He did not agree with this. The failure of Dr. Taylor’s analysis in one instance arose from a new and hitherto unknown fact in science, and did not in any way invalidate his testimony.[182] It appeared to him that no answer had been given to the main point urged by the prosecution—that no medicine whatever had the slightest effect upon the malady under which the deceased was suffering. He did not agree with the prisoner’s counsel, that the real question for the jury was to consider which set of medical witnesses were entitled to credit. The medical evidence was important, but the jury must, in addition, look at all the other facts of the case, and particularly to the conduct of the prisoner and the motives for his crime. They must, after all, be guided by those rules of common sense that would operate on the minds of reasonable men with regard to the more important actions of their lives; and even supposing that there were no medical testimony at all in the case, they would still have, as it appeared to him, a very grave question to decide with reference to the guilt or innocence of the prisoner.”

The jury, after deliberating for twenty minutes, returned a verdict of “Guilty.” When the prisoner, who appeared thunder-struck at the verdict, was called upon to say why sentence of death should not be passed on him, he speedily recovered his self-possession, and addressed the Court in a powerful, though rambling speech, in which he attempted to explain away some portions of his conduct, strongly asserted his innocence, and denounced Dr. Julius, against whom he appeared to entertain a bitter animosity. Again, when the usual sentence had been passed upon him, which he heard[478] without emotion, he denounced Dr. Julius as his murderer, and declared that “he was innocent before God.”

No sooner was the verdict given than its correctness was questioned alike by the legal and the medical profession, each discussing it within its own domain, the doctors confining themselves too exclusively to the conflict of medical testimony, the lawyers confining their disputes too exclusively to the collateral facts of the case. Such, however, was the discussion between the two professions, that the Home Secretary (Sir G. Cornewall Lewis) deemed it advisable to reprieve the culprit until the case had undergone deliberate revision.

By the account given by Mr. Justice Stephen, based on the notes and papers of the late Lord Chief Baron, it would appear that, in addition to the numerous letters (some very foolish on both sides) sent to him, and transmitted by him to the Home Secretary, two communications, described as “somewhat hastily prepared,” were forwarded from Dr. Baly and Dr. Jenner. These urged that “sufficient weight had not been given to the fact of the pregnancy and the ambiguous character of the symptoms,” and, some of the letters added, “their inconsistency and incompatibility with poison.” As the reasons on which these “somewhat hastily prepared communications” were based are not divulged, it is impossible to judge of their value. The learned Judge, on the contrary, called the Home Secretary’s attention to the statement in the memorial to the Prince Consort (already quoted, note, p. 474), to certain entries in Smethurst’s diary, not proved at the trial, and not now given, showing that he had wilfully misstated the symptoms of the patient, and to a statement in a letter of Mr. Herapath in the Times that the quantity of arsenic extracted from the chlorate of potass was larger than could have been released from the copper gauze. (See Chapter IX. p. 509.) On receiving this report the Home Secretary referred the whole of the documents, together with the copy of the evidence, to Sir B. Brodie. His reply, which, it is reported, dealt not only with the medical, but the moral evidence[479] of Smethurst’s guilt,[183] concluded in these words: “Taking into consideration all that I have stated, I own that the impression on my mind is that there is not absolute and complete evidence of Smethurst’s guilt.” Thus on evidence not subjected to the searching cross-examination which it could have received if produced at the trial, and the opinion of a most eminent surgeon (not an analyst) merely on reading the papers submitted to him, the prisoner was pardoned. “The responsibility,” says Judge Stephen, “was thus shifted from those on whom it properly rested on to a man, who, however skilful and learned as a surgeon, was neither juryman nor judge.”[184]

THE LIVERPOOL POISONING CASE.

TRIAL OF THOMAS WINSLOW FOR THE WILFUL MURDER OF ANN JAMES.

Before Baron Martin, Northern Circuit, Liverpool, August 20, 1860.

For the Prosecution: The Attorney-General for the County Palatine (Mr. Bliss, Q.C.), Mr. Aspinall, and Mr. Temple.

For the Defence: Mr. Digby Seymour, Q.C. for the County Palatine, Mr. Fenwick, and Mr. Little.

HISTORY OF THE CASE.

The prisoner, who had been an ironworker, was charged with the murder of Ann James, by aggravating the disease of the cæcum, under which she was suffering, through the administration of minute doses of antimony. Mrs. James came to Liverpool from Devonshire, in 1854, whither she was soon followed by her sister Eliza, her sister’s husband a Mr. Townsend, an invalid, three nephews, and a niece, who was married to a japanner of the name of Cafferata. Commencing business[480] as a grocer, she had subsequently kept an eating-house, which was eventually turned into a night refreshment and registered lodging-house, of which the prisoner, one of her lodgers, had taken the active management. Between him and the Townsends it was evident that no good feeling existed. They were jealous of his influence over their aunt, and suspicious of the intimate relations that existed between them. One of the nephews, Martin, who had caused her much trouble and expense from frequently enlisting in and having to be bought out of the army, acted as baker to the shop, but, with that exception, the Townsends had no share in the business. Previous to the last illness of their aunt, her sister, lately left a widow, and the other two nephews, died suddenly, as it was found afterwards, under very suspicious circumstances. No investigation, however, was made in their cases, until after the aunt’s death.

Mrs. James had prospered in her business: according to her own account, the prisoner had made it. Her stock-in-trade and the goodwill were worth between £200 and £300: she had four gas shares, valued at £200, and £130 in the savings bank, at the time of her death. An authority for the withdrawal of the money from the savings bank, the holograph of the prisoner, was found in a drawer, and during her last illness the prisoner had gone to the gas company to try and get the shares entered in his own name, and been told that it could not be done without a proper transfer, or by will. On this he got the solicitor of the gas company to see Mrs. James and draw her will. This the solicitor did, no one but himself and his clerk being present, and by it the business and stock-in-trade were left to the prisoner, and the rest of the property divided equally between Mrs. Cafferata and her child, and the nephew Martin, the prisoner being appointed sole executor. On the 5th of February, Mrs. James was so ill that the prisoner called in Dr. Cameron, Physician to the Liverpool Southern Hospital, who found her in bed, suffering from bowel complaint, and a tumour in the abdomen, which he believed to be cancer, and very weak and prostrate. He[481] prescribed for her, and desired to be sent for again if she became worse. On the 26th of that month the prisoner wrote to Mrs. Cafferata at Manchester to come at once if she wished to see her aunt alive. She came and stayed with her for a fortnight, sleeping in the same bed, in the back parlour, of which the prisoner had the key at night. During Mrs. James’s illness her food was prepared by her servants, and brought to her room generally at night by the prisoner, who was very attentive, and showed great interest in her condition. On the 29th of March, Dr. Cameron was sent for again, and found her symptoms similar to those he had seen on his first visit. Again, on the 8th of May he saw her, when she was suffering under a violent attack of purging and vomiting, but, as regarded these effects, was convalescent by the 19th. On the 25th, however, he found her again very ill, and for the first time, from the symptoms, suspected that some foreign ingredient, some irritating substance, such as antimony, had been given to her. Mrs. Cafferata had again been sent for to attend on her aunt. Dr. Cameron prescribed tannin as an antidote, and on the 6th of June Mrs. James was again convalescent. Two days after, however, the same bad symptoms reappeared, and she became exceedingly prostrate. Some of her urine and excretions were obtained and handed to Dr. Edwards for analysis, and its results communicated to Dr. Cameron, who, in consequence, went to her house on the 10th of June with the police, took possession of all the medicine bottles and some cups that were in her room, and had Mrs. James taken to the Southern Hospital. More specimens of the excretions were obtained, and instructions given that for the future they should be, from time to time, preserved. On the evening of the 9th of June, if Mrs. Cafferata was to be believed, a most suspicious incident occurred. “On that evening,” she said, “I made my aunt a cup of sago from a parcel on the kitchen shelf, which she took, and at three o’clock the next morning took up to her a cup of tea and an egg, and, as she did not eat them, I placed them on a chair by the bedside, went into bed to her, and slept till nine[482] o’clock, having locked the door, and placed the key under it. When I awoke I found my aunt awake, and appearing to want to go to sleep. I then saw two cups had been brought into the room in the night” (the prisoner admitted that he brought one) “and the cup gone from the bedside.”[185] In one of these cups was a little sago, in which antimony was detected by chemical analysis. For some days after her removal to the Hospital Mrs. James continued very ill, but ceased to have attacks of vomiting and purging after the first or second day. Afterwards, however, she improved in health until the 22nd of June, when dangerous symptoms occurred, and she died in two days.[186]

MEDICAL AND ANALYTICAL EVIDENCE.

Dr. Cameron, who attended the post-mortem examination of the body of the deceased, gave the following description of the appearances presented.

“The body was greatly emaciated. The membrane of the gullet presented a yellow appearance. At the entrance of the stomach there were two patches of false membrane, but I could form no opinion how they were caused. The stomach was distended, and contained sixteen ounces of fluid. There were two small ulcers communicating with the cancerous tumour, which might have been caused by the administration of antimony or by disease. The bowels had been perforated and their contents discharged into the[483] cavity of the abdomen, which was the immediate cause of death. My opinion is, that antimony was administered within a very short time of her admission into the hospital—sometime between the 9th and 10th of June. I do not think antimony was given to her after her admission into the hospital. The vomiting was not of the kind ulcers would produce, but of a kind which might be produced by an irritating substance such as antimony.”

On cross-examination by Mr. Digby Seymour, he said:—

“Hot food in a case like that of Mrs. James might produce vomiting, and always occasioned more or less pain with ulceration of the stomach. There was no redness of the small intestines. Vomiting was one of the principal symptoms of ulceration of the stomach, as by tending to starve and weaken the patient it produced emaciation and prostration. Purging was not a usual symptom of an ulcerated stomach, but occurred with cancer in the bowels. Witness agreed with Dr. Richards as to there being no case in which slow antimonial poisoning was accompanied with dysenteric evacuations. The alternation of constipation and purging was one of the known symptoms of antimonial poisoning. The intermitting condition of the patient was one of the reasons which led him to the conclusion that she was the subject of poison. Witness agreed with the opinion that in malignant diseases of the stomach the symptoms remitted in a remarkable way so as to excite a hope that recovery would take place; but the truce was not very long; frightful disorganization was at length produced and inevitable death at last. Softening of the brain had been noticed in some cases of antimonial poisoning, but it was not a frequent or even an ordinary indication. Antimonial poisoning sometimes produced enlargement of the liver, but it did not in this case. Aphthous ulcerations in the glands of the small intestines are also symptoms of the presence of antimony—there were none in this case. Eminent writers on Materia Medica and pathology assert that some persons can tolerate the presence of poison in their bodies without it having any effect upon them. It is also an accepted truth among eminent scientific writers, that there are conditions and circumstances of the human frame in which antimony may not possess poisonous results.”

On re-examination, the witness said:—

“This toleration of poison is common in certain cases of inflammation, but it is my opinion that, in this case, the opposite to[484] toleration has been established. Aphthous ulcerations are not often observed in cases of poisoning by antimony. The absence of these symptoms, combined with the state of the liver and brain, in no way affect my opinion as to the poisoning in this case. There were peculiar symptoms in the vomiting of Mrs. James which induce me to believe that it was not caused by the ulcer. Antimony would aggravate the ulcerous disease and enfeeble the bodily powers, as well as affect the appetite. One of the effects of slow poisoning by repeated doses is that the stomach is prevented from receiving fresh nourishment.”

To the Judge.—“I have never attended a human patient poisoned by antimony. Persons suffering from sickness after food are relieved by vomiting; but in the case of Mrs. James there was considerable retching after the food was thrown off the stomach.”

John Baker Edwards, Analytical Chemist, said:—

“He analysed a bottle of urine which he received from Dr. Cameron on the 6th of June, and informed him that he found in it slight traces of antimony. On Saturday, June 9, he received two bottles from Dr. Cameron, one of which contained fæces, analysed it and found slight traces of antimony. The other bottle was marked ‘vomit.’ Analysed that, and found in it two considerable deposits of antimony. Subsequently confirmed this analysis by other chemical tests. He sublimed it by the application of heat, and obtained a white sublimate, which, when examined under the microscope, had the appearance of oxide of antimony. Afterwards dissolved this in tartaric acid, passed sulphuretted hydrogen gas through it, and obtained an orange precipitate—sulphuret of antimony. He could not scientifically distinguish whether it was ‘free’ or ‘eliminated’ antimony.[187] On Wednesday, the 13th of June, he received three bottles labelled ‘Mrs. James, Tuesday,’ one of which was labelled ‘vomit.’ It had scarcely a trace of antimony. The other two bottles contained fæces and urine, in each of which was a trace of antimony. On the same day he also received two cups, one of them containing about a tablespoonful of sago. This he analysed and found in it two considerable deposits of antimony on copper, which he sublimed and recognised under the microscope as oxide of antimony. On Thursday the 14th he received three bottles, one of them of vomit, containing no antimony;[485] the other two containing fæces and urine, in which was no antimony. On the 15th he again received a bottle of vomit and also one of fæces, and in the former he found two antimonial deposits, which under the microscope he recognised as oxide of antimony, and in the latter a trace of antimony. On the following day he found traces of antimony in two bottles of urine. The day after he received two bottles, one of urine, and found a trace of antimony in each. He also examined some uncooked sago which contained no antimony. Subsequently (after Mrs. James had been removed to the hospital) he received bottles labelled ‘Mrs. James.’ The vomit contained no antimony, but there were still distinct traces of it in the fæces and urine. He subsequently received four jars containing brain, lungs, heart, spleen, kidneys, intestines, stomach, and blood, labelled ‘Mrs. James,’ and four bottles containing fluids. He analysed portions of these separately. From one half of the stomach he obtained five deposits of antimony. He also obtained five deposits of antimony from the intestines, four deposits of it from one of the kidneys, and three deposits of it from one half of the liver. He found no trace in the brain. In four ounces of blood he found a distinct deposit of antimony, and also from the fluid of the stomach. He also analysed six bottles of medicine and two of urine, and found no antimony. On the 26th of July he took a portion of the spleen and lungs of Mrs. James to London, and examined them there in conjunction with Dr. Miller and Dr. Taylor, and also the deposits of the viscera. He examined and tested them and found by the most approved tests applied that they contained antimony.”

On cross-examination, the witness admitted:—

“That the first satisfactory result which he obtained was on the 9th of June—that he had no doubt that the trace he found on the 7th was antimony, but it was not a satisfactory result—that he had examined the body of a dog which died from antimony, and which had been exhumed, and had not found a trace, and, that if the animal had vomited after taking it he should not have expected to find any.”

Dr. A. S. Taylor said:—

“That he received some jars at Guy’s Hospital from Inspector Horne, containing portions of the stomach, cæcum, liver, one kidney, and the heart, and afterwards from Dr. Edwards a portion of the spleen and lungs. He divided them and gave a part to Mr.[486] Miller. Dr. Edwards showed him some sublimate on glass, and deposits on copper. He examined them. The deposits on copper were metallic antimony, and those on the glass were oxide of antimony. He was of opinion that antimony had entered the body during life. Assuming the deceased to have been labouring under the disease of the cæcum, and to have had two ulcers in her stomach, the administration to her of antimony, by depressing the bodily powers, would tend to accelerate death. Antimony had a powerful depressing influence and lowered the pulse in strength, produced great exhaustion of the system, and in a serious disease affecting the body was likely to aggravate its effects. A person might be able to bear a dose of antimony in health, who in a serious disease would be destroyed by it. His opinion, in this case, was that antimony had been administered at intervals in small doses. Antimony could be found in the tissues three weeks after it was taken. It might during that time be found, day by day and at intervals, in the secretions. The tests which he had applied were the most approved known in science.”

On cross-examination, the witness said:—

“The disease which has been described as affecting the deceased must have terminated fatally. The death had been caused by inflammation arising from the passage of the contents of the diseased bowel into the cavity of the abdomen. It was very difficult to draw the line where a patient had rallied from the effects of poison, and where she sank under disease. The medical man in attendance on the deceased person would be the best judge of the influence of poison in accelerating death. Small doses frequently repeated would have the effect of irritating the mucous membrane of the bowels. In two most marked cases of poisoning with which he bad been connected there had been no change in the condition of the liver. All the indications in Mrs. James’s case were referable to natural causes. If antimony were found in the fæces, he should conclude that the purging was occasioned by antimony. In vomiting caused by ulcers in the stomach, it was confined to the relief of the stomach from its contents, and then ceased. Antimony produced prostration of the nervous power.”

