“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

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.”

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.”

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 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 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,

“The conduct of the prisoner in requesting to have the body fastened

up, with respect to the betting book, and the tampering with the

coroner, remained unanswered, as did also the bribe offered to the

postboy. No explanation was offered as to the strychnia purchased

by the prisoner on the Tuesday morning, the proof of which stands

uncontradicted; no evidence has been given of any purpose to which it

was to be applied, and no explanation of what became of that poison.

The case was now before the jury. They must not act upon suspicion,

or even strong suspicion, and they must only pronounce a verdict of

guilty if their minds were made up. If, however, they could come to

the conclusion that he was guilty, they would return such a verdict

unfettered and undeterred by any intimidation.”

_Mr. Serjeant Shee_ objected to the question put to the jury by the

judge. He submitted that the question, whether the symptoms of Cook’s

death were consistent with death by strychnia was a wrong one, unless

coupled with the words “and inconsistent with death from natural

causes,” and that the question should then be “whether the medical

evidence established beyond all reasonable doubt that the death of

Cook was attributable to strychnia.”

_Baron Alderson._—“That is the question that has been put.”

_Mr. Serjeant Shee_ submitted that the question whether the symptoms

were consistent with strychnia ought not to have been put.

_Lord Campbell._—“ I have told the jury that, unless they think the

symptoms described agree with the supposition that the deceased died

from strychnia, they must acquit the prisoner.”

_Baron Alderson._—“That has been stated in the speech.”

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 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]

THE LEEDS POISONING CASE.

_Before_ BARON BRAMWELL, NORTHERN CIRCUIT, YORK, _July 16, 17, and 18,

1856_.

_For the Prosecution_: Mr. Overend, Q.C., Mr. G. Hardy, and Mr. L. H.

Bayly.

_For the Defence_: Mr. Bliss, Q.C., Mr. Serjeant Wilkins, and Mr.

Middleton.[72]

_William Dove_, aged 30, was indicted for the murder of his wife, on

the 1st of March, 1856, at Leeds.

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, 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, 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 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 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 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 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 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 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, 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—

“I found her in bed, and only observed _twitchings of the arms twice_.

She told me she had had an attack in the morning with pains in the

back and limbs, and had been often before so, and that she suffered

from an excitable temperament. I thought it an hysterical attack, as

she was at the age for them. Saw her every day during the week, and on

the Wednesday and Thursday again _saw slight jerking of the arms_. On

the Friday and Saturday she was decidedly better, and I did not alter

my opinion of her case until the Saturday night, as I had often seen

such symptoms arise from hysteria. I made the medicines antispasmodic

and sedative: they would check the symptoms, and for a time seemed to

do so. On Wednesday I proposed seeing another doctor, when Dove said

she would not recover, and I warned him not to say so in her hearing,

and that he had better call in a physician. Next day I received a note

from him declining the proposed consultation, as his wife had perfect

confidence in me. On Saturday I received a message that she was worse,

and that I was to bring Dr. Hobson with me. Dove came afterwards to my

house, and said he thought she would not recover, and that he should

object to a _post mortem_ examination. I said I thought there would be

no need of one, and that she would recover. He said his wife objected

to it strongly. He seemed excited, as with drink, but quite rational.

We were too late to see Mrs. Dove alive. From what Mr. Scarth told me

I took measures for a _post mortem_ examination.

“I now attribute the symptoms I have heard described to the poison of

strychnia—from the symptoms and what I found in the body—finding in

the body no organic disease to account for death. _The symptoms do not

correspond with those of any other disease, but do with those produced

by strychnia._ In hysteria the symptoms are more irregular; they do

not assume a tetanic character; there is more disturbance of the mind;

and such attacks are never fatal. Tetanic affections are stiffening

of the limbs, rigidity, and stretching out of the limbs, arching

back of the trunk, stiffening of the neck and jaw. The symptoms of

hysteria might be some of those symptoms. No one but might be found

in hysteria, but not all together. The symptoms are separately and

conjointly in accordance with poisoning by strychnia. On Monday, March

3rd, _forty-two_ hours after death, by authority of the prisoner’s

mother, I made a _post mortem_ examination in conjunction with Mr.

