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 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 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.”
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 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 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 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. 10_s._ in gold and £1. 1_s._ 6_d._ 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.
“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
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:—
“I have no experience in detecting the odour of prussic acid in a
human subject—should think it may be taken without detection; should
expect to find the odour in the mouth and in the breath, but there may
be exceptions. Neither Mr. Pickering nor Mr. Norblad smelt it when
the body was opened. It was not a conjecture of mine; I was positive
of it. The smell is very peculiar and strong, and easy to be detected
by those acquainted with it. It is more likely to be detected when
exposed as this was to a heat of 212 degrees. At every heat we tried
to smell it, but failed. There was no such smell in the blood which I
drew shortly after death. I am not competent to say whether epileptic
patients die more quickly from prussic acid than others. It is said to
act powerfully on the nervous system. Have read the case of the seven
epileptic patients who died from a dose of seven-tenths of a grain
each in from thirty to forty-five hours. There was a case in which the
French doctors discovered poison eight days after death.
“This acid exists in a great number of substances, in apples for
instance, and probably in many other substances in which it has never
been discovered. I agree with Dr. Christisön in his opinion (p. 756)
in respect of the formation of this acid in various organic substances
and other articles. It is made from the blood, bones, and horns of
animals. It consists of 12 carbon, 14 nitrogen, and 1 hydrogen. Those
are its elements. They exist and can be obtained in great quantities
from various substances—cherry-stones, and stones of various fruits;
they are found in the human saliva, but not in the form of prussic
acid. It (the salt) is called sulphocyanide, and when taken is
perceptible in the blood and breath, but most in the stomach.[10] In
apple-pips or other substances the smell would not be given off until
disengaged by some process for that purpose.
“During the experiments for oxalic acid and other poisons, Messrs.
Cooper, Pickering, and Norblad failed to perceive any smell. One of
them then came to the conclusion that there must be prussic acid.”
_Question._—“Did Mr. Cooper then apply a process which would set free
prussic acid from apple-pips and other substances?”
_Answer._—“I believe that is the process, but it was not carried
to the full extent. I refer to the heat. When this new process was
applied, the result was that prussic acid was found. I did not smell
it, nor anyone else. Beyond the smell in opening the body, I smelt
none at all.”
“When I first saw the deceased I thought I felt a few beats of the
pulse, but I imagine that I was mistaken. It might have been the
pulse in my own finger. The analogy between animals and human beings
dying of prussic acid is considered doubtful by the best authorities.
The heart would continue to beat for a short time after the pulse
had receded from the arms. The lungs might be considered slightly
congested.”
_Mr. Kelly._—“Why then inform my learned friend that they were sound
and healthy?”
_Witness._—“The lungs themselves were not diseased.”
_Mr. Kelly._—“Is it natural and healthy when the lungs are congested?”
_Witness._—“They contained rather more blood than usual.”
_Mr. Kelly._—“Is that a healthy state?”
_Witness._—“Not perfectly so.”
_Mr. Kelly._—“Is not congested lungs the cause of various modes of
sudden death?”
_Witness._—“Yes.”
“I then examined the _pericardium_, it was empty. The heart had a
natural appearance. I do not recollect that I examined the arteries
proceeding from the aorta. Any disease of the coronary arteries is
likely to cause sudden death. I did not examine the spinal marrow.
The valves of the heart were very clear. Death might suddenly result
from the adhesion of the spinal marrow, if it had existed some time. A
sudden termination also might take place where the disease is latent.
I looked at the gall-bladder, the colour was natural. My experience
teaches me that prussic acid would colour it blue.[11] I examined the
œsophagus to see if there was any foreign substance, and found none. I
opened the trachea, but not the bronchial tubes, so I could not tell
whether there was water in them or not. When I felt the pulse and
heart of the deceased I was satisfied that she was dead, still I bled
her, as I thought it best to try every means to restore animation.
I did not do it to ascertain the cause of death. I then got no
information as to the cause of death. I saw a slight motion of the jaw
as I felt the pulse, and apprehend she died then. I took the stomach
from the body eighteen hours after death. The contents were turned
into a jug or basin, and afterwards into a bottle. I do not know
for what purpose the bottle had been used. I did not wash it out.”
(_The bottle was here produced, a large-mouthed one, like a pickle
bottle._) The witness then stated what care he took of it to prevent
its being tampered with before taking it to Mr. Cooper:—“The exact
dose to cause death is still undetermined, also whether the effect
is cumulative or not, also the effect of the same quantity diluted
more or less is unsettled. Scheele’s prussic acid varies in strength.
Prussic acid evaporates by keeping.”
_Mr. Kelly, reading from Watson’s “Lectures on Physic.”_—“Do you
agree to this—‘A blow, a fall, an electric shock, a teaspoonful
of prussic acid, may cause death and leave no trace on the nervous
system?’”
_Witness._—“Yes.”