Dr. Miller, Professor of Chemistry at King’s College, confirmed the opinion of Dr. Taylor so far as it related to the chemical analysis, but gave no medical opinion.

Dr. Clarence Pemberton, House Surgeon at the Southern[487] Hospital in Liverpool, deposed that he attended Mrs. James and paid attention to her symptoms. He made the post-mortem examination. “Taking the symptoms observed during lifetime, and the appearances shown by the post-mortem examination, and assuming the judgment of Dr. Edwards to be correct, the cause of death, in his judgment, was the diseased ‘cæcum,’ but the administration of antimony would undoubtedly accelerate her death.”

On cross-examination, he admitted that, judging from what he saw in the hospital, all the symptoms might be attributed to natural causes, and, in answer to the Judge, said that on the post-mortem examination he could find no traces or symptoms which he exclusively attributed to the administration of antimony.

Dr. Francis Ayrton said he saw the viscera and the other portions of the deceased sent for analysation. He observed some redness at the commencement of the small intestines, and some spots on the large ones, and he formed his opinion from these spots that an irritant had passed through the bowels. Antimony was an irritant, and would produce such appearances. He had heard the evidence given, and his opinion was that the deceased’s death was accelerated by antimony. He also admitted, on cross-examination, that what he observed in the viscera might be attributable to other causes than antimonial poison.

THE PRISONER’S STATEMENTS.

According to the evidence of Mrs. Cafferata, and the inspector of police, the prisoner openly accused the Cafferatas of having poisoned their aunt. He objected to their interference, and ordered them to leave the house, calling Cafferata a second Palmer, because he carried white powders about in his pocket, and saying, when the wife showed him the soda powders in question, “You are not likely to show me the right stuff.” When Mrs. Cafferata wanted to go to the hospital to see her aunt, he threatened to put her under arrest. That the prisoner had a great deal of[488] drink when he spoke in this way was admitted by the witness, but when he made the same accusation of the Cafferatas to the inspector such apparently was not his condition. On the other hand, a Mrs. Higgins, on cross-examination, spoke to a threat of Mrs. Cafferata’s that “she would hang the orange dog (the prisoner), and that after her evidence they would want no more.”

PURCHASE OF POISON BY THE PRISONER.

The proof of the purchase of antimony by the prisoner was most unsatisfactory. A woman (Ann Foley) who used to work for Mrs. James, remembered that during the previous summer, on one occasion, when Mrs. James was sitting behind the counter and the prisoner was present, she said to him, “Here is Mrs. Foley; she will go for it;” that they then gave her twopence and told her to go and get antimony for the dog, and that when she went to a chemist of the name of Miller for it he would not let her have it, but told her to tell them to bring the dog over to him. This chemist’s assistant (E. P. Rees) remembered a woman coming for antimony some nine or ten months before, a second person coming also for it on the same day, and a third about four months after for the same drug, to poison a dog with. The third person, he believed, but could not swear, was the prisoner. Another witness (Eliza Brennan) told a strange story about the prisoner. She had been in Mrs. James’s service, some two years ago, and spoke to him about leaving and going to Dublin in the first week of her service. On this the prisoner, she said, advised her to stay, but added that, “if she would go, if she would buy him half-a-crown’s worth of antimony in Dublin, and send it to him by the boat, he would give her £5.” Lastly, a newspaper boy (Thomas Maguire), who slept at Mrs. James’s house, swore that

“The prisoner once sent him for a pennyworth of something for the dog, he did not know its name, but what he got was a white powder, which when given to the animal in water purged it violently—that within half an hour the prisoner sent him again for[489] the same, and now told him its name was antimony. He got it, said the witness, from a young man, name Coopland, at Miller’s the chemist. He declared it was taken from a bottle six or seven from the window, and professed to point out the bottle to the Inspector of police. He knew that the letters ANT. on it stood for antimony. He had also several times since January last seen the prisoner when making bread and butter for the mistress take from his pocket a white powder in a paper and throw some of it on the bread before he buttered it; when he asked him once what it was, the prisoner had said it was salt. When the witness said ‘there was salt enough in the house without that,’ the prisoner made no reply.”

To Inspector Home the prisoner admitted that “he knew the use of antimony, and had given it to cattle, but had not had any in his possession for many years.”

In his charge to the jury, Baron Martin told them that, if they believed that the prisoner administered the antimony with the intention of killing, and that her death from a natural disease was thus accelerated, that was murder—citing the dictum of Lord Hale “that if a man be sick of some disease which might possibly end his life, and another gave him a wound, which would hasten his death, this was murder by the party giving the wound”—they were to guard against prejudice because of the nature of the crime, and not to convict unless the evidence affirmatively satisfied their minds of his guilt.

The jury almost immediately returned a verdict of “Not Guilty.”

CHAPTER IX

ANTIMONY.

Properties of the metal—Alloys—Compounds—Chlorides, sulphides, oxides, hydride. Tartar emetic—solubility, composition, uses and occurrence—commercial, veterinary, medicinal. Doses and preparations—fatal dose, fatal period. Physiological effects—Antidotes—Separations and tests—(1) Reinsch’s—Presence of antimony; purity of the copper employed, how to be secured; different stains resulting from presence of arsenic, antimony, mercury, bismuth, tin, silver, gold, platinum, palladium, sulphur compounds—(2) Dr. Maclagan’s test in Pritchard’s trial—(3) Marsh’s test—Remarks on Pritchard’s trial—On Smethurst’s trial—Dr. Taylor and Mr. Herapath—Arsenic in bismuth—Antimony in grey powder.

ANTIMONY.

The metal antimony (symbol Sb, from its classical name Stibium) is heavier than arsenic (sp. gr. 6·8), less easily tarnished, more difficult to pulverize, and not nearly so volatile. It forms somewhat brittle masses, with a fern-like crystalline appearance on the surface. When broken the interior shows radiating (rhombohedral) crystals of a bluish-white, strongly metallic lustre (arsenicum is greyish, bismuth is pinkish, white), yielding a grey or black powder. Melting point, 425° C. Heated with the blowpipe on charcoal it gives white fumes of oxide, without odour (arsenic gives a garlic odour). The metal is insoluble in water and dilute acids, but soluble in aqua regia to form antimonious chloride; also soluble in sulphide of potassium or sodium. Hot concent. sulphuric acid converts it into sulphate. Nitric acid turns it into a white powder consisting chiefly of metantimonic acid, [491]HSbO₃, of which a small quantity dissolves.[188] The powdered metal burns in chlorine, forming Sb Cl₃, or Sb Cl₅. Metallic antimony is obtained as a “mirror” in Marsh’s test: the distinctions between it and arsenic have been already given (p. 389).

The following is the percentage of metallic antimony in different alloys. English type metal, 20 to 25; German ditto, 15; Britannia metal, 10 to 16; pewter, 7; Argentine, 14½; Ashbury metal, 19½; white or anti-friction metal for engine-bearings, 10; Babbit’s metal, for similar purposes, 13; alloy for ships’ nails, 17 (Ure’s Dictionary, I., 169; Roscoe and Schorlemmer’s Chemistry, 1880, ii., 2, p. 307). There is also antimony in brass, metallic mirrors, bell-metal, &c. (Blyth). Antimony black, used for giving a steel-like lustre to plaster casts, is finely divided Sb, precipitated from the chloride by zinc.

Metallic antimony is not poisonous unless partially oxidized. Commercial samples usually contain a little arsenic, which enters into the salts.

Antimonious chloride, Sb Cl₃, when pure, forms colourless glistening deliquescent crystals. A solution in hydrochloric acid constitutes the commercial “butter of antimony” used for giving a dark bronzing to brass. It is a thick, powerfully acid liquid, coloured brown by the presence of iron, fuming in air, very corrosive, and of an irritating odour, distilling over at about 200° C. (pure Sb Cl₃ boils at 223° C.), decomposed by water into a white magma of oxychloride, Sb O Cl, “powder of Algaroth” (tartar emetic is not decomposed by water). It is a violent corrosive poison, blackening and destroying the surfaces like oil of vitriol. For cases, see Woodman and Tidy, p. 130.

Antimonic chloride, Sb Cl₅, is rarely met with. It resembles Sb Cl₃, but is liquid.

Antimonious sulphide, Sb₂ S₃, is found native as “stibnite,” “speiss-glas,” “grey antimony,” or “antimony glance,” sp. gr. 4·63, in lead-grey striated prisms, fibrous or massive, of a strong metallic lustre, fusing readily to a dark-brown glass —“vitrum antimonii”), giving before the blowpipe white[492] fumes, and an odour of sulphur dioxide —“brimstone”). It is the principal ore, the source of all the preparations, and is itself used in fireworks. When powdered it is black, and in this state was used by the Roman ladies under the name of “stibium,” by the Orientals as “Kohl,” for darkening the eyelids. It is soluble in hot hydrochloric acid to form SbCl₃. The precipitated sulphide is orange, and will be noticed under the tests. Sb₂ S₃ would not be poisonous until oxidized.

Antimonious oxide, Sb₂ O₃, obtained by burning Sb in air, is a white powder, turned yellow on heating, soluble in hydrochloric acid to form Sb Cl₃, and in cream of tartar (acid potass. tartrate) to form tartar emetic. Unlike As₂ O₃, it does not easily volatilize in crystals. It is occasionally found native.

Antimonic oxide, Sb₂ O₅, is a pale yellow powder. There is also an intermediate oxide, Sb₂ O₄.

Antimonious and antimonic acids are hydrates of the above oxides. They exist in several modifications, and form metallic salts, one of which, sodium pyrantimonate, Na₂ H₂ Sb₂ O₇, 6 H₂ O, is the only known insoluble salt of sodium, and hence available as a test.

Antimonious hydride, Stibine, or “antimoniuretted hydrogen,” Sb H₃, has never been obtained pure. In admixture with hydrogen, as given by Marsh’s test, it is a colourless gas, almost or quite inodorous (distinction from As H₃ which smells like garlic), decomposed by heat into hydrogen and a “mirror” of Sb. Its poisonous properties have been doubted, but it is probably more dangerous than As H₃, on account of the absence of the warning odour. It burns with a bluish-green flame, giving white clouds of Sb₂ O₃, and a spot of Sb, duller and greyer than As, when a cold porcelain surface is depressed into the flame. Passed into silver nitrate solution, the Sb is precipitated along with metallic silver as silver antimonide, Ag₃ Sb, whereas arsenic under the same circumstances [493]would remain in solution as As₂ O₃.

TARTAR EMETIC.

Potassio-antimonyl tartrate, tartrate of antimony and potash, “antimonium tartarizatum,” “tartarized antimony,” “stibiated tartar,” symbol K (Sb O) C₄ H₄ O₆, ½ H₂ O, occurs in colourless rhombic octahedral crystals, transparent at first, but becoming opaque by efflorescence, or as a white powder, inodorous, and with a strong metallic taste. The aqueous solution is faintly acid to test-paper, and becomes mouldy on keeping. When evaporated on a glass slide, it leaves a crystalline residue of tetrahedra, cubes and branching forms. (See figure in Guy and Ferrier’s For. Med., p. 469.) Heated on platinum, tartar emetic blackens and swells up with an odour of burnt sugar (due to the tartaric acid), gives a bluish-green tint to the flame, and quickly fuses and makes a hole in the platinum, from the formation of a fusible alloy. Heated in a closed tube, it gives charcoal, potass. carbonate, and metallic antimony, which does not sublime at a moderate temperature, is inodorous, and may be separated in metallic globules by washing (differences from arsenic; see p. 389). Sulph. hydrogen of course gives the orange-red sulphide.

Solubility.—Tartar emetic is almost insoluble in alcohol, and still less soluble in ether, chloroform, &c. Spirits and water, such as are mixed for drinking, dissolve nearly as much as cold water, and more if warm. The solubility in cold water is given very variously in the text-books, from 1 part in 21·8 —“20 grains per fluid ounce,” British Pharmacopœia), 1 in 20 (Garrod and Blyth), 1 in 15 (Brande’s and Gmelin’s Chemistry), to 1 in 14 (Graham and Taylor). To clear up this difficulty I prepared for Dr. Bernays in 1879 a very pure sample of the salt: he found that 100 cubic centimetres of water at 58° F. dissolved 6·67 grammes, equal to one part in fifteen. The solubility rises rapidly with the temperature, till it reaches one part in two at the boiling point. The discrepancies are accounted for by the facts that, (1), the textbooks do not mention the temperature; (2), the salt readily[494] effloresces in air, losing water and becoming less soluble; (3), impurities are often present.

Composition.—Commercial tartar emetic is generally very pure. It sometimes contains a trace of sand and dirt, occasionally an excess of cream of tartar (potass. hydrogen tartrate) from careless preparation, but I have never found arsenic. The theoretical percentage of Sb is 36·53: in good commercial samples Bernays found 36·03 to 36·32 per cent.; in an over-dried specimen, 37·4 per cent. One sample contained 23 per cent. of cream of tartar and only 28·13 of Sb; another, 10 per cent. tartar and 32·7 of Sb.

USES AND OCCURRENCE.

The alloys and pyrotechnic uses have been already mentioned. The impure fused sulphide (vitrum antimonii) is employed to give a yellow tint to glass and porcelain. The oxides are used in glazing earthenware, and in glass and china painting. The following are antimonial pigments: “Antimony cinnabar,” and “crocus,” or “saffron of antimony,” are oxysulphides: “Naples,” “Cassell,” and “antimony yellows,” are chiefly antimoniates of lead. Small quantities of antimony occur in iron ores, ferruginous waters, the coal formation, and in river sand (Roscoe).

In veterinary practice, large doses of antimonials are given to animals, as much as 90 grains of tartar emetic being often administered to a horse in his gruel three times a day. Other preparations are used (see Blyth’s Pract. Chem. 1879, p. 404). They are supposed to cause fattening.

Medicinally it is employed in typhus, delirium tremens, small doses in croup and the broncho-pneumonia of children, as a general expectorant in asthma and bronchitis, in whooping-cough, by some recommended also in scaly skin affections. In acute inflammations and pneumonia, it has lost favour, as too depressing (Farquharson’s Therapeutics). In times before chloroform, tartar emetic was even used to lower the muscular tension previous to reducing dislocations.

[495]

DOSES AND PREPARATIONS.

Pulvis antimonialis, 3 to 10 grains. This is the Pharmacopœial equivalent of “James’s Powder,” a secret remedy once highly popular. It contains one part of Sb₂ O₃ to two of phosphate of lime.

Vinum antimoniale, antimonial wine, is a solution of 10 grains of tartar emetic to each ounce of sherry: dose, 5 minims to 1 fluid drachm.

Antimonii oxidum, Sb₂ O₃, is often very impure. It may contain, (1), higher oxides of Sb, when it is not completely soluble on boiling with water and cream of tartar; (2), carbonate of lime, when it effervesces with acids and contains less Sb; (3), traces of arsenic, when it gives a garlic odour before the blowpipe on charcoal. Percentage of Sb, 83·56: dose, 1 to 4 grains.

Antimonium sulphuratum, or oxysulphuretum, is precipitated Sb₂ S₃ with a small amount of Sb₂ O₃. It contains about 62 to 65 per cent. Sb (pure Sb₂ S₃ has 70·2 per cent.). Dose, 1 to 5 grains, but rarely prescribed, except in “compound calomel pill,” pil. hydrarg. subchlorid. co., which contains 20 per cent. of Sb₂ S₃.

Antimonii chloridi liquor, a solution of Sb Cl₃ in hydrochloric acid, is sometimes used as a caustic, never internally.

Antimonium tartaratum, tartar emetic: dose, as a diaphoretic, ¹/₁₆ to ⅙ grain; as a depressant, ⅙ to 1 grain; as an emetic, 1 to 2 grains (to 3 grains, Farquharson). It should never be used as an emetic in suspected poisoning, as its presence would confuse the investigation.

Unguentum antimonii tartarati, antimonial ointment, contains 20 per cent. of tartar emetic.

The following proprietary pills contain tartar emetic in the annexed proportion per pill weighing about 3 grains:—Dr. J. Johnson’s, 0·04 grain; Mitchell’s, 0·05 grain: Dixon’s, 0·06 grain (Blyth).

It has been stated that the liqueur absinthe owes its deleterious[496] effects to antimony. I have tested several specimens, but never found antimony, though traces of lead or copper were occasionally present.

