[37] A _Mr. Devonshire_, a late assistant of Dr. Monckton’s,

who was present at the _post-mortem_, was also called to

confirm the previous witnesses. He also proved the extraction

of the liver, kidneys, spleen, and some blood, and their safe

delivery through a clerk (Boycott) to the attorneys at Rugeley

to Dr. Taylor for analysis.

[38] Mr. Curling agreed with Dr. Watson, _Principles and

Practice of Physic_, in the cases of “the sticking of a fish

bone in the fauces, the stroke of a whip-lash under the eye

leaving the skin unbroken, the cutting of a corn, the biting of

the finger by a sparrow, the blow of a stick on the neck, the

insertion of a seton, the extraction of a tooth, the injection

of a hydrocele, and the operation of cupping,” but not with

“the percussion of the air caused by a musket-shot.” He also

explained that the supposed case of tetanus produced at once

where a negro servant cut his thumb with a dish, rested on the

authority of an old cyclopædia, and that his judgment was more

mature and his experience greater than when, twenty-two years

of age, he wrote the treatise in which he had quoted this case.

(It was only in Rees’ Cyclopædia.)

[39] _Dr. Todd_, in reply to Lord Campbell, defined idiopathic

tetanus to be “that form of the disease which is produced

without any external wound, apparently from internal

causes—from a constitutional cause.”

[40] Evidence of _Dr. Robert Corbett_, physician, of Glasgow,

at the time medical clerk at the Glasgow Infirmary; _Dr.

Watson_, surgeon to the infirmary; _Dr. J. Patterson_, of the

infirmary laboratory; and _Mary Kelly_, patient.

[41] This is a test for brucia and not for strychnia. See p.

285.

[42] See _Ptomaine’s_ or _Cadaveric Poisons_. Chemical

introduction, _ante_, p. 12, and Chapter V., p. 278.

[43] “Mr. Mayhew called on me with another gentleman with

an introduction from Professor Faraday. I received him as I

would Professor Faraday, and entered into conversation with

him about these cases. He represented, as I understood, that

he was connected with some insurance company, and wished for

information about a number of cases of poisoning that had

occurred during many years. After we had conversed about an

hour, he asked if there was any objection to the publication

of the details. Still believing him to be connected with an

insurance office, I replied that, so far as the correction of

error was concerned, I had no objection to anything appearing.

On that evening he went away without telling me he was

connected with the _Illustrated Times_, or any other paper. It

was not until Thursday that I knew that. It was the greatest

deception that ever was practised on a scientific man.”—_Dr.

Taylor’s evidence._ In his charge, Lord Campbell said, “I must

say I think it would have been better if Dr. Taylor, trusting

to the credit he had before acquired, had taken no notice of

what had been said; but it is for you to say, whether, he

having been misrepresented, and having written this letter to

the _Lancet_ to set himself right, materially detracted from

the credit which would otherwise be given to his evidence.” It

was these statements in the _Illustrated Times_, copied into

other papers, that led Dove to resort to strychnia to poison

his wife.—_See his case, post._

[44] On the value of experiments on animals, see Chemical

Introduction, _ante_, p. 6.

[45] “A mixture of sugar and bile, or a substance called

pyroxanthine—the product of a distillation of wood—will produce

the purple and red tint.”—_Taylor’s evidence._ But see Chapter

V.

[46] _Curarine._ See Chapter V.

[47] On this point see Chapter V.

[48] This suggestion of negligence on the part of the operator,

Mr. Devonshire, and the comments on it by the Attorney-General,

having subjected him to several attacks both in the Central

Criminal Court and in the _papers_, he gave the following

explanation in a letter to the _Morning News_, dated May 29:—

“It was agreed in consultation at Mr. Freer’s, at Rugeley,

that the stomach and intestines should be opened, and, with

their contents, enclosed in a jar. It was further agreed that

the spinal cord should not be opened if its upper portion and

the brain should prove to be in a healthy condition. At the

examination I was assisted by Mr. Newton, a young gentleman

who had, unfortunately, never witnessed a _post-mortem_. He

punctured the stomach, and about a teaspoonful of its contents

was lost. Afterwards, when Dr. Harland and I were examining

the lining membrane, Mr. Newton suddenly turned the stomach

inside out; an additional half teaspoonful was thus lost, the

remainder falling into the jar. This accounts for Dr. Taylor

finding the mucous membrane in contact with the intestines.

With the exception of this casual puncture I maintain the

_post-mortem_ was skilfully performed.”—_Letter to Lord

Campbell._ Appendix, p. xxiv.