On his _re-examination_ by _Serjt. Byles_, the witness said:—
“In the case of the seven epileptic patients two medical men did
not smell the acid, but two chemists did some time afterwards. It
requires an extensive experience readily to detect the smell. Some may
perceive it, some not. Several persons should smell, some not being
so susceptible of the odour as others. I agree with a French chemist
that ‘under a considerable number of circumstances there must be great
practical knowledge to detect smell.’ If a person once knows the
smell, I think he will know it again.”[12]
“I should think that before prussic acid could be obtained from horns,
blood, and bones of animals, a heat of from 400 to 500 degrees would
be necessary. All animals, whether human or not, die if they take
prussic acid. There is no difference in its operation upon man and the
inferior animals. There was no appearance of disease in the heart of
the deceased. Had there been any rupture of the coronary arteries it
would have been apparent. I never knew such a disease of the spinal
marrow to cause sudden death. I know only of the two cases mentioned
by Taylor of the gall bladder having a blue tint. The absence of it
is no proof that the person did not die from prussic acid. The bottle
into which I put the contents was perfectly clean and dry. The ends
of the stomach were securely tied up with string when I moved the
contents into the jug, which was also perfectly dry and clean. I have
no doubt the deceased died from prussic acid.”
After two constables (_Hill_ and _Larkin_) had proved the finding of a
phial in a cupboard and two others in a jug, one of 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_.
“On the 3rd of January,” said the witness, “Messrs. Champneys,
Norblad, and Pickering called on me with a carpet bag. The bag
contained a bottle (ordinary one, such as olives are usually sold
in) full or nearly so with the contents of the stomach; a portion
of porter in an ordinary beer-bottle, on which was a paper label
signifying that it contained Guinness’s beer; a glass tumbler, about
half full of what appeared to be a mixture of beer and water; a part
of a plum bun, and a phial containing a few drops (perhaps about half
a drachm) of a nearly colourless fluid; a small piece of pink paper,
such as is generally used by apothecaries for tying over the corks of
medicine phials, and had apparently been used for such purpose; and
the stomach and part of the intestines. The bottle which contained the
contents of the stomach was tied over with a piece of bladder, and,
I think, corked as well, but of the latter I am not certain; it was
opened and smelt strongly of food in the progress of digestion, it
had also the smell of beer. On the application of litmus paper to the
surface of the contents it became red instantly, and so very red that
I was disposed to consider that Mr. Norblad and the other gentlemen
were right in their conjecture as to its containing oxalic acid. A
portion was now taken out of this bottle and put into a porcelain
evaporating basin, to which some distilled water was added, and
stirred well together with a glass rod; the basin with its contents
was then placed on the heated sand bath and kept stirring until it
boiled, and even after it had boiled for some minutes. During the
whole of this operation I was standing over it, and the vapour that
escaped I smelt the whole time, but did not recognise the slightest
odour of prussic acid; the odour was the same as that of the contents
of the bottle, but it was more powerful. The contents of the basin
were then put into a paper filter placed in a glass funnel, and that
which passed through the filter was collected in a glass vessel placed
for its reception. While this operation was going on I directed my
attention to the contents of the beer bottle and the tumbler. I found
them both to have an acid reaction on litmus paper, the contents of
the beer bottle very decidedly so; but on the application of the usual
tests employed for the detection of oxalic acid, not a trace of it
could be found.
“By this time a small quantity of clear liquid from the contents
of the basin had passed the filter; this was removed from the
glass vessel employed to receive it into a test glass, and on the
application of the tests for the detection of oxalic acid not the
smallest trace was indicated. I then felt quite certain that oxalic
acid had not been the cause of death.
“I was then shown the stomach by Messrs. Champneys and Norblad, and on
examining its interior surface it did not appear to have been acted
on by any corrosive substance: nevertheless I thought it advisable to
search for sulphuric acid, and accordingly applied to a small portion
of the liquid, filtered from that which had been boiled, the test for
that substance, but none could be detected. In like manner I did also
apply the tests for the detection of baryta, opium, arsenic, the
salts of mercury, and other metallic poisons, and could find none of
them. I then came to the conclusion that, if the person had died from
the effect of poison, it could be no other than prussic acid.
“A portion of the contents of the stomach was then taken from
the bottle and put into a tubulated retort, to which was added a
very small quantity of dilute sulphuric acid; the retort with its
contents was placed on the sand bath, a receiver applied and a
portion distilled off. When about two drachms of clear liquid had
distilled over, it was removed from the receiver into a test glass,
about a grain of green sulphate of iron was added, and when this
was dissolved, a small quantity of solution of potassa. These were
allowed to remain a short time together and stirred with a glass rod.
Subsequently muriatic acid was added in sufficient quantity _when
instantly Prussian blue appeared_, which could not have resulted
unless cyanogen or hydrocyanic acid had been present. But it could not
be recognised by the smell. Although I had no doubt in my own mind,
from the gentle heat that had been employed in the above detailed
process of distillation, that the prussic acid could not have resulted
from any decomposition of the animal matters present in the contents
of the stomach, yet I thought it prudent to conduct the process of
distillation in such a manner as to preclude the possibility of such
occurrence.