Fatal dose.—About this, nothing can be exactly stated. The smallest was, in a child, ¾ grain; in an adult, 2 grains; but in this instance there were circumstances which favoured the fatal operation (Taylor, Med. Jur. i., 310).

If vomiting and purging happen, the poison is for the most part expelled: except for the effects of exhaustion, there may then be hardly a limit to the amount which may pass in and pass out. Taylor records recoveries from 120 grains, 200 grains, and even half an ounce of tartar emetic. In pneumonia it has been given in repeated doses of 2 grains without ill effects. It must be remembered that, in the hands of the poisoner, its perverted use is, not to kill, but to so weaken the vital powers that a small and not suspicious dose of some other poison may complete the death.

Fatal period.—Shortest, seven hours in an adult female (Wormley); eight hours in a boy after 10 grains tartar emetic (Lancet, 1846, p. 460). Usually much longer: four days after 40 grains (Orfila, i., 480); up to one year from after effects (Guy and Ferrier).

PHYSIOLOGICAL EFFECTS.

The unpleasant metallic taste, the heat in the throat, and burning in the stomach, have been described in the previously reported trials, and in other cases. Afterwards there is nausea, severe vomiting, profuse watery purging, often convulsions which are sometimes tetanic in character; the skin is generally cold and clammy with perspiration; there is collapse from exhaustion, and occasionally delirium and insensibility. Death may happen either during the convulsions, or during the collapse. The heat and constriction in the throat is not invariably present.

After death there is generally found inflammation of the stomach and intestines, especially the cæcum: the brain is[497] sometimes congested, the throat rarely affected. The stomach-contents are usually tinged with blood, as with most irritant poisons.

In smaller doses it acts at first as a sedative on the brain; the action of the heart becomes slower, weaker, and finally irregular, the pulse is soft, the breathing slower; there is an increased bronchial secretion, and general muscular relaxation. As an emetic it is sluggish and depressing, and is often followed by diarrhœa. It powerfully promotes perspiration, and is therefore used in influenza, &c. Poisonous doses may cause paralysis, prostration, degeneration of the liver and other organs (see Taylor’s remark about the geese at Strasburg, p. 464), inflammation and even ulceration of the intestines (Farquharson and others).

ANTIDOTES.

Sometimes vomiting does not occur: in this case it should be promoted by tickling the throat, and by draughts of warm water. Tannin precipitates compounds of antimonious oxide (Sb₂ O₃), but not those of antimonic oxide (Sb₂ O₅): as the former are the ones almost invariably used, astringent preparations, such as strong tea, coffee, decoction of oak bark, galls, tincture of catechu or kino, should be given. Tannin, or tannic acid, is commonly kept by photographers. Failing this, sodium carbonate (washing soda), in not too strong solution, may do good. Opium to allay the irritation, and brandy to overcome the depression, should then be tried.

SEPARATION AND TESTS.

During life, antimony may be found in the urine and fæces: after death, if its administration has been long continued, it will be found in all parts of the body, but especially in the liver and spleen. If the doses have been discontinued some time before death, none may be left in the stomach and intestines.

The enquiry divides itself into three parts: 1st, the presence[498] of antimony; 2nd, the preparation used; 3rd, the quantity.

I. Presence of Antimony.

Marsh’s and Reinsch’s tests have been mentioned under arsenic. It, however, will be necessary to add a few observations on their special use for Sb.

A fractional part, say one-fourth, of the suspected matter, after mincing or pounding, is digested with hot distilled water containing 5 per cent. of pure hydrochloric, and a little tartaric, acids, well shaken or stirred in a covered or closed vessel, and after some hours filtered. To a portion of the filtrate is added a little more hydrochloric and a little sulphuric acid (to reduce the higher oxides of As and Sb), and the whole is boiled for ten minutes. A portion of the filtrate is now subjected to

Reinsch’s Test.—First it is absolutely necessary to have pure copper; so pure, in fact, that a quantity, larger than would be used in testing, will not, if totally dissolved up, yield any As or Sb to another piece of copper boiled in the solution.

Dr. Taylor’s mistake in the case of Smethurst, more fully treated of hereafter, was a very natural one. The trace of arsenic in his copper would not have affected the conclusion in ordinary cases: but it would be better not to test at all than to use materials which are not proved beforehand to be free from the poison we are seeking. Pure “electrotype” copper can now be purchased; or it can be made pure by either of the following methods.

(a) “Pure” commercial sulphate of copper is boiled with a slight excess of chlorine water, then treated with dilute ammonia till a slight permanent precipitate forms: after standing twelve hours it is filtered (the precipitate containing iron and arsenic), acidulated with pure sulphuric acid, and subjected to the current from two Daniell cells, the terminals being two plates of hard wax well coated with purified graphite: the coating must communicate with the copperwire[499] from the battery, and the wire must not dip into the solution. The distance between the terminals should be so regulated that the copper may be deposited slowly and in a tough layer on the negative pole: the thin plate so obtained may afterwards be easily detached, hammered or rolled, and cut into suitable pieces: it is absolutely free from arsenic.

(b) Pure crystallized chloride of copper is mixed with pure carbonate of soda in excess, the mixture dried with constant stirring, heated to near redness, powdered, mixed with an equal volume of lamp-black, and introduced into a “plumbago” crucible lined with a paste of purified graphite and oil. The crucible is covered, and gradually heated in a Fletcher’s or Griffin’s gas furnace (not with coal or coke), and finally kept at a very high temperature till the copper is reduced. The fumes contain chlorides of copper, sodium, &c., and are poisonous. The copper, after separation from the slag, may be cast, hammered, or rolled, and is free from As or Sb.

I suggest these processes more for manufacturers than for chemists, but expense and trouble should really be subordinate considerations where life is concerned.

Now for the application. Two flasks containing pure diluted (25 per cent.) hydrochloric acid are placed on a sandbath, and nearly closed by small glass funnels. About a square inch of pure copper, cleaned by sand-paper, is placed in each: to one is added the suspected liquid, to the other an equal bulk of 5 per cent. hydrochloric acid. Both are boiled, with occasional inspection. If the following are present, the copper will be darkened:—

Arsenic.—Stain steel-grey: dried and heated in closed tube it gives easily a sublimate of octahedral crystals of As₂ O₃. (See Arsenic, ante.)

Antimony.—Stain black, or in small quantity, violet: in the closed tube it gives with difficulty an amorphous white sublimate of Sb₂ O₃, soluble in H Cl, and then precipitated orange by H₂ S.

Mercury.—Stain silvery: in closed tube gives a sublimate[500] of metallic globules, made more visible by rubbing them together with a splinter of wood.

Bismuth, tin, silver, gold, platinum, palladium, &c., give black, grey or silvery deposits, but no sublimate in the tube. Gold gives a stain which is yellow on burnishing, and yields no sublimate.

Sulphur compounds in the organic matter may give a dull stain, which may even yield a kind of sublimate in the tube, but this sublimate will not conform to the tests for As or Sb.

If there is much As or Sb, the deposit sometimes peels off if boiled too long.

The process used by Prof. Maclagan in the Pritchard trial is also a good means of verification. Boil the stained foil in a solution of caustic potash, exposing it occasionally to the air (or boil with a weak, slightly alkaline solution of potass, permanganate, and filter—Odling). The Sb will be oxidized and dissolved. Add HCl and pass H₂ S: an orange precipitate of Sb₂ S₃ will prove the presence of antimony.

If Sb has been found, remove the first piece of copper, and boil with another piece, and so on till the Sb is all removed. The coated slips, the sublimate, the Sb₂ S₃, and the copper in the second flask which has still remained bright, should be sealed up to be shown in court.

The previous treatment with sulphurous acid prevents any interference by oxidizing agents such as chlorate of potash, nitrates, iodine, &c.

Marsh’s Test is more delicate, but more liable to error, than Reinsch’s.

Two methods of applying Marsh’s test to antimony may be used.

A. By Edmund Davy’s process with sodium amalgam (see Arsenic, p. 388), only As H₃ passes off, the Sb remaining behind. Hence, when the arsenic has finished coming over, if the remaining solution be acidulated with pure sulphuric acid,[189] pure zinc put in, and one or two drops of pure platinic chloride added[501] to facilitate the evolution of hydrogen, the antimony will then come over as Sb H₃.

B. Or the original substance may be placed in the flask, treated at once with the zinc and dilute acid, and the As H₃ and Sb H₃ passed together into silver nitrate solution, and separated by filtration as directed under arsenic. See p. 389, also as to the distinctions between the stains of Sb and As. To these add, that metallic spots of both As and Sb are soluble in yellow ammonium sulphide: the solutions on evaporation to dryness on the water-bath give:

(a). With arsenic a yellow stain, soluble in ammonia, insoluble in hydrochloric acid;

(b). With antimony an orange stain, insoluble in ammonia, soluble in hydrochloric acid.

Metallic antimony can be precipitated as a black powder from its solutions by acidulating with hydrochloric acid and treating with a slip of pure tin, which does not precipitate arsenic. Zinc or electrolysis also precipitate Sb, along with copper and many other metals. Hence this method is not available in mixtures.

Sulphuretted hydrogen gives with antimonial solutions slightly acidulated an orange-red precipitate of sulphide, insoluble in ammonia or ammonium carbonate, soluble in ammonium sulphide, soluble in hot strong hydrochloric acid by conversion into antimonious chloride, and sulphuretted hydrogen: the former then gives a white precipitate with water, the latter gives the characteristic odour and blackens lead paper.

The reactions with sodium hydrate and sodium carbonate, are not so clear or decisive. Potass. ferrocyanide gives no precipitate. Tannin and tincture of galls give a yellowish white precipitate. Before the blowpipe with sodium carbonate on charcoal, solid Sb compounds give a grey brittle globule of the metal and a white incrustation. But there is rarely sufficient for such a test to be of use in toxicological work, there is also a risk of loss, and other metals give a similar reaction.

[502]

N.B.—Among other substances, sulphide of antimony is frequently added to caoutchouc in the process of vulcanising india-rubber: in all toxicological experiments involving tests for antimony (and arsenic), great danger of a mistake is thus attendant on the use of ordinary vulcanised india-rubber tubing. Black unvulcanised tubing should alone be employed.

II. Preparation Used.

The insoluble compounds would act very slowly as poisons and would require very large doses, hence would be found in the solid form in the stomach, and could be identified by appearance, by the microscope, and by the tests, after washing and settling down.

To ascertain whether antimony was in solution, the liquid contents of the stomach, after dilution with water if necessary, should be allowed to settle, the nearly clear top layer decanted and filtered, and the filtrate examined. The soluble compounds are:—

1. Tartar emetic. Solution slightly acid, taste metallic. On evaporation on a glass slide tetrahedral crystals are obtained. If the solution is moderately strong, it gives a white precipitate with a little hydrochloric acid, soluble in excess: with water it gives no precipitate. Stomach generally inflamed but not corroded.

2. Antimonious chloride, Sb Cl₃. Solution strongly acid, effervescing and giving a white precipitate with sodium carbonate. Taste corrosive and powerfully metallic. On evaporation, no tetrahedra. No precipitate with hydrochloric acid: with water a white precipitate, re-dissolved by tartaric acid.[190] By analysis a large quantity of chlorine will be found. The stomach is corroded and often blackened or charred.

3. Antimonates, antimonites, sulphantimonites, and -ates (such as “Schlippe’s salt”), are rare and improbable. Antimonates are alkaline, give a white precipitate with acids, and[503] a white crystalline one with sodium salts. Schlippe’s salt is strongly alkaline, and gives with hydrochloric acid an orange-red precipitate of sulphide.

III. Quantity.

To ascertain the amount of Sb is absolutely necessary. Marsh’s test is not available, since a large part of the antimony is thrown down on the zinc and remains in the generating flask. It has been proposed to wash this off and weigh it, but other metals and impurities are present, so that this is not practicable. Reinsch’s test has been applied quantitatively by weighing the copper before and after the test: the difference of weight was supposed to be the As or Sb. But the copper may dissolve or oxidise, sulphur and other things deposit on it; so that this method is not correct.

If antimony only is present, acidulate with hydrochloric acid, pass sulph. hydrogen in excess, warm, filter, wash the orange hydrated antimonious sulphide into a porcelain capsule, remove most of the water, dry on the water bath, finally at 200°C. and weigh. 100 grains of Sb₂ S₃ correspond to 85·88 of Sb₂ O₃, to 196·47 of tartar emetic, to 71·76 of Sb, to 134·41 of Sb Cl₃.

But in the stomach any other metal may be present, hence a process of separation must be used. It is not generally necessary to destroy the organic matter: if this be desired, Fresenius and v. Babo’s process, of heating with H Cl and potass. chlorate (previously proved pure) may be used without much danger of loss, as Sb Cl₃ is not so volatile as As Cl₃. Otherwise the solution made by pure hydrochloric and a little tartaric acids is treated with sulphuretted hydrogen. The precipitated sulphide may be of uncertain, though suspicious colour. After collection on a filter and washing, it should be extracted with dilute ammon. carbonate solution (10 per cent.): arsenic only will dissolve and will be reprecipitated as sulphide on adding an acid. The remainder on the filter must be treated with freshly prepared ammon.[504] sulphide: antimony and tin will dissolve. If any black residue remains on the filter, it will consist of mercury, lead, bismuth, or copper: it should be treated with hot 25 per cent. nitric acid, when all will dissolve except mercuric sulphide. We shall then have three portions:—

1st. The mercuric sulphide. Wash, dry, and weigh. Then heat in a sealed tube with dry sodium carbonate, collect the sublimate of metallic mercury, weigh it, and preserve in a sealed tube.

2nd. The nitric acid solution containing lead, bismuth, and copper. Evaporate nearly to dryness, dilute, add dilute sulphuric acid, and a little alcohol, after standing collect and weigh the precipitated sulphate of lead. Precipitate the bismuth by ammon. carbonate in excess, and the copper from the filtrate by zinc or by sulph. hydrogen. (See Fresenius’ Quant. Anal. p. 411).

3rd. The ammon. sulphide solution of the antimony and tin. Evaporate to dryness, dissolve in hot strong hydrochloric acid, dilute, divide into two equal portions: in one throw down both metals by a rod of zinc: in the other throw down only Sb by a slip of tin. Wash off both precipitates, dry and weigh. The first is antimony and tin together, the second is antimony alone (Gay Lussac). The difference is the tin.

Usually only some of these metals will be present. Tin has derived more importance lately since Hehner has proved its almost constant presence in canned provisions.

As to the delicacy of the precipitation of antimony by zinc or galvanism, Mohr (Toxicologie, 1876) states that a solution containing ·00005 gramme of Sb in one cub. centimetre gives a distinct reaction in fifteen minutes. Such a solution gives with H₂S only a colouration, and after a long time a faint precipitate. ¹/₃₀₀₀₀ part gives with zinc a clear reaction in one half-hour: with H₂ S, only a colour, no precipitate, in twelve hours. ¹/₄₀₀₀₀, doubtful: ¹/₅₀₀₀₀, imperceptible with zinc: of course, nothing with H₂ S. The reaction is only decisive if other metals are excluded.

[505]

From the solution of Sb Cl₃, or tartar emetic in H Cl, gallic acid throws down Sb, and not As or tin. The precipitate after washing and drying contains 40·85 per cent. of Sb. (Chem. News, XXIV. 207, 251.)

To sum up, the decisive characters of antimony are:—

1. An orange red precip. by H₂ S in slightly acid solutions.

2. The insolubility of this precip. in ammon. carbonate.

3. Its solubility in ammonium sulphide.

4. Its solubility in hot H Cl, with evolution of H₂ S, and formation of a solution of Sb Cl₃, which is precipitated by water and cleared up again by tartaric acid.

Remarks.
DR. PRITCHARD’S CASE.

In connection with the supposed administration of tartar emetic on a piece of cheese, in Dr. Pritchard’s trial (see Mr. Clark’s review of McCleod’s evidence, p. 438), the following considerations are of interest.