Nunneley, and drew up the following joint report.”

It is unnecessary to give in detail the first portion of this report,

in which, from a most careful examination of all parts 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

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, 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? 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—

“_There are several cases in which persons labouring under strychnia

had desired to be rubbed._ Parts of the body might fall on the floor

as well as the blood.

“_By a Juror._—If strychnia were put in the medicine it would not

alter the colour of it, it might have left a powdery deposit. I never

knew a case of hysteria cause death with such external appearances as

in Mrs. Dove’s case.”

_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:—

“I found nothing on dissection that could not be referred to the

strychnia taken on the Saturday night—the intensity of that attack

might have produced the appearances in the brain and lungs. Hysteria

will simulate the appearances of other diseases, and among them of

tetanus. I did not examine the fæces and tissues of the body, but

I should expect to find strychnia in the tissues if taken six days

before. My attention was not called to its having been taken before

Saturday, but even if it had I think I should have found it. This case

and the one in London (Palmer’s) have advanced our knowledge in the

discovery of this poison far beyond what it was before. _It accords

with my experience that a person suffering from strychnia would not

bear to be rubbed._”

_Re-examined._—“I attribute the symptoms exhibited before Saturday

to strychnia. They are not so in accordance with any disease as with

strychnia.”

_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 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 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 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 _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 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:—

“Dear Devil,—If you will get me clear at the assizes, and let me

have the enjoyment of life, wealth, tobacco, more food and better, and

my wishes granted till I am sixty, come to me to-night. I remain, your

faithful subject,

“WILLIAM DOVE.”

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 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:—

“I should not call administering poison five or six times an

_impulse_, but a _propensity_—an uncontrollable _propensity_ to

destroy life, and give pain. For the time it would be a permanent

condition of the mind, and might select the special object, and

constantly seek opportunities of carrying out the _propensity_.

_I think a person with such a propensity would not know that he

was doing wrong. I think he might fear the consequences, and know

that punishment would follow. He would know, probably, that he was

breaking the law. I say that, because he would have a very incorrect

appreciation of right and wrong. He would not know at the time that he

would be hanged. I found that opinion on the occupation of the mind

by the insane propensity. It is uncertain whether he would know it

before he did it. He might after he had done it._ He might do a murder

secretly, because he could not otherwise do it. A _propensity_ of that

kind generally acts without a motive. One of the peculiarities is that

a person seeks no escape: in certain cases acknowledges his crime.

The _propensity may come on suddenly: an impulse comes on suddenly—a

propensity more frequently comes on slowly, and starts from a

considerable time_. If a man gives way to his passions, and commits

a rape, I call that a _vice_, and not a _propensity_. Supposing a

cruel man, who wishes to get rid of his wife, quarrels with her, in

the abstract that is a _vice_. Supposing a man to have taken every

precaution against discovery, and pains to procure poison for his

wife, and to prepare for her death, I should think that a _vice_, and

not a _delusion_. Supposing a man of cruel disposition had formed a

dislike to his wife, and wanted to get rid of her, and had nursed that

dislike into a _propensity_ to kill. I should call that _an insane

propensity_. I don’t say that every man who dislikes his wife, and

wishes to get rid of her, is insane. When he acquires the propensity

to kill, and cannot control it, he is insane.”

_Question._—“If a person lived with his wife, hated her, and

determined to, and did kill her, what is the difference between

that determination which is _vice_, and that _propensity_ which is

_insanity_?”

_Answer._—“The prisoner’s history would be required to determine

whether it was _vice_ or _insanity_.”

_Question._—“Supposing a man was determined to kill his wife,

and he nurses the thought for six months, till the desire becomes

uncontrollable, when does the desire become insanity?”

_Answer._—“When by nourishing such an idea, the mind becomes

diseased, and he cannot control his acts—that applies to other

things.”

_Question._—“If a man dwells on the possession of a woman till he

cannot control his desire, would that be _vice_ or _insanity_?”