“Another and much larger portion of the contents of the stomach was
put into another retort, to which a little dilute sulphuric acid
was added as before, and the retort with its contents placed in a
water bath, to which some common salt was added. The salt-water bath
was heated until it boiled; a receiver was put on to the retort, an
adapter intervening so as to remove the receiver to a greater distance
from the furnace, and the receiver was kept as cool as possible by
folds of blotting paper kept constantly wet applied to its external
surface. In this manner was the distillation slowly conducted, until
about an ounce of clear liquid had distilled over.”
On the removal of this liquid from the receiver it had the same smell
as that contained in the bottle had before distillation, and neither
myself, Mr. Norblad, Mr. Champneys, nor my son could detect the smell
of prussic acid in the slightest degree. In fact the odour of beer and
digesting food was so powerful as to cover or disguise the smell of
the prussic acid in this weak state, but on applying the same tests as
before Prussian blue was found in considerable quantity.
“The few drops of liquid which were in the phial before mentioned
were now examined: they had no action on litmus paper, they smelt of
camphor and acetate of ammonia. The test for prussic acid was applied,
but it did not show the smallest quantity. The phial was then washed
out, and the distilled liquid, with the precipitated Prussian blue
obtained by the two above-detailed processes was put into it. It was
corked up and taken by Messrs. Norblad and Champneys to keep in their
possession. I also added the same test to distilled water containing
a few drops of prussic acid, for the sake of comparison and to try
the test. This was also taken by Messrs. Norblad and Champneys, as
was also some distilled water with the same tests applied, to which
no prussic acid had been added, and which was colourless. As far as I
can recollect this completed the first day’s proceedings, it being now
nearly dark.
“On the evening of the following day (Saturday) Mr. Pickering came
to me to request I would on the Monday following examine, by the
coroner’s desire, the contents of the glass tumbler, the beer bottle,
and the remainder of the beer, to determine if prussic acid existed
in any of them. On Sunday the 6th, being engaged at Derby on the
Monday, Messrs. Norblad and Champneys came, bringing with them the
whole of the things they took away with them on the Friday. The beer,
the contents of the tumbler, and the remains of the plum bun we each
subjected separately to distillation in the salt-water bath, and to
the liquor obtained by distillation the same tests for detecting
prussic acid were added, but not a trace could be found.
“I may here observe that, on the intervening Saturday, I continued the
distillation of the larger portion before spoken of for the purpose of
obtaining more of the distilled liquid, and in fact to continue the
distillation until the whole of the prussic acid had been separated.
A part of the distilled liquor had its Prussian blue precipitated,
which was given to Messrs. Norblad and Champneys on the Sunday, and to
another part I added nitrate of silver for the purpose of separating
the hydrocyanic acid, or rather the cyanogen it contained. I kept
it safe from decomposition or change during my absence, and for the
purpose of further experiments on my return, and at my leisure.
“Accordingly, shortly after my return, I put the cyanide of silver
obtained by the above process, together with some very dilute muriatic
acid, into a small retort, to which a receiver was attached. The
retort was placed over a lamp in order to be heated, and the receiver
was surrounded by cold water. The distillation proceeded until about a
drachm and a half had distilled over. _This liquor possessed the odour
of prussic acid_, distinctly recognised by myself, and also by two of
my sons.
“It occurred to me that as Messrs. Norblad, Champneys, and myself had
distinctly seen among the contents of the stomach some undigested
apples, that the seeds or pips of the apple might give rise to the
formation of prussic acid by distillation. I therefore determined on
making an experiment to see if any and what quantity of prussic acid
they were capable of producing. Accordingly the seeds from fifteen
apples were bruised and put into a retort with some distilled water,
and about an ounce of liquor was distilled off. On the application
of the tests before spoken of, Prussian blue, in exceeding small
quantity, was produced. On testing the last product of distillation,
no Prussian blue was found. I have the whole of the Prussian blue thus
produced.