1. An exceedingly small (weighed) quantity of dry powdered tartar emetic was sprinkled on the surface of a little piece of cheese: although the amount of tartar emetic used was far less than that required to induce vomiting, &c., the powder was found to be plainly visible, and the appearance of the cheese so treated would certainly have excited suspicion in the mind of any ordinarily observant person. Hence it is impossible that enough tartar emetic to produce the recorded effects should have been sprinkled externally on the very small amounts of cheese described —“not larger than a bean”—M. McCleod: “size of a good large pea”—M. Patterson).[191]

2. With reference to the Lord Justice Clerk’s observation, p. 439, note, tartar emetic is not easily dissolved, a cold saturated aqueous solution containing only 5 per cent. of the salt (according to the B. P., 20 grains dissolve without residue[506] in 1 ounce of water). A piece of cheese, the size of a bean, would weigh about ⅛ ounce. I have found by experiment that 1 ounce cheese took up by soaking not more than ¼ ounce water, which, from the above, could contain in solution 5 grains of tartar emetic. Hence a piece of cheese, the size of a bean, = ¼ × ⅛ = ¹/₃₂ ounce water = ⅝ grain of tartar emetic. This amount could not cause the symptoms described.

3. If put on in powder the poisonous salt could only be concealed by being rubbed over with butter or oil: if soaked in a solution of tartar emetic, the cheese, in order to avert suspicion, must be wiped or dried—operations practically impossible at the table with so many present.

Two possibilities remain: (a) Cheese is often eaten with salt. Dr. Pritchard may have had a little salt-cellar by his side, professedly for his own use, containing tartar emetic, either alone or mixed with salt. He may have placed a spoonful of this on the plate with the cheese: the latter may have been either dipped into the salt or got into it accidentally. No question was asked at the trial about such a likely fact, which would account for one person suffering, and not another, according as they got the salt or not. The strong taste of salt would avert suspicion from that of tartar emetic. (b) McCleod said that it was “new cheese—they had it in the house—it was soft—it tasted hot like pepper.” It is possible, but not easy, by warming and pounding in a mortar, to mix cheese with a considerable amount of a powder: it would then look soft and rather unnatural, but might, as “new cheese,” escape suspicion. This theory is less probable than the other.

Tapioca.—Mr. Clark’s remark, p. 438, “Now the suggestion of the Crown is that the prisoner put antimony in this tapioca, so nicely adjusted as to produce sickness leading to death, but not so as to produce death itself,” is inconclusive, as it requires a considerable amount to produce death. A large quantity of tartar emetic could be mixed with tapioca without suspicion, and would not betray itself by any peculiar[507] appearance on cooking. The same remark applies to the sago in Winslow’s case.

Egg-flip.—“The amount of antimony introduced on the sugar into the egg-flip must have been a very powerful dose, because Patterson took only a teaspoonful and lay vomiting and suffering all night.” The total amount was a tumblerful (= 10 fluid ounces). Mrs. Pritchard took a wine-glassful (= 2 fluid ounces); was sick very soon and all night. Mary Patterson took a teaspoonful, was sick immediately, and vomited frequently throughout the night. Her dose must have been at least 1 grain. This would make 60 grains in the whole. Such a quantity of tartar emetic would be about a teaspoonful, and obviously could not be introduced on two lumps of loaf sugar, as the following experiment shows:—Two rather large pieces of loaf sugar weighing together 204 grains were gently shaken with powdered tartar emetic, and the loose part shaken off. The lumps now looked rather powdery, but nothing very noticeable. The amount of tartar emetic they had taken up was nearly 3 grains (2·96), not nearly a teaspoonful, though amply sufficient to cause vomiting. It is not the porosity, but the roughness of surface, that enables a powder to adhere to the sugar. The tartar emetic might have been slipped into the egg-flip, out of the hand, at the same time that the sugar was added, the mixture being afterwards stirred up.

DR. SMETHURST’S CASE.
Dr. Taylor and Mr. Herapath.

In his evidence before the committing magistrates, on the 20th of May, Dr. Taylor said:—

“I found no arsenic or antimony in any of the bottles delivered to me by Inspector McIntyre on the 5th and 7th of May, except one, and the homœopathic medicine: that one was bottle 21.[192] When I received this bottle it was about[508] half full of thin, watery-looking mixture, and I tested it. It had a cooling, pleasant saline taste, not repugnant, no smell. I detected nothing wrong with the taste. I evaporated some in a glass, and examined it by the microscope, and then found it was not tartar emetic, as I thought. I then applied the tests for arsenic, and every test I tried was destroyed, and failed to show the existence of arsenic, owing, as I supposed, to there being in it, and my tests convinced me that there was, something very peculiar about it that I had not met before. I tried Reinsch’s process, but I found that it dissolved the copper-gauze as soon as I put it into the liquid. I then determined to extract this noxious agent, and continued to put in copper-gauze until it no longer possessed the power to dissolve it. I then put in a piece of copper, which at once received the arsenic. I was able to decide by these tests that the mixture was chlorate of potash. I found there was of chlorate of potash 7 grains to the ounce, or 1 and ⁶/_10ths per cent., and there was a grain of arsenic to every ounce. I found that the taste of the liquid in this bottle was such that no one would be likely to suspect that it contained arsenic, more particularly as the quantity of arsenic was so small that the liquid could be mixed with any kind of food and swallowed without the person being aware of it.[193] In the bottles brought to me by Dr. Berry[194] I found arsenic—that was white arsenic. I could not give an opinion on that in the evacuation (No. 2), as that was mixed with blood and mucus. In No. 1 there was biliary matter without any metallic substance.”

Subsequently to the conviction of Smethurst, Mr. Herapath wrote the letter to the Times, on the 27th of August, before referred to in the Lord Chief Baron’s communication to the Home Secretary, in which, after a wordy and personal attack[509] on Dr. Taylor, with special reference to his having used for twenty years untested copper, he said:—

“But was the arsenic said to have been found in bottle 21 really in the copper used to prove its presence? Could the copper wire-gauze dissolved by 7 grains of chlorate of potash and its associated hydrochloric acid deposit one grain of arsenic? In the face of all England, I say it could not. The 100th part of a grain of arsenic in that quantity of copper would render it so brittle that it could not be drawn into wire at all, much less into fine wire fit for gauze. The fact is the whole set of operations were a bungle. Reinsch’s process is inapplicable where nitrates or chlorates are present. Taylor must have known this: it was well known then that chlorates, nitrates, arsenates, and other oxidizing agents, interfered with Reinsch’s process. When Taylor found the copper dissolved—he knew that one of these oxidizing agents was present—he ought then to have either used Marsh’s test instead of Reinsch’s, or should have prepared the solution by sulphurous acid first. The method he did use was as dangerous as could be.”

Whether Mr. Herapath communicated this opinion to the friends of Smethurst before the trial, as he ought to have done, does not appear. At any rate he was not called for the defence, and his opinion was apparently only made public after the conviction. It stands, therefore, like all the other communications laid before the Home Secretary, untested by cross-examination. How far was he correct?

Taylor does not state how much of the liquid in bottle 21 he took for analysis. Assuming that he took 1 ounce, 7 grains of chlorate would dissolve, at the most, 22 grains of copper. If this yielded 1 grain of arsenic, the copper must have contained 4½ per cent. of that poison—an impossible quantity. Less than ½ per cent. of arsenic renders copper brittle. So far Herapath was right.[195]

[510]

(2.) If Taylor was right that what he got was white arsenic, that could not have come from the copper, which can only contain arsenicum—metallic arsenic. Therefore if Taylor’s analysis was not altogether wrong, in bottle 21 there really was arsenic, and the prisoner was proved to have had the materials for poisoning in his possession.

Taylor’s procedure in dissolving up piece after piece of copper, which had not been previously proved, by the same process, not to contain arsenic, was highly blameable, and his assertion that he had previously tried his tests and found them pure, was not strictly true. Altogether, his tests both for arsenic and antimony were not reliable.

ADDENDA.

The “bismuth” frequently referred to in the report of Smethurst’s trial is the Bismuthi Subnitras, B. P., also known by the various names of “Bismuthum Album,” “White Bismuth,” “Trisnitrate of Bismuth,” “Subnitrate of Bismuth,” “Magistery of Bismuth,” “Pearl White,” &c. This compound is a basic nitrate of bismuth, Bi N 0₄, H₂ 0: it is insoluble in water, and is a heavy, white, minutely-crystalline powder, much used in medicine, and also as a cosmetic. The name “bismuth” is misleading as applied to this drug, which is not bismuth, but a salt of that metal.

Ordinary subnitrate of bismuth frequently contains various adulterations and impurities. The most usual adulterants are carbonate of lead, carbonate of lime and phosphate of lime (Royle’s Materia Medica, 1876): among the impurities which have been found are ammonia (Piper, Pharm. Journ., Ap. 21, 1877), arsenic, lead, iron, chlorine, and sodium salts. Some specimens of bismuth subnitrate analysed by Herapath contained 1 grain of arsenic in 1000: others contained as much as 1 grain in 433. Taylor, also, found arsenic in three samples out of five examined by him. Riche (J. Pharm. et[511] Chim., 5, 384) states that the majority of commercial samples of bismuth subnitrate contain lead and arsenic, the former to the extent of ·03-·04 per cent. (as sulphate), and the latter (as arsenious acid) to ·002-·01 per cent., while Chas. Ekin (Pharm Journ., 3, III., 381) remarks that this preparation of bismuth is often very impure, containing much subchloride, copper, and occasionally lead. On the other hand, three specimens of subnitrate of bismuth, analysed by Bernays, contained no arsenic, lead, or carbonic acid, while the percentage of bismuth oxide present closely approximated to the theoretical amount. Moreover, in the Practitioner, Mar. 1871, p. 191, the results of the examination of six samples of bismuth subnitrate are given, the only impurities found being traces of chlorine and sulphuric acid: there was no arsenic. Hence it is evident that subnitrate of bismuth does not always contain arsenic: and the quantity of this impurity, when present, is so minute as (having regard to the small doses in which the drug is usually prescribed in medicine) to be insufficient to produce the graver symptoms of arsenical poisoning.[196]

The presence of arsenic in bismuth subnitrate may easily be detected by Marsh’s test.

Subnitrate of bismuth nearly always contains arsenic and other impurities, when it has been prepared from commercial bismuth. The British Pharmacopœia, therefore; very properly directs that purified bismuth (Bismuthum Purificatum,[512] B. P.) should be used in the preparation of this drug: the B. P. method of purifying the metal is as follows. 10 ounces of bismuth and 1 ounce of nitrate of potash are fused together in a crucible, heated and stirred, until the salt has solidified into a slag over the metal: the salt is now removed, another ounce of nitrate of potash is added, and the remainder of the process is repeated. The fused bismuth is now poured into a mould, and allowed to cool.

Herapath states that the arsenic is not all removed by this process, and he proposes to boil the nitrate in solution of a caustic alkali, which removes the arsenic and converts the bismuth into oxide, from which the salts can be prepared (Royle).

From the purified metal subnitrate of bismuth can be prepared by the following process, which is that given in the British Pharmacopœia. 2 ounces of purified bismuth are gradually added to a mixture of 4 fluid ounces nitric acid with three ounces distilled water: when effervescence has ceased, heat is applied for a few minutes, and the solution is decanted from any insoluble residue. The liquid is concentrated by evaporation to 2 fluid ounces, and poured into half a gallon of distilled water. The precipitate formed (Bi N 0₄, H₂ 0) is well washed by decantation, filtered, and finally dried at a temperature not exceeding 150° F.

In the event of the bismuth used not having been thoroughly purified, and being therefore still likely to contain a trace of arsenic, a modification of the above process, recommended by R. Schneider (Journ. Prakt. Chem., 1879, 418), may be employed. It consists in heating the acid before the bismuth is added, and continuing the heating until the metal is dissolved. If arsenic be present, the solution will contain in suspension a white precipitate of bismuth arsenate, which is nearly insoluble in nitric acid, and can be removed by filtration through asbestos, before the solution is diluted. Cold nitric acid would convert any arsenic present into bismuth arsenite, which is readily soluble in nitric acid, and could not, therefore, be separated by filtration.

[513]

“Grey powder” is Hydrargyrum cum Creta, B. P., and consists of one part of metallic mercury in a very finely divided state, mixed with two parts of chalk. It is made by rubbing mercury and prepared chalk together until metallic globules are no longer visible. The mercury in this preparation always becomes in course of time more or less oxidised, the amount of oxide formed varying according to the length of time the mixture has been kept, and the extent of its exposure to the air.

Iron, silica, and phosphoric acid, might be present in very small quantities as impurities, in many samples of grey powder: caustic lime could not possibly occur, unless the specimen had been subjected to a red heat, which would drive off the mercury and so spoil the preparation. Antimony and arsenic would rarely be met with as impurities in grey powder, and if present, would only be in very minute quantities.

CHAPTER X.

POISONING BY ACONITIA OR ACONITINE. THE WIMBLEDON POISONING CASE—DR. LAMSON.

Under this head of poisons, there is only one trial to report in full, that of Dr. Lamson for the murder of his brother-in-law, Percy Malcolm John, at Wimbledon, on Saturday, the 3rd of December, 1881, for which he was tried before Mr. Justice Hawkins, at the Central Criminal Court, on the 8th of March, 1882, and the five following days. The especial difficulties in the way of detecting this preparation of aconite, invested the case with more than usual interest to both the medical and legal profession. The subsequent attempt by the convict’s friends to induce the Home Secretary to delay his execution, in order that his mental condition might be inquired into, backed as it was by the American Government, kept alive the public interest to an unusual extent, and bid fair to revive another such controversy as that which followed, but with a different result, on the conviction of Smethurst. By the kindness of Mr. W. A. Mills, Dr. Lamson’s solicitor, I have had the advantage of reading the whole of the very numerous affidavits tendered in support of this application, of which I have given a summary at the close of the trial.[197]

Though the trial now reported is the only one in which[515] aconitia was employed, other forms of aconite have been used in previous cases. In that of Dr. Pritchard it was administered in the form of tincture of aconite, and as far back as 1841, in the case of Reg. v. McConkey, it was administered as powdered aconite root. In this case the reputed poisoner was tried at the Lent Assizes, Monaghan, and the medico-legal investigation was conducted by the late Dr. Geoghegan, of Dublin. As in Pritchard’s and Lamson’s cases, the medical evidence was beset with difficulties, for no trace of the poison could be discovered in the body, and it was only by a close analysis of symptoms and appearances that the charge was brought home to the prisoner. The deceased had eaten at his dinner some greens dressed for him by the prisoner: he complained of their having a sharp taste, and this was perceived also by another person present who tasted them. It was ascertained that the deceased, soon after the meal, had vomited a greenish matter, and suffered from purging, restlessness, incoherence, lockjaw, and clenching of the hands. He died in about three hours after having eaten the greens, but was not seen by a medical man while living. The chief appearance met with was in the stomach, where the mucous membrane was of a light reddish-brown colour. Traces of vegetable matter were found in the intestines, but no poison could be detected, either botanically or chemically. The symptoms suffered by a friend of the deceased, who had accidentally tasted the greens, were very characteristic of poisoning by aconite. In two minutes he felt a burning heat in the mouth, throat, gullet, and stomach; then a sensation of swelling in the face, with a general feeling of numbness and creeping of the skin. Restlessness, dimness of sight, and stupor almost amounting to insensibility, followed; and in about an hour after the meal he was found speechless—frothing at the nose and mouth, the hands and jaws clenched, appearing occasionally as if dead, and then again reviving. Vomiting, purging, tenderness at the pit of the stomach, cramps, tingling of the flesh, and a burning taste in the mouth, followed. This man did not entirely recover until[516] after the lapse of five weeks. The prisoner was convicted, and confessed before his execution that the powdered root of Monkshood (aconite) had been mixed with pepper and sprinkled over the greens.[198]

THE WIMBLEDON POISONING CASE.

Before The Hon. Mr. Justice Hawkins, at the Central Criminal Court, March 9, and five following days, 1882.

For the Prosecution: The Solicitor-General (Sir F. Herschel), Mr. Poland, and Mr. A. L. Smith.

For the Defence: Mr. Montagu Williams, Mr. C. Matthews, Mr. E. Gladstone, and Mr. W. S. Robson.

George Henry Lamson, surgeon, aged 29, was indicted for the murder of his brother-in-law, Percy Malcolm John, at Blenheim House, Wimbledon, on December 3rd, 1881.

HISTORY OF THE CASE.