_Answer._—“It might be insanity, and might apply to rape.[85]

In insanity there is a tendency to thieve. Theft is one of the

indications of moral insanity; and a man may desire to possess

another man’s goods, till he cannot control his acts. He is then

insane. If a man permits himself to indulge a passion till he becomes

uncontrollable, that is _moral insanity_, and he is not responsible.

Consulting a sorcerer, and all superstitious beliefs, are indications

of a weak mind. Belief in clairvoyance and dreams is not necessarily

an indication of insanity. A belief in spiritual rappings, I should

infer, was an indication of a weak mind. Talking to persons about

strychnia, and his wife’s death, I think indicated a feeble state of

mind.”

On _re-examination_, _Dr. Williams_ said—

“Imitativeness is one of the characteristics of insanity, and

hearing strychnia and Palmer’s trial very much talked about would be

very likely, in a weak mind, to produce imitation. You must know

a man’s history before you can say whether his acts proceed from

vice or insanity. Madness very frequently developes itself in great

cunning and foresightedness when reasoning on false premises. I have

frequently known insane persons to attempt to escape from the asylum,

and to have shown great cleverness in their preparations for it

extending over several days.”

_Question._—“Suppose you had heard the case of a man put to you who

wished to get rid of his wife, and had from his childhood displayed

cruelty of disposition—had threatened to shoot his father; said he

heard supernatural noises, sometimes treated his wife kindly, and

sometimes cried like no other man, would you have any doubt that he

was insane?”

_Answer._—“No! and not fit to be at large. I should have no

difficulty, as a medical man, in certifying that he was a lunatic.

Lunatics have often displayed great ingenuity in committing theft and

concealing it. The passion of lust frequently becomes a disease of

the mind. When the prisoner gave his cows linseed to take one night,

to fatten them for market the next morning, that I should deem an

indication of an unsound mind.”

_In reply to questions by the Judge_, the witness said:—

_”It would require a longer period than a month to establish disease

and an uncontrollable propensity to commit a crime. If a man committed

a crime, having thought of it for a month, I should not say he was

of unsound mind. The difference would depend on length of time.

Some men’s minds, previously weak, would take a shorter time, and

very exciting causes would shorten the time; but there must be an

appreciable period, and an interval for the mind to pass into a morbid

condition from the continual contemplation of one object._ The period

is necessarily very uncertain, from the variable effect of emotions

and circumstances on the mind.”

_The Judge._—“Suppose, at the time when he shot the cat, a policeman

had come in, would he have shot it?”[86]

_Answer._—“No. The presence of the policeman would probably have

controlled him; he would probably have expended the impulse on some

person or something else. Unless the person is exceedingly violent,

the presence of a policeman would have some influence to control him.”

_Question._—“_Whenever a man commits a crime, is it because he is

uncontrolled by existing circumstances?_”

_Answer._—“_It is._”

_The Judge._—“_Then what is the difference between such a man and the

case you put?_”

_Answer._—“_In the case I put the impulse is uncontrollable, because

his mind would be so occupied with his purpose._”

_The Judge._—“Is it true of everybody, whether sane or insane, that

when intent on an act they forget the consequences?”

_Answer._—“An insane man would be more likely to forget consequences.

Sane and insane persons would talk about occurrences. How and what

they talked about would depend on their judgment.”

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 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.

“A decided lunatic,” said the witness, “very often knows right from

wrong, and yet may be regardless of any consequences from his acts.

_He may be utterly unable to refrain from doing an act, though he knew

it was wrong. I cannot say the prisoner was utterly unable to refrain

from wrong during the fatal week. Circumstances might enable him to

refrain—other circumstances._”

_To the Judge._—“Not a greater degree of punishment. I have already

said he was entirely regardless of circumstances.”

_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—

“_Not possessing the poison would be a circumstance which would have

prevented him._ I believe, during the week, it was from unsoundness of

mind that he was regardless of consequences.”

_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.”