“About ten days ago I was applied to and requested to make more
experiments for the purpose (if possible) of discovering the whole
amount of prussic acid originally contained in the contents of the
stomach, or at least of that portion brought to me. I stated that I
had not the means in my possession of doing so, and that Mr. Norblad
or Mr. Champneys possessed almost everything relating to the matter;
but I thought it possible, if I had the remainder of the contents of
the stomach, and that if it were contained in the same bottle in which
it was originally brought, I might be able to do so—having a distinct
recollection of about the height at which the matter stood in the
neck of the bottle. Mr. Champneys, on Saturday, the 8th of February,
delivered, with other matters, into my charge, the remainder of the
contents of the stomach which had not before been subjected to any
operation or experiment, and which, when I gave it him back, after my
former experiments, I requested him to keep in a cool dark place for
further investigation, should it be deemed requisite. The bottle was
tightly corked and securely tied over with a piece of bladder. Before
uncorking it, I made a mark with a file outside the bottle coincident
with the surface of the contents in the interior. I then emptied the
contents into a glass alembic, washed the bottle out with a little
distilled water, and added this to the matter in the alembic. The head
of the alembic was then put on, a condensing apparatus attached, the
alembic placed as before on a salt-water bath, the bath brought to
the boiling point, and distillation conducted until the whole of the
prussic acid was expelled. A solution of nitrate of silver was put
into the recipient for the purpose of seizing hold of the hydrocyanic
acid the moment it reached that vessel. By this process I succeeded
in obtaining 1·455 grains of dry cyanide of silver, very slightly
contaminated with chloride of silver. The latter did not amount to
a quantity which could be collected and weighed. But if I allow
0·025 grains, and call the quantity of cyanide of silver produced in
reality 1·43 on the quantity operated on in this instance, it must be
very near the truth. But as the quantity operated on in this instance
formed only 51 parts out of the 180 of the whole volume of the
contents of the bottle as it was first brought to me, the following
proportion will show how much was contained in the whole. For if 51
parts give 1·43 grains of cyanide of silver, 180 parts will give
5·047 grains of cyanide of silver. This quantity of cyanide of silver
is equivalent to 1·002 grains of real hydrocyanic or prussic acid,
which is equal to 50 grains of the prussic acid of the strength of
the London Pharmacopeia. The determination of the relative quantity
operated on, and the original volume of the contents of the stomach,
was ascertained by measuring, with water, the bottle filled, as near
as possible to remember, to that part in the neck where the contents
originally stood, which was 180½ drachms, and to the mark made by the
file 51½ drachms.
“I may also remark that the contents of the stomach, after
distillation, was still strongly acid, occasioned most probably by the
acid in the beer, and also by the acid which is invariably produced
during the process of digestion.”[13]
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.
“Until this case,” said the witness, “I had never examined the
contents of a human stomach where a person had been killed by prussic
acid, or a human stomach containing prussic acid. Respecting the
effect of prussic acid on the stomach and tissues of the body, my
knowledge is only theoretical. Prussic acid, which I have smelt from
its most concentrated to its weakest state, has a peculiar smell; it
affects different persons differently. When I smell it, it affects
spasmodically the back of the throat. But it loses its smell in
combinations. I am not aware what quantity of prussic acid destroys
life. I have no practical knowledge on the subject. The case I am most
familiar with is that of the seven epileptics.
“I began my investigation with the view of seeing if oxalic acid was
present. I recognised the odour of beer more strongly in the contents
of the stomach than anything else. I did not trace the smell of
prussic acid in them, nor feel any spasmodic affection in the throat
in smelling them. I did not come to the conclusion, after trying for
those acids and mercurial poisons, which I did not discover, that
there was prussic acid in the stomach, but I remarked to those present
at that time, ‘Well, if this person has taken poison, it must be
prussic acid.’
“I have no idea how much Prussian blue I obtained from the first
experiment, as it was made in a hurry. (_The bottle of dark blue
liquid was here shown again._) I thought the obtaining evidence of its
presence sufficient. I got more Prussian blue in the second experiment
than in the first, and more in the third experiment than the second. I
have not calculated the total amount of Prussian blue in the bottle.”
_As to the contents of the stomach_: “There was undigested flesh and a
pulpy mass of which I could make nothing, and some portion of apple,
but no pips either partially digested or undigested with the apple.
I am not prepared to say that the pips of this apple contained more
prussic acid than others. There is a great difference between bitter
and sweet apples—_the bitter contain a great deal of prussic acid,
the sweet, I believe, none_.”[14]
_As to prussic acid being in many substances_: “Strictly speaking, I
don’t think it exists in any substance, not even in bitter almonds.
I mean in a free state; it is so extremely volatile that it cannot
possibly exist unless in combination with some other substance. It is
my opinion that prussic acid is a ‘product,’ and not an ‘educt’—that
is to say, in consequence of its great volatility it cannot exist
unless in combination with some other substance; you liberate it by
combination and change. The elements of it exist in a great many
substances. These elements, on taking new arrangements, may produce
prussic acid. Therefore I feel that it is always a ‘product,’ and that
it does not exist in any substance in a free state, because if it did
it would be continually evaporating from that substance.”
_Question._—“Are not the substances which are already known to
contain the elements of prussic acid, and from which it can be
obtained, very numerous?”
_Answer._—“They are very numerous certainly, because all those
compounds which contain carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, and hydrogen, may,
in my opinion, by new changes be made to produce prussic acid. All
animal substances of any kind contain those elements, in which are
contained the elements of prussic acid. I agree, as far as I know,
with Christison, that the distilled seeds of bitter almonds, and
pomaceous seeds, yield prussic acid by distillation.”
_Question._—“Is it not found, from time to time, by accident or
experiment, to exist in organic and other matters?”
_Answer._—“I believe it is. I was the first person to discover it
in fulminating silver, and perhaps also in apple-pips, from recent
experiments. I am not aware of it ever having been produced by mere
organic changes in the stomach. If the apple-pips on which I operated
had been macerated, I cannot say that I should have obtained more
Prussian blue. I know it is the habit to macerate bitter almonds, but
I also know that without maceration they have sometimes yielded more
prussic acid than with maceration.”