In the winter of 1881, among the pupils at the school of Mr. Bedbrook, of Blenheim House, Wimbledon, was Percy Malcolm John, the youngest of the five children of a Manchester merchant, a lad of about nineteen years of age, a sad sufferer from paralysis of the lower limbs produced by curvature of the spine, but otherwise in a fair state of health. Since the death of their mother in 1869, the children had been orphan wards in Chancery, and previously to 1881, one brother and one sister had died, under age, another sister had married a Mr. Chapman, and the third the prisoner, a medical practitioner at Bournemouth, who was now indicted for the murder of his brother-in-law. By the wills of their parents, the children, as they came of age or married, were entitled to the family property in equal shares, those of such as died under age passing to the survivors. Hence, at the time of his death, Percy John had property in expectance to the amount of £3,000, which, in the event of his death as a minor, would be equally divided between his two married[517] sisters, and by the settlement made by Mrs. Lamson on her marriage, her share would come into the hands of the prisoner.[199] Though such a sad sufferer from paralysis as to be unable to move about readily except in a wheel-chair, and only able to drag himself backwards up a few stairs,[200] there were no symptoms of serious bodily illness in the lad: his temper was good, and his intelligence fair.

In his brother-in-law’s health Lamson appeared to take great interest, visiting him at the school, having him to stay at his own house, and sending to his master from America some medicines which he stated had been found useful in that country in similar cases. On the 1st of December, the prisoner wrote to the boy that he would come to see him the next evening, before he left for Paris—a promise which he failed to keep.[201] On the 3rd, however, about seven in the evening, he came, bringing with him some sweets, a cake, and a box containing gelatine capsules, which he told the master he had brought for him from America, as convenient for enabling him to administer nauseous medicines to his pupils. At this interview with his brother-in-law, he persuaded Mr. Bedbrook, who was present, to take one of these capsules to try how easily they were swallowed. Whilst doing so, the master noticed that the prisoner was filling another with some powdered sugar, which he had asked for, on the plea of destroying the alcohol in some wine of which he was partaking. When he had put in the sugar, the prisoner, turning to the lad, shook up the capsule, saying, “It has to be shaken in order that the medicine may go to[518] the bottom. You are good at taking medicine; take this.” The boy swallowed the capsule, and within a few minutes after, the prisoner, saying that he wanted to catch the tidal-train for Paris, left the school-house. In about twenty minutes afterwards Percy complained of heartburn, gradually became worse, was carried up to bed, and vomited largely in the closet.[202] “He felt,” he said, “as he had done in the previous August when the prisoner gave him a pill in the Isle of Wight.” He was in great pain, violently restless, and with difficulty kept down by those who were holding him. After more simple remedies had failed to relieve him, the doctors who had been called in injected morphia under the skin, which had a temporary effect. This was subsequently repeated, but with no apparent result, and shortly afterwards he died, within four hours of swallowing the capsule. The post-mortem examination revealed no signs of such a natural form of disease as would account for his sudden death—the only sign of disease being the long-standing curvature of the spine, distressing, but at that time innocuous. A chemical analysis of the stomach and other parts of the body was had, and, so far as the present state of scientific knowledge could decide, it was the firm opinion of the experienced analysts Drs. Stevenson and Dupré, that death was due to an irritant vegetable poison, and that that poison was aconitia, a most highly poisonous vegetable alkaloid, containing the active principle of aconite, the product of the root of monkshood.

Suspicion naturally fell on the prisoner, and was greatly increased when it was discovered that a few days before his last visit to the boy he had purchased aconitia in London, and that previously to the illness of the deceased in the Isle of Wight, the prisoner had also purchased of a druggist at Shanklin some of this deadly poison. In the meantime the prisoner had gone to Paris, whence on the 8th of December[519] he unexpectedly returned, presented himself to the police at Scotland Yard, in consequence, as he said, of the reports he had seen in the papers, and, apparently to his surprise, was taken into custody.

Other incidents in the prisoner’s career and conduct gradually came to light. Whilst in practice as a surgeon at Bournemouth he had been in great pecuniary difficulties, though he had received his share of the property of that one of the children who had died a minor; an execution had been put into his house, and at the time of the murder he was admittedly in straitened circumstances. Again, in the boy’s boxes at school, in addition to some genuine quinine powders purchased of a chemist in the Isle of Wight, and proved to be free from poison, which had been sent to the boy by the prisoner, were three heavily charged with aconitia, and two pills containing this deadly drug. Again, he had written to the boy on the 1st of December that he would call on him on his way to Paris the next day. He went to Wimbledon, however, on the evening of the 2nd, with his friend, a Mr. Tulloch, whom he left at the station, whilst he professed to have gone to the school, and to whom he said that “he had seen his brother-in-law, who was much worse, and that he did not expect he would live long, and that he would not go on to Paris that night, as Mr. Bedbrook, who was a director of a continental line, had told him that there was a bad boat on.” All this was untrue. He had never been to the school, and Mr. Bedbrook had nothing to do with any continental line. He had invented the whole story.

In the trial that followed, the interest centred on the impossibility of detecting vegetable poisons by any chemical tests, and on the necessity, as in Dr. Pritchard’s case, with aconite, of relying on the test of tasting the extract from the various parts of the body. On this test, supported by the effects observed on injecting drops of the extract under the skins of mice, which successively died of the operation, and exhibited the same symptoms before death as resulted from similar injections of pure aconitia, depended the proof that the[520] death resulted from this poison. I proceed therefore to give the medical and analytical evidence in detail.

EVIDENCE OF MEDICAL ATTENDANTS.

Dr. Berry, of Wimbledon, the regular medical attendant at the school, who had known the deceased for a year and a half, and only had occasion to attend him twice during that time, once for vaccination, and another time for an eruption on the skin, his state of health being otherwise good, gave the following account of the symptoms:—

“On Saturday, Dec. 3, I arrived at the school about five minutes to nine p.m., and was taken by Mr. Bedbrook to Percy John’s room.[203] He was in bed, and partly undressed, and in great pain in the stomach. He also complained of the skin of his face being drawn, and that there was a sense of constriction in the throat, in consequence of which he was unable to swallow. He was retching and vomiting; the vomit was a small quantity of dark-coloured fluid. I asked him shortly after the cause of his illness (Mr. Bedbrook had previously made a communication to me), and said to Percy, ‘Did your brother-in-law ever give you quinine pills before?’ He said, ‘Yes, at Shanklin.’ I said, ‘Did it make you like this before?’ ‘Yes,’ he said, ‘but not so bad.’ There is nothing in ordinary quinine pills to produce such symptoms. I did not form an opinion at that time to what the symptoms were due. During an interval of the vomiting I had some white of egg beaten up in water given to him, which he was able to swallow, and had hot linseed poultices placed on his stomach. He was very restless on the bed—violently so, throwing himself backwards and forwards and from side to side. Several people held him to prevent him from injuring himself. He did not improve at all under this treatment. Hearing that Dr. Little, a medical man of Wimbledon, was in the house, I had him sent for, and in about twenty or twenty-five minutes after I had been in the room he came. I consulted him, and we determined to inject some morphia. I left the house to get the morphia and an instrument, being away five to ten minutes. When I returned the deceased was not[521] better, and I injected a quarter of a grain of morphia under the skin, over the region of the stomach. This was done about ten o’clock. The symptoms abated somewhat about half-past ten, but not very much. They were still all present, but in a modified degree, and then they returned again a little before eleven as severely as before the injection of the morphia. A little before eleven the deceased asked to have the morphia injected again. He complained then of pain in his body, but not in any particular part. I then about eleven injected one-sixth of a grain of morphia in the same place as before, but it had no apparent effect. In about ten minutes he became a little unconscious and wandering. That was the first time I noticed it. His breathing became slower and sighing, and the heart’s action weaker and weaker, and he died about twenty minutes after eleven.”

In his account of the symptoms and the progress of the case until the deceased’s death, Dr. Berry was fully confirmed by Dr. Little, who added that at that time they were of opinion that the death was due to an irritant poison. Dr. Berry then gave the results of

THE POST-MORTEM EXAMINATION.

On cross-examination, the witness repeated, in several forms, that he had no special knowledge of aconitia, but some of aconite as used internally for cancer, erysipelas, and other complaints, and was unable to say whether a grain of aconitia blended into 20 pills would be good for curvature of the spine, and that the remedies he applied were for the violent irritation of the stomach from which up to the time of his death he believed the deceased was suffering.

On re-examination, the witness said that “he could not think that the death was caused by anything he saw in the curvature of the spine; that if death had been caused by pressure on the arteries, he should not have expected to find the symptoms of irritation in the stomach which existed after death; that displacement of the lungs and heart had not been, in this case, produced by the curvature of the spine, and, if there had been much displacement of either, he could not have failed to observe it.” Dr. Little was equally inexperienced with Dr. Berry in cases of poisoning, but agreed with him that the curvature of the spine in the lumbar region had not displaced either the lungs, the stomach, or the heart, and that the patches on the surface of the stomach were of recent[524] date—“might have existed for days, but not for weeks, but not without the patient suffering.”

Mr. Bond, the Lecturer on Forensic Medicine at the Westminster Hospital, detailed the various portions of the body which he put aside for chemical analysis and delivered to Dr. Dupré; the receipt of two pills given to him by Dr. Berry, one of which was taken out of one of the capsule boxes after the boy’s death, and the other brought to Dr. Berry whilst he was in attendance on the deceased, and two packets of sweets, and part of a cake. He further confirmed the evidence of Dr. Berry as to the results of the post-mortem examination, with the exception, that Dr. Berry had omitted to state that “the whole of the lungs were somewhat congested, and the anterior part of them exceedingly so, and that the body was not decomposed.” In his opinion there was nothing to account for death from natural causes, and he attributed it to poisoning by some vegetable alkaloid, such as aconitia, a fatal dose of which could be given in one of the capsules. The appearances on the post-mortem examination were, he considered, such as he should expect to find in death by aconitia. He agreed also with the other medical men that the grey patches on the stomach were recent, due to intense irritation, and would cause the deceased great pain, and induce vomiting. On the question of the probable effect of the curvature of the spine, he gave the following most material evidence:—

“The principal curvature was in the lower part of the body; in the upper part of the spine there was slight anti-posterior or forward curvature, but it was not enough to affect the position of the heart or lungs relatively to each other. The cavities of the chest appeared to me to be deeper from before backward than usual. The heart was in its right position, except perhaps that it was higher up in the body than is normal. In the lower region there was a good deal of lateral curvature. I examined the spinal cord down to the end of the dorsal vertebræ, and I found the membranes very much congested, but otherwise it was quite healthy, to all appearance. I did not examine it with a microscope. In the lower lumbar region I did not open the canal, for it was very twisted, and I had difficulty in getting it open. No[525] disease there could have caused sudden death. The curvature appeared to be of long standing; the bones were very hard, and there was no active disease there. I think it impossible that death could have been caused by pressure produced by the curvature on one of the arteries.”

The cross-examination of Mr. Bond by Mr. Williams was directed, first, to whether the time at which after taking the dose the symptoms might be expected to show, depended on its amount. Of this the witness had no knowledge, but considered that that would be determined by the fulness or emptiness of the stomach; and secondly, whether he would expect to find in the stomach the amount of poison that would cause death. On this last point the following questions and answers must be reported:—

On re-examination, the witness declined to speak more positively on this point, on the ground that he was a surgeon, and therefore had not had experience in the pathology of such cases. His only experience in poisoning by alkaloids had been in a case of strychnia. In reply to the Judge, he admitted “that other vegetable poisons, even a strong solution of oil of mustard, would produce the same congestion of the stomach, and the same yellow marks as had been found; that a vegetable alkaloid would pass within a minute from the stomach into the blood, and that it would be more likely to be found in the liver, kidneys, and urine, than in the heart; he did not know whether strychnia had been found in the heart when not discoverable in the blood and the urine.”

ANALYTICAL EVIDENCE.

Dr. Thomas Stevenson, Lecturer on Medical Jurisprudence and Chemistry at Guy’s Hospital, and Examiner in Forensic Medicine at the London University, after enumerating the various matters handed to him and Dr. Dupré by Mr. Bond[527] for analysis,[204] and stating that the methods of it were arranged with his colleague, the manual operations carried out by both of them, and the results of those performed by Dr. Dupré examined by himself, gave the following evidence, which must be reported in full.

On cross-examination by Mr. Williams, after he had stated that he had never seen an acknowledged death from aconitia, but founded his opinion not only from tasting, testing, and the experiments on mice, but from his reading, and that he knew that it was used in France and Germany, but not that it was sold at the French chemist’s in the Haymarket as a patent medicine, the examination proceeded as follows:—

[533]

On re-examination by the Solicitor-General, the Witness explained that it was when corpses were putrefying that the cadaveric alkaloids were produced. He had procured alkaloidal extracts from the urine, viscera and stomach, and ascertained the effects of them upon mice: had made twenty-two experiments this year: there were two cases of heart disease, and four of the liver, kidneys, spleen, vomit, and six from the urine. He had also, in six instances, taken from the urine of living persons, and in three from that of healthy dead persons. Those extracts had no effect on his tongue. He had had many years’ experience, and certainly never tasted anything like aconitia, and he had tried these alkaloidal extracts on the same number of mice without the animals suffering except from the puncture. One of these mice, he added, he had killed with the three-thousandths of a grain, and two-thousandths of a grain was always fatal to a mouse. To a question by the judge, he said “it would make a great difference in the time when the severe symptoms appeared, whether the poison was swallowed directly and whether it came into direct contact with the tongue.” Dr. Dupré confirmed in every detail the statements of his colleague. “In his case the effects of tasting the alkaloid from the urine continued over four hours, and that from the vomit over six hours, though he took lunch and dinner during that time. In the vomit he did not find any trace of quinine which he should have expected had aconitia been given in conjunction with quinine.”

THE PREVIOUS ACTS OF THE PRISONER.

Soon after his marriage in 1879, the prisoner set up in practice at Bournemouth, whence in April, 1880, he went for a six months’ trip to America. Early in 1881, he was in great pecuniary difficulties, and had to part with his furniture[539] to pay an execution out of his house, and again went to America on the 30th of August. Three days before he sailed, whilst staying with his mother at Ventnor, he visited Percy John at Shanklin, where the boy was staying with the Chapmans, and promised to return on the Monday, the 29th, before he left England. It was supposed that he did so, and it was then, according to the boy’s statement before reported, that he gave him a pill, after which he was taken ill in much the same way as at Blenheim House in the December following.[207] From America he returned on the 17th of October, and after a visit to Ventnor, where he got a cheque, which was subsequently dishonoured, cashed by a tradesman (Price Owen), he was in London on the 1st of December, staying at the Nelson Hotel, Portland-road. His actions are now taken up by the following witness, to whom, and to whose brother, the prisoner had from time to time advanced money, in the case of the brother pawning his surgical instruments and watch, on the 24th of November, in order to lend him five pounds.[208]

John Law Tulloch, a student of medicine living in Alma Square, St. John’s Wood, said:—

“I have known the prisoner for some time. I did not see him till December of last year from the previous April. I saw him on the 1st of last December, a Thursday night, at my house. He said he was staying at Nelson’s Hotel, and was going to Paris the next night. He had dinner at my house. I went with him to Nelson’s Hotel, and assisted in packing his luggage. I went with him from the hotel to Waterloo Station. We had with us a leather case, a handbag, and a rug. He said he[540] thought he would go first of all to see his brother-in-law at Wimbledon. We went to Wimbledon together at about six in the evening.[209] He said he was going up to the school, at Mr. Bedbrook’s. I waited for him in the public-house opposite. He came back to me in about twenty minutes. He said that he had seen his brother-in-law, who was very much worse. He added that he did not expect him to live long. He said he had seen Mr. Bedbrook, who was a director of one of the Continental lines, and that gentleman had told him that it was as well that he should not go that night, as there was a bad boat on the service. We returned to town, and went together to the Comedy Theatre in Panton-street. After that we went to Stone’s, a public-house opposite the theatre, and while we were there he wrote the cheque produced, on the Wilts and Dorset Bank, dated December 2, 1881, for 12l. 10s., payable to J. L. Tulloch. He asked me to try and obtain the cash for it. We went first to the Adelphi Hotel in Adam-street, but could not get it cashed there. We then drove to the Eyre Arms, St. John’s-wood, which is close to where I reside. Mr. Perrot, the landlord, cashed the cheque, and I gave the money to the prisoner. I then parted from him, and arranged to meet him on the following day at the Adelphi Hotel. I saw him there about three or four in the afternoon. I was to meet him at half-past one, to see him off by a train at 2.50, but I do not know from what station. He said that he was too late for the mid-day train, and could not go until night. I went with him to the Horseshoe to have some refreshment. When there we found that one of the bags received from the Eyre Arms contained coppers. We returned to the house and obtained a 5l. note in exchange. He left me there about six. I did not hear of him again till he was in custody. The cheque was dishonoured. On the 13th of December he wrote saying the amount would be in my hands very soon, and he was surprised at my attitude towards, or, rather against him.”[210]

[541]

On cross-examination, the witness said:—

“I have said to-day the prisoner said on December 2, ‘the boy is very much worse, and I don’t think he will last long.’ I do not think he said anything about his having passed his examination that day. I was quite sober. I do not owe him money.”