_Question by a juryman._—“Do you adopt the theory of Dr. Smith as to

irresistible propensity in mania?”

_Answer._—“In general terms I do.”

_Question._—“Do you adopt it in this case?”

_Answer._—“I do not. I account for the murder, if he committed it,

on different principles. We have a man of deficient mental powers;

besides that he is insane; he is liable to do any absurd, cruel, or

vicious or irrational action that presented itself to his mind, as

his life shows. Supposing him to be insane, I should apply the term

_vicious_ or _malignant_ to him. We have heard, in evidence, that

he was brought up by pious parents, put to the best schools, and

was unable to receive the smallest amount of education. We see him

carried away to do the most foolish things. Where he loves, he loves

with a foolish intensity; and where he hates, he hates with a foolish

malignity: and if a woman puts herself into the power of such a man as

his wife, what has happened is just what might have been expected.”

_To Mr. Overend._—“_I think he knew right from wrong—that it was

wrong to steal or murder._ If he murdered, I should expect him to

deny it in that form of insanity. In one form of insanity, impulsive

madness, they own their crime. This case was only partly impulsive,

and I should not expect him to divulge it. If he thought of this crime

before he committed it, he would know it was wrong. He probably would

learn it was wrong in his childhood. It is impossible to say when he

committed the act he knew it was wrong. I don’t know when he would

know it was wrong. I can give no opinion about it.”

_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 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.

“The rules of law,” said the learned Baron, “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; or, if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing wrong.

If the accused was conscious of the act he did, he is punishable;

and what you have to consider is, had he sufficient degree of sanity

to know he was doing wrong? With respect to delusions the law is the

same. According to the law, as I lay it down to you on the highest

authority, to exempt a man from the penal consequence of his act, the

act being contrary to the law, you must be of opinion that at the

time he did the act he was not conscious that it was one he ought not

to do; for if he was conscious that it was contrary to law, he is

punishable. You must be satisfied that he had not a sufficient degree

of reason to know that he was doing an act that was wrong—of course

that means an act prohibited by law: because a man might imagine that

the thing was a right thing to do, and it might not be contrary to

law. He might think it right to take from the rich and give to the

poor. But if he did it, not knowing it was wrong, he must not know

that the thing which he did was what the law would punish him for. It

is not necessary for me to justify the law, or for you to approve it.

We have only to administer it. Don’t, however, suppose for a moment

that I doubt the reasonableness of it.

“Let me put a case to you. A man labours under a delusion. He thinks

I have done him wrong—have traduced his character. He waylays and

murders me. Why should he be acquitted? Suppose he was wronged, that

would not justify his taking away my life. Suppose, again, a person

imagined some part of his person to be made of glass, or had swallowed

something, or got something wrong in his inside. Imagine that man

deliberately waylaying a person, knowing that he possessed property,

to take it from him, and afterwards to conceal what he had done, and

to act in every other respect as a rational man. Why should he be held

irresponsible for this because he was irrational in other respects?

“Why should punishment be administered at all? It was not inflicted

on a man who had committed a crime because he had inflicted that upon

others, but in order to hold out an example to deter other people.

If you punish an insane man, you hold out no example, because you are

punishing a man who thinks he is doing right. But take the case of a

man who is labouring under a delusion—under an evil propensity. If

you punish him when he does wrong, or any other person with a similar

propensity to commit that offence, and he knows, that when he indulged

in it, or that when somebody else did, he was punished for it, that

will deter him from repeating or from doing that act. Take the case

of a man who has a strong propensity to thieve—a strong desire on

him to do it; his intellect not very strong, and he knows that he is

punished if he does such an act: do not you think, if he is punished,

it will deter him from doing it again? There cannot be a doubt that it

is so; and if you were to announce to all the world, that a man who

has a strong propensity to an evil, that a person in his condition,

shall not be punished, you take away from such persons the only thing

that would deter them from committing the evil. Take a man of a weak

mind and strong animal propensities, and it will not deter him from

committing such an act.”

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.”

“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

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.