_Question._—“I will ask you one question more, ‘Do you agree with Dr.
Taylor that the odour of prussic acid, which is said to be peculiar,
may be found when all tests fail?”
_Answer._—“_I do not believe it._ As far as my experience goes, it
would lead me to the contrary conclusion.”
_Question._—“But if I understand you rightly, you do not smell
prussic acid, but feel its effects in another way?”
_Answer._—“Sometimes it has produced a spasmodic constriction about
the throat, without my smelling it. At other times I have distinctly
smelt it. It depends very much, I think, on the state of the nasal
organ at the time.”
_To Serjeant Byles._—“The same peculiar action at the back of the
throat is, I think, felt by others on putting prussic acid to the
nose. I communicated the nature of my evidence to the solicitor of the
prisoner about a month ago.”
_Baron Parke._—“Have you or have you not a doubt upon your mind from
the result of your experiments as to the existence of prussic acid in
the stomach?”
_Witness._—“None whatever! I have no doubt that prussic acid may
exist without being smelt.”
_Baron Parke._—“If there was an absence of smell, would you suppose
that the prussic acid was present in the shape of a salt, and that,
therefore, you did not smell it?”
_Witness._—“Absence of smell may arise from dilution, or from its
being covered by the smell of other substances.”
_Baron Parke._—“Do you, in this particular case, ascribe the absence
of smell to the circumstance of the prussic acid being in the form of
a salt?”
_Witness._—“_No, because it could not exist in the stomach as a
cyanide of potassium, which is a salt, or as a cyanide of soda, when
another and more powerful acid was present; as, for instance, muriatic
acid, which in this case was found in considerable quantity, it being
an acid generated by the process of digestion._”
_Baron Parke._—“Do you not believe that there was also acetic acid
present. Is not that a strong acid?”
_Witness._—“I have no doubt there was also acetic acid present, and
it would have a greater affinity for soda or potash than prussic acid.
I think prussic acid cannot be formed by putrefaction in the stomach.”
_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:
“On January 2 I went to Mrs. Hart’s house and saw her body; have heard
the evidence of Mr. Champneys, and should say that death was caused by
prussic or oxalic acid; do not know of any other poisons that would
produce death so rapidly; was present at Mr. Cooper’s experiments;
have heard and perfectly agree with his evidence; oxalic acid must
have been detected if present; I am quite of opinion that prussic acid
was present in the stomach, and have no doubt about it; have heard
the evidence of the witness Howard, the symptoms she describes (of
supposed former attempt) are precisely those of prussic acid. That
acid acts uniformly upon all animal subjects, and destroys life in
the same way in all cases. Have tried experiments on dogs, and have
seen cats and dogs poisoned by that acid. On the 18th February I made
an experiment on two dogs. Five hours after feeding them I gave one
of them half an ounce and the other one drachm of Scheele’s acid,
administered it at 7 p.m., and exactly in ten seconds after receiving
the smaller dose the dog fell as if dead, and the other in half the
time; _I opened their bodies eighteen hours after and could not
discover any odour_; I smelt the mouth of the dog and could not detect
it then, nor at any other time; I opened the stomach of the dog, which
smelt intensely of sour beer, the acid having been administered in
beer. I attributed the absence of smell to the admixture of Guinness’s
stout; I should have expected on opening Mrs. Hart’s body to have
discovered the cause of death.”
_By the Court._—“I examined the brain; it was perfectly healthy;
death did not arise from apoplexy.”
_By Serjeant Byles._—“Less than a grain of pure prussic acid would be
sufficient to produce death.”
_Cross-examined_ by _Mr. Kelly_:—
“I have never attended any one who had taken prussic acid except in
the form of medicine. The average dose of Scheele’s is five minims,
and a minim is about a grain. Never heard of prussic acid being
administered externally for varicose veins, and should think it
useless (_prescription handed to him_). That is a proper prescription
for varicose veins. I agree with Dr. Thompson, of London, that prussic
acid may be applied successfully to diseases of the skin and cancerous
affections to alleviate pain. I consider my sense of smell very acute.
_I mixed twelve grains of prussic acid with a pint of porter, but
could not smell it. Some porter dropped on the table and I did then
smell it._ I know that prussic acid when combined with the blood of
an animal volatilises very rapidly when exposed to the air. There is
a case in which prussic acid appears to have allayed irritation of
the stomach; it is a useful medicine sometimes in small doses. I have
seen dogs vomit after it. Disease of the heart would produce death
from mental emotion or rupture of the coronaries of the heart. Forcing
water down the throat of a person in a syncope might cause sudden
death. There was no congestion or gorging of the lungs. I saw but did
not examine specially the coronary arteries.”
_Kelly._—“If sudden death had occurred from a disease of the coronary
arteries, what would be the appearance of the lungs?”
_Witness._—“The lungs have nothing to do with the coronary arteries;
ossification of them is supposed to cause sudden death. The blood in
the lungs would not be prevented from returning the heart so as to
gorge the lungs. I did not see any symptoms of the coronary arteries
being ossified.”