At five minutes to seven, on the evening of the 3rd of December, he was at Blenheim House telling Mr. Bedbrook he wished to see his brother-in-law. The boy was brought into the dining-room, some wine got for the prisoner, and some powdered white sugar to cure, as he said, the alcohol in it. He then had with him a leather bag from which he took some Dundee cakes and sweets, of which the boy and the master partook.

Mr. Bedbrook deposed:—

Mr. Montagu Williams objected to the statements of the deceased being put in evidence.

The Judge said that evidence as to symptoms could be received when made by the deceased.

The fatal attack now came on as previously described. In the box with the capsules were some little pills, and in the boy’s own box in his bedroom a small box of quinine[543] powders, and another with two pills wrapped in tinfoil.[211] In the previous year, when the prisoner was in America, Mr. Bedbrook had received from him a box of pills, with a letter, saying that “he had met some one in America suffering from the same complaint as the boy, who had derived great benefit from taking medicine similar to that now sent, and requesting Mr. Bedbrook to see the boy take the medicine.” “I afterwards,” said the witness, “gave the boy one of the pills, and next morning he complained of being very unwell. At that time the box was in his bedroom, and Percy John said, ‘I will take no more of them.’ I thereupon took the pills downstairs, and until the box produced was found, was under the impression that I had thrown it away.”[212]

PURCHASE OF ACONITIA BY THE PRISONER.

Mr. Charles Albert Smith, a chemist at Ventnor, proved that on the 28th of August, 1881, the prisoner purchased of him 3 grains of sulphate of atropine, and 2 grains of aconitia, and that he had labelled the latter “Aconitine, poison.” As he had previously made up prescriptions for the prisoner, and knew him as a medical man, he sold the poison to him without hesitation. Aconitia, he believed, was commonly[544] used for neuralgia and cancer, to relieve the palpitations in heart disease, and as a diuretic in dropsy.

On the 24th of November, 1881, the prisoner asked for 2 grains of aconitia at Messrs. Allen & Hanbury’s, of Plough-court, Lombard-street; and as the assistant, on reference to the Medical Directory, found the prisoner’s name as a medical man practising at Bournemouth, he sold them to him without further precaution than labelling it “Poison.” On the evidence of this witness, Mr. Dodd, a difficulty arose, from his having at first entertained the impression that it was “atropia” which he had sold. The price of this drug to a medical man would have been only threepence a grain, whilst that of aconitia would be 1s. 3d.[213] In the petty-cash book of the day, among entries of sales marked “C”—the sign that they were sold to a medical man—was one of 2s. 6d., but none of 3d.; and Mr. Dodd, after consulting with the other assistant who was present at the sale, became convinced that it was “aconitia,” and not “atropia,” which he had sold to the prisoner. “There is also,” he said, “a difference in colour, atropia being white, and aconitia yellowish-white.”

A previous attempt to purchase aconitia was proved by Mr. Stilling,[214] an assistant of Messrs. Bell & Co., Oxford-street,[545] on the 20th of November. Twice before that day the prisoner had had prescriptions made up there, which he wrote in the shop, and marked as for his own use. These contained morphia and atropia, but at the bottom of the second of these prescriptions he had written, “Digitaline, pure, 5 grains.”

It may be noted here that the larger quinine powders in the box which were found to be pure were proved to have been purchased of Mr. Littlefield, a chemist at Ventnor, on the 13th of October, 1880; that he knew nothing of the smaller ones, which were proved by Dr. Stevenson to contain aconitia, and that he never kept that drug in his shop. In this he was confirmed by his assistant, Mr. Bright, who identified his own handwriting on the box in which they had been sold. The smaller quinine powders were not traced.

THE SURRENDER OF THE PRISONER.

On the 7th of December, the prisoner called at Scotland Yard and saw Inspector Butcher, who gave the following account of the interview:—

“When the prisoner came there and saw me, he said, ‘Mr. Butcher?’ and I replied, ‘Yes.’ He said, ‘My name is Lamson. I am Dr. Lamson, whose name has been mentioned in connection with the death at Wimbledon.’ I asked him to be seated, and he continued, ‘I have called to see what is to be done about it. I considered it best to do so. I read the account in the public papers in Paris, and came over this morning. I have only just now arrived in London. I am very unwell, and much upset about this matter, and not in a fit state at all to have undertaken this journey.’ I then communicated with Chief Superintendent Williamson, who said to the prisoner, ‘You will have to remain a time.’ I remained with him. His wife was present. He conversed on various subjects for some time, and then he said, ‘Where is the delay? I thought I would come here and leave my address.[547] I am going into the country to Chichester, so that you will know where to find me, and I will attend the inquest. I have travelled from Paris viâ Havre and Southampton. I went over viâ Dover and Calais.’ After this I again saw Chief Superintendent Williamson, who called the prisoner into another room. I said, ‘Dr. Lamson, this case has been fully considered, and it has been decided to charge you with causing the death of Percy John. I therefore take you into custody, and charge you with causing the death of Percy Malcolm John, at Blenheim House, Wimbledon, on the 3rd of December instant.’ He said, ‘Very well; do you think bail will be accepted? I hope the matter will be kept as quiet as possible, for the sake of my relations.’ I told him he would now be taken to Wandsworth police-court, and the question of bail would rest with the magistrate. I conveyed him in a cab to the Wandsworth police-station. On the way he said, ‘You will have my father here in a day or two. I hope it will be stated that I came to Scotland Yard voluntarily. I came from Paris on purpose.’ I said, ‘Certainly.’”

On searching the box which he had left at Euston Station among various articles, chiefly of plate, a medical memorandum book was found, from which the Solicitor-General read an extract on the “effects of acrid vegetable poisons,” and then closed the case for the prosecution.

Mr. Montagu Williams, having previously had the letter read from the Home Office, refusing to allow an independent analysis of the contents of the body on the part of the prisoner, then commenced.

THE DEFENCE.

Of the speech for the defence, which lasted the greater part of two days, and dealt with the case with extreme minuteness, it will be sufficient to give a summary, especially as its leading points were remarked upon so fully in the charge of the learned Judge.

On the question whether the death of the boy was from poison, Mr. Montagu Williams, necessarily laid great stress on the admitted inability of the scientific witnesses to rely on any other test than that of taste. “Scientifically,” he said,[548] “it was a leap in the dark, and they had to traverse a region of science up to the present moment unexplored. Who knows about aconite? and echo answers who? What was it? The root of monkshood. Aconite was one form, and aconitia was the active principle of that form: and up to the present moment, with the exception of one reported case, there was not a single authority on the subject.” Pursuing this subject, he said:—

“The first medical witness called was Dr. Berry, who on the night of December 3rd was visiting at Blenheim House, where he saw the poor boy until his death, and observed all the symptoms under which the unfortunate lad suffered. What were they? The lad told him that he was suffering from heartburn, and where was the symptom of heartburn in the administration of aconite in the evidence of the experts that had been brought before them? What medical gentleman had said that heartburn was a sign of aconitia poisoning? The poor lad was found vomiting, and Dr. Berry and another medical man, Dr. Little, treated him for irritation of the stomach. Neither of them treated him for, or thought of, poisoning. The boy was taken from the bath-room, where he was found, to the bed from which he never rose, and from first to last all the symptoms were those of irritation of the stomach. From nine o’clock to past eleven no attempt was made to use the stomach pump; and if the medical gentlemen thought poison had been taken, they never used anything to relieve him, or what might have saved him. If poison was in the minds of these medical men, why did they not treat him for such? It was clear, therefore, there was no thought of poison; and Dr. Berry admitted in evidence that it never occurred to him that it was so until the post-mortem examination. He said he then thought the death was from alkaloid poisoning. It was the duty of him (Mr. Williams) to cross-examine him on vegetable alkaloids. What was his knowledge? His knowledge was a blank, and he admitted he knew nothing of vegetable alkaloids. Therefore, the first expert witness called for the prosecution—who had, moreover, the benefit of seeing the symptoms in life—broke down altogether. It was his case that the theories of the prosecution were of the most speculative character. Dr. Little differed somewhat, and said, ‘We came to the conclusion that the boy was dying from a vegetable poison an hour before his death,’ while Dr. Berry said it was not until the post-mortem examination that they thought anything of the sort.[549] Dr. Little says he read about vegetable alkaloids in his student days. Both those gentlemen, who give the opinion that death resulted from vegetable alkaloids, knew nothing whatever about the subject. Then they had Mr. Bond, a gentleman of great scientific attainments, well known in these courts, who gave the results of the post-mortem examination, and he (the learned counsel) thought it would not be straining the imagination too much to say that that gentleman gave the first idea of poisoning in the matter. Mr. Bond said he came to the conclusion that death resulted from a vegetable alkaloid, and again the same line of questions and answers followed. Mr. Bond admitted he had never known a case of such poisoning. And so the jury were asked to form a verdict on the evidence of two persons who had seen the symptoms of the deceased in life, and were entirely ignorant of the signs of vegetable alkaloid poisoning, and of Mr. Bond, who was not present, and who admitted he was also ignorant upon the subject. They were asked to give a verdict on which an existence hung, and to say they had no doubt whatever that aconitia was in the body. He could only say up to that time there was not one single piece of evidence that the boy died by aconitia poisoning.”

Passing thence to the evidence of Doctors Stevenson and Dupré, whose tests, the former said, “rested on his taste, on the effects of the solutions on the mice and his reading,” he called the attention of the jury to Dr. Stevenson’s admission that the results of most of these tests were consistent with other causes, though consistent with aconitia, and ridiculed the effects on the mice as confirmatory tests, quoting the remarks of Lord Coleridge that tests upon animals were always found to be most unreliable, and of Professor Tidy, “that although useful at arriving at results, they sometimes failed, and were not reliable.” “If they used their common sense they must see that that must be so. So delicate was the constitution of a mouse that one of those experimented on had died because the injecting needle had been stuck in a quarter of an inch too far. Mice would sometimes die from fright, and also from the injection of water, and yet because these mice spoken of died in five minutes they were asked to say that they died of aconitia poisoning.” As to the test of[550] taste, Dr. Stevenson had admitted “that it was like some other alkaloids, and not like others.” The question of the production of cadaveric alkaloids was still sub judice. He was prevented, by the refusal of the Home Office, to allow experts on the prisoner’s behalf to be present at the analytical examination, from calling scientific witnesses to rebut—“an act that was trifling with life—a beautiful bit of red-tapeism; and, if it was contrary to all practice, the sooner it was done away with the better.”

On the second point, whether if aconitia was given, it was given by the prisoner, Mr. Montagu Williams, after alluding to the way in which his admitted poverty had been pressed against the prisoner, called the attention of the jury to the facilities the prisoner would have had of poisoning his brother-in-law during the boy’s visit at his house in the summer, or his projected visit at Christmas; to the fact that the supposed attempt was made in the full light of gas, and in the presence of both the master and the victim; that there was no proof that he had brought a capsule ready charged with poison, and that he must have manipulated one before their eyes, and that it was not by his request that powdered white sugar was brought. “What was there to prevent lump sugar being brought?” As to the pills found with the capsules,

“Where did they come from? No pills were given to the boy by the prisoner, for Mr. Bedbrook was present the whole time and no mention was made of pills. Where was the boy all the afternoon? In the room downstairs, and able to move about, though this was studiously concealed by everyone from Blenheim House. In this room was the box in which two pills were afterwards found, one of which was charged with aconitia. Were there other pills in that box? It was known that Percy John kept medicine unknown to everyone in the establishment, although it was against the rules of the school; it being the duty of the master to administer all medicine. The poor fellow was called ‘the swell pill taker,’ and what was more likely than that, with the fascination of the new capsules before him, he should have taken a pill for the heartburn from which he was suffering. Did he do so? It was suggested that these pills were some sent by the prisoner, but Mr. Bedbrook had[551] exploded that idea. He swore that he thought he had destroyed those referred to, but at any rate he had never given them back to the prisoner. Now did these four or five pills, found on the table, come from the box? Was there any evidence to show that the boy did not carry pills in his pocket, and took one in consequence of the heartburn? What did the prosecution mean? Did they mean to say that there was a pill hidden in the capsule? If the boy had thought of such a thing, would he not have asked Mr. Bedbrook or Banbury whether they felt in a similar state? The boy was in the possession of all his faculties when questioned, but he did not say one word about the capsules.”

Mr. Montagu Williams then alluded to the admission of Mr. Whalley that poisons were occasionally left in the house after the chemical lectures, and to the probability that so large a dose of aconitia as was assumed to have been given would have acted sooner, as Dr. Stevenson admitted that ¹/₂₁ of a grain might kill, and ¹/₁₃ would certainly have a fatal effect. As for the medical note-book found in the prisoner’s possession, he reminded the jury of Lord Campbell’s opinion in Palmer’s case that nothing was more natural for a professional man, and added, “It had no more bearing on the case than if ‘Russell on Crimes’ had been found in his own possession, on a charge of murder.”

On the proof of the purchase of aconitia at Allen’s, he begged them to note, that on the 5th of December the police commenced their enquiries, on the 6th the assistants at Allen’s communicated with them, saying that the prisoner had purchased atropia, and that it was not until after that that they changed their opinion and were convinced that it was aconitia. It was true that no entry of 3d. was found in the cash book, but there was one of 8d., and one of the chemists had deposed that the wholesale price of atropia, to a medical man, was 4d. a grain. But even if it was aconitia that the prisoner then purchased, it was only natural for him so to do, as he was suffering from rheumatism, of which it was a cure. Again, though they knew where the larger quinine powders, which were not poisoned, came from, it had not been proved whence the smaller came, which it was the[552] duty of the prosecution to have done. “Oddly enough, they were tied up with a piece of string, a most unusual thing coming from a chemist’s shop. They had traced twelve quinine powders, but they had failed to trace the pills sent from America which Mr. Bedbrook swore were not given back to the deceased. He, Mr. Williams, could not say where the smaller powders came from, nor where the pills came from. The burden was not on him to do so, but on the prosecution.”

Turning then to the evidence of the visit to the boy at Shanklin, Mr. Williams said he would deal with that important episode most successfully.

“Albert Smith,” he said, “proved that on the 28th of August he sold to prisoner three grains of atropia and one grain of aconitia, charging 4d. per grain for the first and 1s. 6d. per grain for the last named. The suggestion on the part of the prosecution was that in the month of August the assassin was at work and an attempt was made on the life of the lad. In his judgment he would make that melt into the thinnest of thin air. The 28th of August was a Sunday, and on the previous day Mr. and Mrs. Chapman and the boy arrived. At that time there were four persons of the name of Lamson residing at the Isle of Wight—namely, the prisoner’s father and mother, and himself and his wife. On the 27th of August they met the boy at the station, and went to Mrs. Jolliffe’s lodgings, and here again there appeared a kindness and solicitude for the deceased. The 28th was Sunday, and it was said that he bought aconitia on that day, and that he was present on the 29th, and in order to prove it it was said that a parcel was left at the station in the name of Lamson, when there were four persons on the island named Lamson. It was further said that the deceased suffered from illness after taking something given to him by the prisoner, and from that they assumed it was aconitia bought at the shop of Mr. Smith that he had taken. The proof was all the other way, as the symptoms upon which the prosecution relied all through the case were not those which could be assigned to aconitia, while he recovered within a few hours. Beyond that, it was shown that he suffered from indigestion, especially by the fact that although he dined at one o’clock on the day of his death, undigested food was found in the vomit at nine o’clock at night. The prisoner purchased the atropia and aconitia on the 28th of August,[553] he was to leave for America on the 30th. This mixture was the very thing he would have taken, and the very time he would have bought it for the purpose of going on the voyage. The dates exactly suited.”

Counsel’s explanation of the story told by the prisoner to the witness Tulloch was ingenious.