“I saw Harrison again in November about my wife’s temper. He said

never mind, ‘she will die before the end of February or March, I am

not certain which.’ When he told me my wife would die soon I said

‘You have told me before she would die at thirty-two.’ He replied

‘Before thirty-two, but I did not say how much before.’ In a few days

afterwards (after December 21) I went to the ‘New Cross Inn,’ and

Harrison came in with a newspaper and read about Palmer’s case. I then

asked him whether strychnia could be detected, and he said ‘No, nor

any other vegetable poison.’ I then said ‘What other vegetable poisons

are there that cannot be detected? and he said ‘Digitalis, belladonna,

particularly if crystallised; he could not remember more then.’ I then

asked him to get or make me some strychnia, as we were much annoyed in

our new house with cats, but he refused. I told him I would get some

elsewhere.

“I went to him again in January last about my wife. I told him about

my wife’s temper and her being poorly then, and he again said, ‘She

won’t live long; she will never get better. As I told you before, she

will die in February.’

“I had no further communication with Harrison until the 6th of March,

when I sent for him to the ‘New Cross Inn,’ and told him my wife had

died, and that an inquest was to be held. He asked, ‘Why?’ I said,

‘My wife died very suddenly, and Mr. Morley cannot account for it,

and it is known that I had strychnia in the house. Mr. Morley thinks

some may have been spilt, and my wife got at it accidentally.’ I then

said, ‘You told me strychnia could not be detected, but I have seen

in the _Materia Medica_ that it can;[90] what is your opinion now?

Can a grain to a grain and a half be detected, for there is a great

difference on the subject? Professor Taylor says it cannot be detected

twenty-four hours after death in the human body.’ Harrison said,

‘What, have you poisoned your wife?’ I replied, ‘No, I should be very

sorry to.’ Nothing more passed then.

“On Friday, the 7th, whilst the inquest was going on, I went to the

back door of Harrison’s house, about 3 P.M., and said to him ‘that

several witnesses had been called, and I was suspected of poisoning my

wife,’ and added, ‘How will the case go?’ He said, ‘It will be a very

difficult case, but I can get you out.’ I said, ‘You only say you can;

but tell me, will you?’ and he replied, ‘Set yourself altogether at

rest; I will.’”

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 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

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 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 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

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.”

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 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. 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 of October, reported the

results of his analysis of their contents.[97]

“In the organs (the lungs, heart, liver, kidneys, intestines, spleen,

and blood) he found no poison of any kind. The stomach was inflamed,

and there was a _trace of strychnia_, but of no other poison. In one

bottle of medicine, opium, myrrh, but no strychnia, were found, and

in another only peppermint and asafœtida. The powder was innocuous,

consisting of old mustard and fenugreek. In one nearly empty bottle

was found a distinct sediment of Prussian blue, one of the usual

ingredients in ‘vermin powder.’ He was satisfied that what Dr. Lees

showed him on a watch glass was strychnia; on testing, it was found

to contain the 1000th part of a grain. On the 31st of October the

inspector brought two packets labelled _Battle’s Vermin Killer_.

_Poison. Lincoln_—a light blue powder, a threepenny and a sixpenny

packet. The first consisted of fifteen grains, containing wheat flour,

Prussian blue, and crystallised strychnia. The second packet, of the

same composition as the first, weighed thirty grains. The amount

of strychnia was—in the threepenny packet 10·69 per cent., in the

sixpenny packet 10·06 per cent., corresponding to 1·6 grains in the

smaller packet. On the 9th November a threepenny and sixpenny packet

of _Butler’s Gloucestershire Vermin and Insect Killer for killing rats

and mice, &c._, was received, marked poison. The weight of the two

was fifty-six grains. It was a grey powder, containing flour, soot,

and barium carbonate, but no strychnia; but another packet of the

same contained flour, soot, strychnia, but no barium carbonate. These

‘vermin killers,’ if used at all, should never be made or sold except

by the legitimate pharmaceutists of the country, and under proper

precautions.”

_Mr. Justice Denman._—“A very proper suggestion for the consideration

of the legislature.”

_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 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.