“I examined the lungs carefully. The lungs have been found gorged in
some persons who have died of prussic acid. I don’t think that what
has been called congestion was always clearly so. In all cases of
paralysis of the heart, the blood has not been returned to the heart,
and remaining in it gorges the lungs. Death by prussic acid paralyses
the heart. In death from prussic acid, death is often denoted by an
involuntary scream. I cannot say that I have heard of a succession
of screams in any case of the kind. When I first saw the body, my
impression was that death had been caused by oxalic acid, and that
impression continued until the tests were applied. Blackness of the
stomach is a symptom. There was a dark spot on the surface of the
stomach. I have not seen a case of poisoning by oxalic acid.”
_Re-examined by Mr. Prendergast._
“There was nothing in the stifled screams described by Mrs. Ashley
yesterday at all inconsistent with poisoning by prussic acid; on the
contrary, the catching of the breath is the last symptom. Less than
one grain of prussic acid will kill a healthy person.”
_By the Court._—“I saw nothing on the brain to indicate death by
apoplexy. If a sudden emotion had caused death I don’t think I could
have told that by the brain.”
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.
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 4_d._ 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.
“The prisoner,” said the witness, “told me he was suffering from
varicose veins. I judged that he was, from the medicine I sold him.
He rubbed his leg. The prescription now shown me would be a good
external application for the ulceration produced by varicose veins.”
_Baron Parke._—“What is that?”
_Kelly._—“Scheele’s Acid.”
_Witness._—“That prescription is in the handwriting of Dr. Addison.
I do not believe that Scheele’s Prussic Acid could be mixed with a
drink and taken by a person and not smelt after death. _I do not think
porter would disguise it._ I put about twenty drops of Scheele’s
Prussic Acid down the throat of a parrot with a glass syringe. Three
women were present, and the smell was so strong and suffocating,
that it compelled them to leave the room. The bird was afterwards
stuffed. _I mixed thirty drops of this acid with eleven ounces of
porter, and found the odour slightly perceptible. I did not perceive
the difference when the froth was on and when there was none._ It is
the property of prussic acid to give out a smell when volatilising.
_Apple-pips contain prussic acid. I have assisted at the extracting it
from fifteen small apples. The process was a soft-water bath, diluted
sulphuric acid, and sulphate of iron._ TWO GRAINS AND A QUARTER OF
CYANIDE OF SILVER WERE PRODUCED. _I did this under the direction of
Dr. Lievesley, a lecturer at the London Hospital. In this process two
sweet almonds were used._”[16]
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.
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, 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 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 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:—
“All that could be inferred was, that though the perception of it was
a positive proof of its presence, the non-perception was no proof
of its not being present. As to the deceased having died from water
having been poured down her throat, it was quite idle to attribute it
to that. At that moment she was not living: death had already done its
work. With regard to the quantity of prussic acid requisite to kill a
human being, it had been proved that less than a grain would kill in
some cases, as appeared by the melancholy cases so frequently referred
to of the seven epileptic patients in Paris; and Mr. Cooper had proved
that more than a grain existed in the stomach of the deceased. It was
said that the experiments were not satisfactorily conducted—that was
a question for the jury.
“In considering the conduct of the prisoner, the jury must couple it
with all the other evidence, in order to judge how far it bore out or
contradicted the inferences that might be derived from it. It appeared
that on the day in question the prisoner had gone to the Paddington
station of the Great Western Railway and taken his place for Slough.
He had left his great coat at the Jerusalem coffee-house, and told the
waiter that he was going to dine at the West End of town. That was
untrue, and he must have made that false statement for some object or
other. He went down to Slough at five o’clock, and between six and
seven Mrs. Ashley went round to the deceased’s house, in consequence
of the noise she heard of stifled screaming. She met the prisoner in
the garden in a state of agitation—so great that he could not undo
the latch of the gate. She opened it for him. As to the observation
she made about fearing that her neighbour was ill, she could not say
that the prisoner heard it, and therefore it went for nothing. Let
that pass. However, after she got in at the door of the deceased’s
house, she turned round and saw the prisoner looking at her, and such
was the effect upon her that she felt alarmed, and closed and fastened
the door. At seven o’clock the prisoner was seen by a postboy, and he
was then making towards the station. At ten minutes after seven he
was at the station. He was next seen getting into the Eton omnibus,
and asking to be set down at Herschel House. What his intention was
in going to Herschel House does not appear. He was traced back again
to the station, and an alarm having been given, a signal was made by
the electric telegraph, and he was seen to alight from the railway
carriage at Paddington, and was then traced home. When he was taken up
next morning, and told what he was taken for, his answer was, that he
knew no one at Slough. It had been suggested by his counsel that this
was strictly true, as the deceased did not live exactly at Slough, but
a little distance from it. It had also been suggested that he wished
to prevent his wife hearing of his improper connection. It would be
for the jury to say what degree of weight should be given to these
explanations.