“The prisoner did not deny that he went down to Wimbledon on December 2 with Tulloch, but if he contemplated assassination then would he have been likely to have taken Tulloch with him? That was an observation worthy of some note. He would try and imagine a state of things to have existed, which was not impossible but more than probable. It was admitted that upon the 2nd of December the boy had been passing an examination. It was also admitted the first thing the prisoner was greeted with on the 3rd was, ‘I am glad you did not come yesterday.’ When he went down on the 2nd what was more likely than that he met some one, perhaps one of the boys, for it was a holiday, who told him it was an examination day, and he therefore postponed his visit until the next day? All the importance of this visit depended on the evidence of a man who had altered his evidence as originally given, and who, it was suggested, was on that night the worse for liquor.”

With the remarks that the flight of the prisoner to Paris, where he could have been arrested, and his return to England and surrender to the police, were not the acts of a guilty man; that, to obtain the pecuniary gain from the boy’s death, the prisoner must have applied to the Court of Chancery, and if there had been suspicion of foul play would find, instead of receiving £1,500, the hangman’s halter round his neck, and a fervid appeal on behalf of the wife who had stood by him in Court, and his young child, Mr. Montagu Williams concluded his minute and able survey of the case against his client.

THE REPLY.

The Solicitor-General, in his comparatively brief reply, directed the attention of the jury to the following points. He admitted that, in this case, they had to traverse a branch[554] of science but little known, that little was known of aconitia, and everything speculation. He urged, however, that “that argument, whilst fair, might be pressed too far, as then a man desirous of taking life had only to use some poison but little known, and then to ask that he should not be rendered liable for the results of his crime. They found, no doubt, from time to time, fresh materials used for the commission of crime. If a man from his knowledge used a poison little known and little used, still science, with unerring precision, and working as fast as him, could bring the crime to light.” The idea of death from natural causes had apparently been abandoned by the prisoner’s counsel, so that it was impossible to doubt that it was due to poison, and what that poison was must rest on the evidence of the scientific witnesses, “the first in their profession, of the highest skill, not called in to prop up any theory, but to frame an independent opinion. The presence of a third party would not have been likely to assist the analysis, while on the other hand it might have led to difficulty, and even mistake.” He disputed the correctness of the quotation from Dr. Tidy. What he really did say, was, “Experiments on animals may furnish us with much useful information in cases of suspected poisoning, but their value must not be over-estimated.” In this case they were only used to strengthen the evidence from taste. “The two tests must be used together. It was their combined force that drove home to the mind the conviction that Dr. Stevenson was right when he said that what he found in the body was aconitia, and nothing but aconitia.” “As to the cadaveric alkaloids, they had in evidence that they were only produced along with putrefaction, and that their results on animals were totally different from those of the extracts from the boy’s body. Would they not say that Dr. Stevenson’s experiments had been conducted in every way to exclude error, and must they not, looking at the whole of the scientific evidence, accept his judgment?”

As to the possibility of the boy himself obtaining this poison, it was fenced round with such safeguards that not[555] even a medical man, unless personally known, could obtain it without a record being kept. His story about the visit to Wimbledon was pure invention, and the explanation of it by counsel ingenious, and no more. Falsehood seemed to have been uttered by him at every turn. The taking Mr. Tulloch with him was a mere blind: his return and surrender intended to divert suspicion. Had he remained in France he must have been arrested, and, if he had no money, he was compelled to return to England.

THE JUDGE’S CHARGE.

In his charge to the jury, after pointing out that the two points to which they had to direct their attention were whether the boy died from poison or a natural disease, and if by poison, whether it was administered to him by the prisoner, Sir Henry Hawkins alluded to the alleged motive—the prospect of an accession of fortune at the time when the prisoner was in great pecuniary difficulties—and the fact that until the day of his death the deceased, though a cripple, was free from any mortal disease. Then, after referring to the details of the prisoner’s visit to the boy on the 3rd of December, the judge made the following remarks on the results of the chemical analysis, and the comments of Mr. Williams on them:—

“The presence of morphia was, he said, accounted for, as it had been injected beneath the skin for the purpose of allaying the pain. With regard to the dark fluid in the stomach, it contained, according to the evidence of Dr. Stevenson, traces of food, an apple, and a raisin, and from it an alkaloidal extract was obtained; on applying which to the tongue a slight taste of aconitia was produced. The sensation extended to the lip, although the extract did not touch it. The sensation was a burning, tingling, numbing one difficult to define. Salivation and a desire to expectorate were produced—there was a sensation at the back of the throat, a swelling up: this was followed by a peculiar seared sensation of the tongue, as though a hot iron had been passed over it or strong caustic. Experiments were made with extracts from the liver,[556] spleen, and kidneys, from the dark fluid, and from the stomach itself, and within nine minutes mice showed symptoms of poisoning, and died in about twenty-two minutes afterwards. The same sensation, in fact, was produced on the mice as had been produced on his own tongue previously. In the urine there was a taste of aconitia, which brought on a sickening and a burning sensation. Mr. Montagu Williams had said that the experiments upon mice were hardly a test as to what the effect of the extract would be upon human beings. Granted; but they were about the only tests that could properly be made, and they proved the presence of aconitia. The drug, Dr. Stevenson said, produced a sensation to the tongue and throat which was unmistakable, and its property of killing was proved by its test upon the mice. Could they believe Dr. Stevenson mistaken about that, it was asked—were there not other vegetable alkaloids? There were; and Dr. Stevenson said they all had peculiar tastes which differed from that of aconitia. He further said that, having made himself acquainted with between 50 and 80 vegetable alkaloids, aconitia differed in taste from any of them. The learned Judge proceeded to read the evidence given by Dr. Stevenson as to the action of the extract and of prepared aconitia on the mice. Dr. Stevenson had minutely examined the vomit to endeavour to trace some of the fibre of monkshood from which aconite was extracted, and which, as was known, had sometimes been mistaken for horse radish, but not a particle could he find. But he obtained all the symptoms of aconitia upon his tongue, and death resulted in 15½ minutes when a small quantity was injected into the back of a mouse. He gave it as his opinion that 1-13th of a grain was sufficient to kill, and that he found enough aconitia in the stomach to cause the death of two persons. Dr. Stevenson had been submitted to a severe cross-examination, and it would be for the jury to say whether they believed that he had really found aconitia. Mr. Williams had said they were embarking in a new region in aconitia poisoning. It might be they were not very learned in it, though they would doubtless advance as fresh experiments were made and fresh tests applied. At present it was true there was no chemical test. That was admitted. Mr. Williams, in the course of his cross-examination, had spoken of phosphoric acid, but Dr. Stevenson said that only applied to foreign aconitia, and not to Morson’s English preparation. They had before them the explanation of Dr. Stevenson. It stood for what it was worth, and it was for them to say if he was correct, after the experiments he had made, in saying that he had found aconitia. Dr. Stevenson had explained the only tests,[557] physiological and otherwise, to trace aconitia, and had formed his opinion that death arose from that substance. With reference to cadaveric alkaloids, Dr. Stevenson did not admit that poisonous cadaveric alkaloids were to be found in the human body. He did not dispute there were cadaveric alkaloids, but he disputed their being poisonous. He did not say they were not so; it was still an open question. The result of the 22 experiments he had made by tasting cadaveric alkaloids never gave him any taste like aconitia, and in only one case did death ensue to a mouse experimented upon, which was where the little animal’s spine was injured by the needle used for the injection. Another circumstance spoken to by Dr. Dupré was that no trace of quinine was found in the vomit, but that might be due to the fact that a portion of the vomit was thrown away. Upon the testimony as to the cause of death the prosecution said that there was no possibility of accounting for death by natural causes, and it was for the jury to say whether the death was from aconitia.”

Then going through the evidence of the prisoner’s pecuniary embarrassments, he alluded to the sending of the pills from America as showing that if he had entertained the design of poisoning the boy, he had done so long before the fatal act.

Reviewing then the prisoner’s conduct in London, and the story invented by him about his pretended visit to the boy on the 2nd of December, “which,” he said, “did not amount to much, but must be taken, with the other circumstances of the case, to show that the prisoner’s word was not to be relied on,” the learned judge then referred to the incidents of the fatal night. As to the two boxes of capsules, he continued:—

“The prosecution suggested that these two boxes of capsules were brought by the prisoner, but they did not suggest there was poison in any of them. They were clearly innocent capsules, as two of them did no harm either to Mr. Bedbrook or to the lad Banbury, each of whom swallowed one. What the prosecution suggested, however, was that whilst Mr. Bedbrook was examining the capsule he had taken from the box, the prisoner took another, in which there was aconitia, from another box, and that over that aconitia he put in the sugar, and then administered it to the boy. That was the suggestion made. They asked for those facts to be put together—the boy was in as good health as he ordinarily was, in as good spirits as usual, having neither eaten nor partaken of anything in which there was a suggestion of poison during the day, and yet within half-an-hour, or less, of seeing the prisoner and swallowing the capsule he was taken ill. The cake, the sweets, and the capsule were all three given him by the prisoner, and within a short time he showed the first symptoms described, viz., heartburn, which was followed rapidly by painful sensations,[560] and the contraction of the throat, retching, vomiting, agony, and raving to the time of death. On these facts the prosecution asked them to come to the conclusion that he not only died by aconitia, but by aconitia administered to him by the prisoner, it being clear that no other person administered anything to him during the prisoner’s visit. The prosecution contended farther that they had shown the prisoner to be possessed of aconitia, upon the evidence of two purchases of aconitia by him, one from the chemist at Ventnor on the 28th August, and the other about the 20th November at Allen and Hanbury’s, in Plough Court.

Then again placing before the jury the two questions he had referred to in the opening of his charge, and warning them not to allow sympathy either for the poor boy or the prisoner to bias their decision, Sir Henry Hawkins left the case in their hands.

In less than three-quarters of an hour the jury returned a verdict of “Guilty.” When called upon as usual to say why judgment should not be passed upon him, the prisoner, standing with arms folded, in a loud voice, “protested his innocence before God,” and with very few words, the learned judge pronounced sentence of death.

EVIDENCE OF LAMSON’S STATE OF MIND.

Within a short time after the conviction of the prisoner, Mr. Lowell, the American Minister, by the instruction of President Arthur, requested the Home Secretary to suspend the execution, on the faith of a statement from the United States Attorney-General that evidence bearing on the state of mind of the prisoner, was preparing in America, and would be shortly forwarded to England. To this novel application Sir William Harcourt acceded, in courtesy to the applicant. The promised affidavits arrived, and were considered by the Home Secretary as insufficient. Again a further application for delay was made, on the promise of further evidence, and acceded to for the term of a fortnight, with clear notice to Lamson that if the promised affidavits were not more satisfactory than the preceding ones, the sentence would be carried[561] out. Such they proved in the opinion of Sir William Harcourt, and Lamson was at length executed on the 28th of April.

The proffered evidence not only covered the whole of Lamson’s life from the days of his medical pupilage at Paris till his trial, but sought to establish “a marked hereditary tendency to insanity,” from the fact that his grandmother had been in the New York Bloomingdale Asylum from the age of seventy-six till her death four years after, and had been previously suffering from “senile dementia,” the apparent cause of which was entered in the Hospital Register as “predisposing;”—that her brother, a sea captain, at the age of eighty, was in the same asylum, having been suffering for two years from “dementia,” also entered as “predisposing;” and that her daughter, a Mrs. McGregor, at the age of thirty-one, was a patient until her death about three years after—her mania “puerperal,” and also entered as “predisposing.”[215] No evidence, however, was offered of the mental condition of any less remote ancestors.

As a Medical Student in Paris in 1869-70, Lamson is described as suffering from cerebral anæmia with a tendency to melancholia, given to imaginary complaints about the surgical theatre, apt to take offence, with a passion for chemical experiments of a morbid character, generally genial in manner, and taciturn of speech. When employed in the American Ambulance during the siege of Paris in 1870-71, “his behaviour was so wild, erratic, and bad, that his associate aids were not prepared to say whether it was that of an idiot or the result of special wickedness—his mind so disordered that he could not be entrusted to administer medicines, as to the effects of which he seemed to be utterly destitute of judgment and common sense—just as likely to give a large and dangerous dose as a smaller and safe one, no matter how particularly instructed, and seemed to be utterly reckless of results.”[216]

[562]

From this date to the year 1877, no evidence was offered of his conduct or state of mind. In that year he acted as a surgeon for the Red Cross Society at Bucharest, in the Servian War. Whilst there “he exhibited a mania for the administration of aconitia in almost every case, using it in season and out of season, and in such quantities as to alarm the medical staff and render his recall to England necessary. Here, too, he appears to have commenced on himself the extravagant use of hypodermic injections of morphia, to which he subsequently became so notoriously addicted, on the plea that he was in constant pain and misery,” and to have been constantly under the influence of some anæsthetic. He was also habitually incoherent and inconsistent in his way of talking, boasting of adventures in the American Civil War, when he could have been only twelve years of age. His father, who was with him, seemed to keep a constant watch over his son, and frequently expressed his wish that some other surgeon should be associated with him.[217]

In 1879 Lamson purchased a medical practice at Bournemouth, and during the two years that he remained there, according to the testimony of friends and servants, behaved in a most erratic and strange manner. Whilst there his habit of injecting morphia under his skin increased in a most extraordinary degree, one witness saying that “he was hardly ever in his company for more than an hour that he did not use the hypodermic syringe.” When visiting patients he seemed not to know why he had come, or what he ought to do, behaving so strangely that his services were eventually dispensed with. His habit of telling extravagant stories grew rapidly upon him. His eyes had a fitful and nervous look as if afraid of phantoms. He seemed to be perpetually trying to look sane, and the witness (Warren, an artist) who spoke to these symptoms said “he had frequently seen him walking along quickly, his head hanging down, when he would stop suddenly, turn[563] back, and branch off in some other direction, crossing backwards and forwards over the road without rhyme or reason.” Mr. Radcliffe Hall, of Welbeck-street, to whom Lamson had made in writing a perfectly baseless statement about Mrs. Hall’s antecedents, and afterwards could remember nothing about it, had seen him inject morphia twenty times a day. His servants thought him mad, and humoured him accordingly, and the patients who attended at the dispensary which with another medical man he managed, with only one or two exceptions, refused to be attended by him.[218]

From April to May, 1881, Lamson was staying at Rouse’s Point, New York, with the Rev. Irving McElroy, the rector of Christ Church, during which period his habit of injecting morphia was continued, and, according to the testimony of the rector and his wife, Dr. Winston, the Medical Director of the New York Mutual Life Assurance Company, Dr. Murray, Physician of Rouse’s Point, Dr. Hall, and others who knew him, it was seriously affecting his brain. On one occasion he was found in the public street with no coat on, and his left arm bared. He had a syringe in one hand, and with the thumb of the other was pressing down the place where the injection had been made.[219] At his friend’s house he passed the greater part of the day on the lounge, either dozing or attempting to read. He was then using a mixture apparently of morphia and atropine, but told them he preferred aconitine, but could not procure it in that section of the county. To one of the witnesses he admitted that his whole existence depended on the constant use of morphia. The marks of these repeated injections were detected by Dr. Williamson of Edinburgh whom Lamson consulted in New York in October, 1881, who marked the serious change that had taken place in[564] his health, and urged his discontinuance of this baneful practice. Dr. Hall considered Lamson “not a perfectly sane man,” Dr. Winston considered that he “had become a helpless victim of the habit (of injecting morphia) which had seriously impaired his mental powers and destroyed his moral responsibility,” and in Dr. Murray’s opinion “he was utterly irresponsible for his acts.” It is admitted, however, that at intervals his conversation was perfectly clear and lucid, and to none of the medical men appears to have been put the legal test question, “did he know the difference between right and wrong, at the time wherein he committed the crime?”[220]

Lastly, we are offered testimony as to the condition of Lamson’s mind for a few days immediately preceding the fatal occurrence, and that of his father and wife as to his strange conduct for some time previous. All, however, that this evidence amounts to is, that he was so strange and extravagant in his manner and conduct, that he was spoken of by friends and acquaintance as a lunatic, that “for a year past his wife’s fears and anxieties had been greatly and increasingly aroused for the soundness of his mind—that his brain, predisposed to weakness, or constitutionally liable to disturbance, was unsettled[565] by ill-health and trouble, and its disease aggravated by the use of morphia.” His father spoke to the wild and fanciful delusions in which his son indulged—the whole being myths, and believed “that for at least eighteen months he had been in an unsound state of mind, steadily increasing in its character and blinding him to the natural and inevitable effects of his acts; and that the balance of his mind had been quite destroyed.” His solicitor deposed that “he could obtain no assistance from him in the preparation of his defence—that he appeared to have no memory and to be incapable of appreciating the bearing of any of the facts of his case, or the gravity of his position; that he laboured under extravagant hallucination, whilst his statements were either incoherent, inconsistent, or manifestly the creations of a disordered brain.”