“He had told several falsehoods when informed of the nature of
the charge. On the Friday, about one o’clock, the prisoner had an
interview with his legal adviser, and after that, but not until after
that, did he make any attempt at explanation or give any account
of what had taken place; and the account which he then gave was
the extraordinary statement of her self-destruction. Here, then,
the prisoner represented himself as present when the poison was
administered, and as it was found in her stomach, it was for the jury
to say whether the question did not amount to the simple one, of
whether she had destroyed herself or the prisoner had administered
it. If he thought she had been threatening to poison herself, he
should at least have stayed to see what would be the effect upon her.
The jury would next observe, keeping the prisoner’s story in mind,
that no such vial as that described by him was found in the house.
It had been proved by Mr. Thomas, who had sold him the poison in the
morning, that the prisoner had prussic acid in his possession that
day. He (the judge) did not give much weight to the observation that
he would not have gone back the next day to the same shop for more if
he were conscious of guilt, because in cases of murder, and especially
of murder by poison, it was found that great precautions were not
used. The perpetrators did not at all expect to be found out. As to
the medicinal use alleged to have been made by the prisoner of the
deadly poison, he might have had varicose veins; but at all events it
had been shown that he had poison in his possession—he had the means
of doing this act on the day it was committed.”
Coming then to the question of motive the Judge gave a brief history
of the connection between the prisoner and the deceased, and,
after detailing its commencement, commented on it as showing her
extraordinary affection and devotion to the prisoner.
“With striking self-devotion,” said Baron Parke, “she had said, that,
in order not to prevent the union of the prisoner with the lady to whom
he was about to be married, she would go out of the world, and be dead
to the world, even to her own mother, from that day forth; and the
jury had heard from that very mother that from that time she had never
heard of her unfortunate daughter until after her death. She kept her
promise. She did go out of the world, and went from place to place till
she went to reside at Slough. It appeared that there she received from
the prisoner an allowance of £13 a quarter, and on the day in question
it was seen that he was to have taken her her quarterly allowance. When
taken into custody, the sum of £12 10_s._, besides silver, was found in
his pocket; and it was proved that he had drawn a cheque for £14 that
morning. From that fact it might be inferred that he had gone down with
a sort of mixed feeling, either of paying her the money or, if he had
the opportunity of accomplishing his purpose, of poisoning her. But as
to motive for destroying her, it had been suggested that no man would
commit such a dreadful crime for the sake of getting rid of expense.
That, he should say, was not a matter to be easily judged of.”
His Lordship then touched upon all the evidence regarding his alleged
pecuniary circumstances, and read the letter from his wife, in which
allusion was made to his anxiety to have the papers from Sydney. “As to
the feeling appeal made upon that affectionate letter by his counsel,
it only proved that the prisoner had been very kind to and enjoyed
the affection of his wife, which was not at all incompatible with the
commission of the crime with which he stood charged towards another
woman.”
As to the alleged previous attempt to poison the deceased in September
last, the Judge considered that there was no sufficient proof that he
then administered prussic acid to her. It was, however, remarkable that
after drinking porter with the prisoner on the 30th September, she
should have been so ill, and that after drinking porter with him on
the 1st of January she should have been taken ill and died. The strong
facts against the prisoner, in his opinion, “were his presence at the
woman’s house at the time she died; his declarations before and after
his arrest, and the fact that prussic acid was found in her stomach.”
The Judge then read over the whole of the material evidence, and, with
the usual caution, left the case in the hands of the jury. On Mr.
Gunning reminding him of the evidence to the prisoner’s character which
had been produced, Baron Parke said—“Such evidence was admissible in
cases of this kind, because it went to show the general impression
of the habits and feelings of a person. The prisoner was reputed to
be a kind-hearted, benevolent man. It was admitted that he had been
transported for some offence, the nature of which they had not been
told, but it was said that it was not one to affect his character for
kindness of disposition.” The Judge then read over the evidence to
character, and left it to the jury to decide in reference to its value
to the prisoner in his present position.
On the conclusion of the Judge’s charge, which lasted from eight in the
morning until half-past eleven, the Jury retired, and in about half
an hour returned a verdict of Guilty. In a few impressive sentences,
in which he spoke of the hypocrisy that had characterised the
prisoner’s life in the assumption of the garb of a virtuous, peaceful,
benevolent, and religious body of persons, the Judge passed on him the
dread sentence of the law, which he suffered on the 28th of March.
Previously to his execution Tawell handed a written confession to the
jail chaplain, that he committed the murder for fear that his wife
should discover his connection with the deceased, and that the previous
attempt was not made with prussic acid. He never imagined that Sarah
Hart had spoken of him to her neighbours, to whom he believed that he
was personally unknown, and so more likely to escape detection.
At the Easter Quarter Sessions of the County, held subsequently to the
execution of Tawell, an ineffectual attempt was made by a section of
the magistrates to compel the jail chaplain to deliver to the visiting
justices this written confession, which the chaplain refused to hand
over, on the ground of its having been received under the seal of
confession, and on the promise that it should not be published. All
that was known of it rested on the statement of the governor of the
prison, and the general admission of the chaplain that it was a full
confession of the prisoner’s guilt.