Three medical men of experience speak to the effects almost certain to be produced by such an habitually excessive use of morphia or opium, as that of which Dr. Lamson was the victim. Dr. Coghill, of the Ventnor Consumptive Hospital, and for eight years municipal medical officer and consulting physician to a general hospital in China, where he had unusual facilities for becoming familiar with the effects of opium smoking and eating, has no hesitation in saying that “anyone in the habit of using opium to such an extent would be incapable of self-control, and have his moral senses and powers of judgment deteriorated to a degree rendering him incapable of resisting morbid influences.” Dr. H. H. Kane, of Fort Washington, New York, who had written on the effects of “these drugs that enslave,” and on the “Hypodermic Injection of Morphia,” and was then in charge of a hospital devoted to the treatment of opium smokers and eaters and the like habits, admits that “as regards the question of insanity from the habitual use of opium or its alkaloids, more especially morphia, but little definite is known. Insane Asylum reports,” he adds, “record every year from six to eight cases of insanity attributed to the prolonged use of opiates; and physicians in general practice recognise it as a[566] rare, though well-established, form of insanity. A person with an hereditary tendency to insanity, or with a mind weakened from any combination of circumstances, or from bodily disease, using this drug in large amount for a considerable time, could hardly escape some unsettling of his mental and moral powers. Actual mania, melancholia, and dementia are probably rare, but have undoubtedly occurred from this cause. Of all the forms of the opium habit that by hypodermic injection, as a rule, works the most harm in the shortest time.”

Dr. R. M. Miller, of Norwood, who saw Lamson professionally in July, 1881, when his friends were alarmed at his condition, is of opinion “that morphia and atropia, taken in such quantities, would gradually ruin the powers of the nervous system and also the powers of self-control.”

Such is the substance of the testimony of the cloud of witnesses proffered in support of the appeal for a scientific investigation into the mental state of Lamson at the time when he committed the act for which he was arraigned. To what does it amount? Even if it goes beyond proof that he was occasionally nervous, disconnected in his ideas, aimlessly untruthful, and with a hobby for the administration of aconitia as a panacea for all diseases, and a loss of vital nerve and energy, there is no evidence to suggest that these eccentricities were dangerous or ever assumed the form of homicidal mania. “If,” said a contemporary writer, “Lamson could appreciate the pecuniary benefit he would derive from Percy John’s death—and why else should he have selected his victim?—he could realise the wickedness of his act. A symptom of dangerous madness is that it acts without apparent motive—the immediate circumstances of the murder pointed to the exercise of a crafty deliberation, which, though not in itself inconsistent with homicidal mania, was not as aimless as homicidal mania.” Is it not a parallel case to that of Dove, a weak and erratic mind, in that case further weakened and unhinged by drink, in this case by the vicious use of morphia? Are not the words of Baron Bramwell in[567] Dove’s case strictly applicable to this? “The rules of law,” said that judge, “are that it must be clearly proved that, at the time of committing the act, the party accused was labouring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing; and if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing wrong.” Until the law is altered it is impossible to doubt that the Home Secretary was right, “that he could find in the affidavits and statutory declarations no sufficient grounds for advising an interference with the sentence of the law.”

CHAPTER XI.

ACONITE: ACONITIA OR ACONITINE.

Plants: Aconitum napellus—A. ferox. Alkaloids: Aconitia—Pseudaconitia—other bases—Decompositions—Proportions in the plants. Commercial aconitia—German aconitia—English aconitia. Separation—Tests, chemical and physiological. History—Preparations, official and non-official. Physiological effects—Causes of death—Post mortem appearances—Treatment and antidotes—Remarks—Phosphoric acid test—Case referred to by Dr. Stevenson.

The name aconite is applied to a great number of plants belonging to the natural order Ranunculaceæ. Two species only need be noticed here, Aconitum napellus and A. ferox. The former is the well-known “monkshood,” “wolfsbane,” or “blue rocket,” a very beautiful but exceedingly poisonous plant, commonly cultivated in English gardens. This very variable and widely diffused species is found in the mountainous districts of the temperate regions of the northern hemisphere: it occurs in the Alps up to an altitude of more than 6,000 feet, in the Pyrenees, and in the mountain ranges of Germany and Austria. It is also met with in Sweden, Denmark, Siberia, and in the mountainous districts on the Pacific coast of North America.

Aconitum ferox, Nepaul aconite —“Bikh”), is a native of the subalpine Himalayas, occurring, together with A. napellus and several other poisonous species, at an elevation of 10,000 to 14,000 feet.

The most recent researches of Dr. C. R. Alder Wright and others have shown that Aconitum napellus chiefly owes its poisonous properties to the base aconitia, or aconitine (also [569]called aconitina), C₃₃ H₄₃ NO₁₂, a highly active crystallizable alkaloid furnishing readily crystallizable salts. This base constitutes about one-half of the total quantity of alkaloids present in the root, and is considered to be in combination with aconitic acid, H₃ C₆ H₃ O₆. There is also present, but in much smaller quantity (about 10 per cent. of the total bases present—Wright), another physiologically active crystallizable alkaloid, pseudaconitia, C₃₆ H₄₉ NO₁₂, similar in many respects to aconitia (especially in its effects upon the animal system), but not so readily yielding crystallizable salts. The roots of A. napellus contain, in addition to aconitia and pseudaconitia, a considerable quantity of a third base, comparatively inert, apparently amorphous, yielding non-crystallizable salts, and containing a higher percentage of carbon than either aconitia or pseudaconitia.

Aconitum ferox contains as its active principle pseudaconitia, or nepaline, associated with a comparatively small quantity of aconitia: there is present in addition a non-crystallizable alkaloid containing more carbon than either of the other bases, but apparently not identical with the analogous body from A. napellus.

The plants have been stated to contain, besides the bases already named, various other alkaloids, such as “napel-line,” “acolyctine,” “lycoctonine,” &c., but there is no doubt that these substances are merely products of the decomposition of aconitia and pseudaconitia, formed during the process of extraction. Aconitia and pseudaconitia are very easily decomposed; thus, when heated with water in a sealed tube, the former is converted into benzoic acid and a fresh alkaloid, aconine, C₂₆ H₃₉ NO₁₁, the reaction being represented by the following equation:—

Pseudaconitia, so treated, yields dimethyl-protocatechuic (or “veratric”) acid and a new base, pseudaconine, C₂₇ H₄₁ NO₉, the equation being:—

[570]

Aconine is doubtless identical with Hübschmann’s “napel-line,” discovered by him in commercial aconitia, and afterwards proved to be the same as the “acolyctine” which he had previously obtained. Pseudaconine is apparently the base “lycoctonine” of the same chemist.

Commercial aconitia is a mixture of aconitia and pseudaconitia with variable quantities of their decomposition-products, aconine and pseudaconine, and of the amorphous unnamed alkaloids above referred to (Wright and others; Year-Book of Pharmacy, 1877, et seq.). In commercial aconitia prepared from Aconitum napellus (German aconitia), aconitia predominates: English aconitia is chiefly if not entirely prepared from A. ferox, and in it pseudaconitia is the prevailing active base.

All parts of the plants (A. napellus and A. ferox) are poisonous, the active principles being contained in the seeds, roots, leaves and flowering tops. The roots are chiefly used for the extraction of the alkaloids, of which the proportions yielded are very variable and depend on the time when the roots are collected. An ounce of the fresh root of A. napellus contains, according to Woodman and Tidy, from ¼ to ¾ of a grain of aconitia, while a pound of the dried root furnishes from 12 to 36 grains, or 0·1 to 0·2 per cent. “The average produce of the root, collected after flowering and fresh, is 8·58 grains of aconitia in the pound; of the same dried, 35·72 grains. But if collected before flowering, the yield is only 3·5 grains per pound in the fresh, and 12·13 in the dried root (Herapath). These results are the average of several experiments.... The root of A. ferox contains about three times as much alkaloid as that of the English plant” (Royle’s Mat. Med.). According to Wright and Rennie (Year-Book of Pharm., 1880, 458), the percentage of total bases yielded by the root of A. napellus, calculated on the dry substance, amounted to ·07 per cent., equivalent to about ·05 per cent, of total alkaloids in the dry herb. Two-fifths of the total alkaloid consisted of pure crystallized aconitia.

Commercial aconitia or aconitine is generally met with as a[571] white amorphous powder, but is occasionally crystalline. It dissolves in 150 parts of cold and 50 parts of hot water, and is also soluble in alcohol, benzole, and chloroform: it is inodorous, possesses an acrid taste (W. and T., For. Med., p. 392), and is strongly alkaline to test-paper. It generally fuses below 100° C. (60° C., W. and T.), and gives an amorphous sublimate above 150° C. (pure aconitia fuses at 183°-184° C.: pure pseudaconitia melts at 104°-105° C.): when strongly heated with free access of air, it burns with a yellow, smoky flame, leaving no residue. Crystallized samples of commercial aconitia are the purest. Amorphous aconitia, and particularly that prepared in Germany, is very impure, being admixed with considerable quantities of comparatively inert bases. The use of such a preparation should be avoided, as being liable to give rise to a false idea as to the proper dose of the pure alkaloid (Royle’s Mat. Med., 1876, p. 773). Morson’s “English aconitine” (pseudaconitia) is much more powerful than the French and German products, which are mostly prepared from A. napellus, and consist mainly of aconitia.[221]

Aconitia and pseudaconitia differ from one another in their molecular weights and melting-points; they also furnish different decomposition-products: aconitia readily furnishes well-crystallized salts, while the salts of pseudaconitia are usually obtained amorphous; and finally, crystallized aconitia is anhydrous, while pseudaconitia crystallizes with one atom of water.

The two bases are similar as regards their physiological action (pseudaconitia is perhaps somewhat more powerfully active than aconitia), and general behaviour with reagents.

The characters and physiological action of commercial aconitia vary greatly, as might be expected from the ununiformity of its composition.

[572]

SEPARATION AND TESTS.

For the extraction and separation of aconitia from anima matters, the modification of Stas’s general method, described on page 5 (Chap. I.), may be employed. The alkaloids of aconite being, as has been already shown, very liable to decomposition, great care must be taken, during the extraction with alcohol and subsequent evaporation of the extracts, that the temperature does not rise above 50° C.: the use of mineral acids should also be avoided.

Tests.—1. The residue of aconitia or pseudaconitia, obtained on spontaneous evaporation of the anhydrous chloroform solution, will generally be found to be more or less crystalline, when examined under the microscope.

2. The Taste Test.—A minute portion of the residue, either alone or dissolved in a small quantity of water acidulated with acetic acid, should be rubbed with the finger on the lips and gums, or cautiously applied to the tip of the tongue. If aconitia or pseudaconitia be present, a peculiar tingling and numbness will be quickly experienced in and around the parts to which the alkaloidal extract has been applied: salivation, with a desire to expectorate, and a sense of swelling at the back of the throat, are also frequently noticed. The effects, or some of them, usually last from three to six hours, or even longer. This action is peculiar to aconite; the test, therefore, is of the utmost value, and one which must never be omitted.

3. The Physiological Test.—Inject a small quantity of the alkaloidal extract, dissolved in a little water acidulated with acetic acid, into the back of a mouse or other small animal. In the event of aconitia being present, characteristic symptoms of aconite poisoning are manifested in a few minutes, and the death of the animal rapidly ensues. Among the chief symptoms observed by Dr. Fleming, in some experiments upon animals, made in 1844, were “weakness of the limbs, staggering, a gradually increasing paralysis of the voluntary[573] muscles, loss or diminution of sight, slowness of pulse, difficulty of breathing, occasional convulsive movements, in two cases opisthotonos, contracted pupils, but often dilating two or three minutes before death, and death by asphyxia.” (Woodman and Tidy’s For. Med., p. 394). This test is also a very important one.

4. Chemical Tests.—Solutions of salts of aconitia and pseudaconitia are precipitated by most of the general reagents for alkaloids, such as Mayer’s reagent, tannic acid, potassium tri-iodide, phosphomolybdic acid, &c. Platinic chloride, picric or carbazotic acid, and auric chloride, however, do not give precipitates, except in concentrated solutions. Among the special tests for aconitia and pseudaconitia which have been described, the following may be mentioned. (A) With sulphuric acid, no change takes place in the cold, but on warming, a pale yellow, deepening into brown, and finally changing into violet-red, is observed. This reaction varies very greatly with different samples of aconitia, and little or no reliance can be placed upon it as a toxicological test. (B) With sulphuric acid and a drop of saturated solution of sugar, a fine rose-red colour, passing into dingy brown, has been obtained. Experience, however, has not shown this test to be of any especial value. (C) If cautiously heated for ten or fifteen minutes on the water-bath with a few drops of syrupy phosphoric acid, aconitia is said to yield a violet or blue colour. This reaction is uncertain and therefore useless: it may be obtained with impure samples, while pure aconitia and pseudaconitia fail to give it. Mr. T. B. Groves (Year-Book of Pharmacy, 1873) says:—“The colour reactions of these alkaloids may be dismissed in a word. There are ‘none.’ As for the phosphoric acid reaction producing a blue colour, I have never succeeded in obtaining it. It is probably due to some accidental impurity, and I believe Dr. Flückiger has arrived at the same conclusion.”

Hence, as there are no reliable, characteristic, and distinctive chemical tests for aconitia, its presence or absence must be judged chiefly from the results of the tests of taste and[574] physiological action on small animals. A substance, previously proved to be an alkaloid by its yielding precipitates with most of the general reagents for alkaloids, and which, when applied to the tongue and injected under the skin of a small animal, produces the effects already described, is absolutely certain to be aconitia.

HISTORY, PREPARATIONS, AND DOSES.

History.—The Ἀκόνιτον of the Greeks and Aconitum of the Romans are believed to refer to the genus Aconitum, if not actually to A. napellus. The ancients were well acquainted with the poisonous properties of aconite, which has been widely used as an arrow-poison. It was employed by the ancient Chinese, and is still in requisition among the less civilised hill tribes of India.[222] Something similar was in use among the aborigines of ancient Gaul. In a Welsh MS. of the 13th century, aconite was pointed out as one of the plants which every physician was to grow. The root and the herb are met with in the German pharmaceutical tariff of the 17th century. Störck, of Vienna, introduced aconite into regular practice about the year 1762 (Flückiger and Hanbury; “Pharmacographia,” 1879).

Preparations and Medicinal Doses,—Aconite leaves (Aconiti Folia) and root (Aconiti Radix) are officinal in the British Pharmacopœia, and the plants from which they are obtained (A. napellus) are cultivated in Britain (Squire’s Companion to the B. P., 1868). The chief preparations are as follows:—

1. Aconitia, B. P.—Aconitine. Not for internal use, according to the Pharmacopœia. It is, however, occasionally prescribed in very minute doses (¹/₄₀₀ to ¹/₅₀ of a grain by the mouth: not more than ¹/₂₀₀ of a grain, subcutaneously injected;[575] Royle’s Materia Medica). Dr. J. Harley has given ¹/₂₀₀ of a grain, once a day, in fevers.

2. Unguentum Aconitiæ, B. P.—Ointment of aconitia. Prepared with lard. Strength, 8 grains of aconitia to the ounce (= 1·66 per cent.). For external application in painful nervous affections, neuralgia, &c.

3. Linimentum Aconiti, B. P.—Useful for external application in neuralgia or lumbago. May contain about 2 per cent. of aconitia (Blyth).

4. Extractum Aconiti, B. P.—Prepared from the leaves and flowering tops. Dose, 1 to 2 grains.

5. Tinctura Aconiti, B. P.—Dose, 5 to 10 minims, twice or thrice a day (Squire); 5 to 15 minims, and only to be gradually if at all increased (Royle); never to exceed 5 minims (Farquharson’s Therapeutics).[223]

6. Fleming’s Tincture of Aconite is not officinal; it is nearly four times stronger than the B. P. tincture, and must on no account be given in the above doses (Royle).

7. Liston’s Strong Tincture.—Not officinal.

8. Aconiti Succus.—The expressed juice. Not officinal. Dose, 15 to 20 minims (Squire’s Comp. to the B. P.).