A difficult legal question arose, after Tawell’s death, with reference
to his Australian land, which the Crown re-granted to his widow and
family, after its forfeiture by his conviction; whether this re-grant
should prevail over the claims of a previous purchaser, a retired
auctioneer, who had houses on it, who alleged that he had purchased it
for a _bonâ fide_ consideration, under a sufficient power of attorney,
executed before Tawell’s conviction. “The affixing the seal of the
colony to this grant by Sir W. Denison, created a serious difference
between that governor and his chief minister, Mr. Cowper. The seal was
affixed pursuant to the instructions of the Secretary of the Colonies,
who only acted in the matter in accordance with the opinion of the
Attorney and Solicitor-General of England. A part of the sworn duty of
a colonial governor is to obey the instructions of the Secretary of
State for the Colonies.”[19] The governor, therefore, sent his private
secretary for the great seal of the colony and himself executed the new
deed. On this being done the owners of the property found the ground
cut from under their feet, and it never came before the law courts, but
it is believed that some compromise was effected with the family of
Tawell, and so the matter ended.
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 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:—
“I asked what was the matter; and the accused said he had given her
seven drops of prussic acid, and witness replied he must have given
her more.”
_Chief Justice._—“Would seven drops be sufficient to cause death?”
_Witness._—“Not according to my experience; it was the proper
quantity to be given. The smallest quantity of prussic acid on record
having caused death was of nine-tenths of a grain.”
_Chief Justice._—“How many ‘minims’ would a ‘drop’ contain?”
_Witness._—“That would depend upon how the drops were obtained from
the bottle. If the cork was partly in, the drop would be larger than
if it was carefully poured from the open neck of the bottle. Some
medical men made use of one method and some of the other, but it was
his practice not to rely on ‘drops,’ but to measure ‘minims.’”
_To Mr. Barrow._—“With such a deadly poison as prussic acid I should
say that it was not prudent for any medical man to rely on ‘drops,’
but to measure ‘minims.’ The proper doses, as marked on all bottles
of Scheele’s strength, to be administered were _one_, _two_, or the
largest _three_ ‘minims.’ Scheele’s acid was not uniform in strength:
sometimes it contained _four_, sometimes _five_, and sometimes as much
as _six_ per cent.”
_Chief Justice._—“Would not that amount to almost the difference
between life and death?”
_Witness._—“It would make a very great difference certainly. Taylor
and other eminent medical men have recommended that Scheele’s prussic
acid should not be used, on account of the very great variation
of strength. I myself always use that of the Pharmacopœia. But
notwithstanding what has been written upon the subject by many eminent
men, Scheele’s acid is generally used in the profession.”
_Chief Justice._—“Supposing the acid to be of the highest strength
you have mentioned, do you consider seven drops would have been
sufficient to cause death?”
_Witness._—“I don’t believe they would.”
_To Mr. Barrow._—“Six per cent. is an exceptional strength, but I
should think that it would take seventeen minims of that strength to
cause death.”
_Chief Justice._—“What do you say is the difference between a ‘drop’
and a ‘minim’?”
_Witness._—“That would depend on the sort of ‘drop.’ The prisoner
afterwards gave me a bottle which contained prussic acid. He told me
he had given his mother _four_ minims, and 2·5 minims remained. I did
not test the strength of what remained, but had no doubt the deceased
died from the effects of prussic acid.”
_To Serjeant Ballantine._—“There was a broken cork in the bottle when
the accused gave it to me. In his opinion ‘seventeen minims’ was the
smallest dose that would destroy life. It was very easy to destroy
life when dropping the liquid from a bottle. When accused told him he
had given seven drops, he understood that he had given three and a
half minims. He had never heard of any instance in which the strength
of Scheele’s acid had exceeded six per cent.”
_Mr. C. H. Moswell_ (chemist in Lewes).—“On the 11th of July accused
came to his shop and asked for some prussic acid. Gave him a drachm,
which would contain sixty minims. Did not measure it, but gave what he
considered a quarter of the bottle.”
_Cross-examined by Serjeant Ballantine._—“As you say you really did
not measure it, can you tell us how much prussic acid you really did
give?”
_Witness._—“I cannot say to a drop. I am sure he had fifty drops.
I consider a ‘drop’ and a ‘minim’ synonymous. I gave him about the
quantity, but when prussic acid is dispensed by a medical man, he is,
of course, careful as to the quantity he uses.”
_Chief Justice._—“We have been told that a ‘drop’ contains two
‘minims,’ and this witness says he looks upon them as synonymous.”
_Serjeant Ballantine._—“If you were told to give a patient so many
‘minims,’ should you give him so many ‘drops’?”
_Witness._—“Certainly not.”
_Serjeant Ballantine._—“Can you tell us the strength of the prussic
acid you sold?”
_Witness._—“I don’t know what the strength was—I should suppose
about _four_ per cent.”
Case for the prosecution closed.
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 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 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._