[49] The extract from Orfila is: “In a dog who for four entire

months had taken no emetic, having taken three grammes in ten

days (that is, about forty-five grains), but had not taken any

for four months, the metal was found accumulated in the bones;

the liver also contained a great deal, and the other tissues

but little.”

[50] The letter referred mainly to the case of the prisoner’s

wife. Mr. Serjeant Shee wished only the concluding paragraph to

he read, but the Attorney-General insisted on the whole. It was

dated only Jan., published in the _Lancet_ of February 2, was

headed “_Audi alteram partem_,” and was as follows:—

“SIR,—I have great pleasure in replying to the inquiries

in your leading article of January 19. (1) I stated that I

had never known antimonial powder, when given in medicinal

doses (_i.e._, from five to eight grains a dose) to produce

vomiting or purging. I am aware that experience differs on

this point—that some have found the substance inert, and

others very active. From some recent experiments on antimonial

preparations, I think it not unlikely that the powder sometimes

contains arseniate of lime. Dr. Pereira mentions that in

the case of a dose of half a teaspoonful it on one occasion

produced violent vomiting, purging, and sweating; while in

still larger doses (120 grains to a dose), prescribed by Dr.

Elliotson, it occasioned in some instances only nausea. I

have never met with any case in which serious symptoms could

be referred to its operation; and in the case of Ann Palmer

(the wife) this medical preparation would not account for the

antimony found in her body. (2) My statement as to the cause

of death was that the deceased died from the effects of tartar

emetic, and from no other cause; that is the opinion which Dr.

Rees and myself formed from the result of our examination, and

from the description under which the deceased laboured during

the eight days before her death. It is an opinion now equally

shared by the two medical attendants of the deceased. We are

quite prepared to maintain this at the trial.” The letter then

went on to describe the state of Ann Palmer’s body, though not

exhumed until eighteen months after death, and contrasted it

with that of the brother, and concluded with the passage given

in the text. Its effect could not be but prejudicial to the

prisoner.

[51] In this case, stated by Dr. Christison, the patient had

been affected with some complaint for four weeks, and began to

take strychnia; in three hours there was stupor and loss of

speech, and at length violent tetanic convulsions, and death in

three hours and three-quarters.

[52] Probably a mistake of the reporter, as I cannot find any

clue to the meaning of this word.—C. G. S.

[53] An instance of the indestructibility of strychnia was

communicated by Mr. F. Crace Calvert, F.C.S., to the London

journals subsequently to the trial. In 1849 several hounds

of a pack in Cheshire were poisoned and one brought to his

laboratory, from which, by the usual process, strychnia

was obtained. “As the master of the hounds attached great

importance to the case, he requested me,” writes Mr. Calvert,

“to obtain a sufficient amount of poison from the stomachs of

some other of the dead dogs, that I might not only be convinced

of the presence of the poison, but might also bring some of

the extracted strychnia into court. To enable me to do so,

several dogs were disinterred and brought to my laboratory,

and the space of time from the date of death to that when I

submitted them to analysis was at least three weeks, and I

still perfectly succeeded in extracting strychnia from their

stomachs and exhibiting it in the state of crystallised

hydrochlorate.”—_Appendix to Letter to Lord Campbell_, p.

xxix. Another correspondent to the _Times_ called attention to

the practice in Mexico of killing a worn-out mule with _nux

vomica_, leaving its carcase to be eaten by the wolves, which

are thus killed, and that the Turkey buzzards who feed on the

dead wolves also die of the poison.—_Ib._ p. xxv.

[54] See Chapter V.

[55] An error. See Chapter V.

[56] The table of cases of poisoning by strychnia, with their

symptoms and results of the _post-mortem_, given by Mr. Woodman

and Dr. Tidy, shows that the state of the heart varies. In

six cases it was contracted and empty, in some others the

right side only was empty, and in one both sides were filled

with blood.—_Handy Book of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology._

London. 1877.

[57] In a letter to the _Times_ of June 4, Mr. Herapath says:

“I learnt on my return here (Bristol) that Mr. Yates had

visited Bristol with an anonymous letter in his hand (since

acknowledged to have been written by the magistrates’ clerk,

Keynsham), and questioned several gentlemen whom I am in the

habit of meeting, as to whether they heard me say ‘that I had

no doubt strychnia was in Cook’s body, but that Dr. Taylor

could not find it,’ and ‘that a word from me would hang the

man.’ They all said they had heard me speak of the case, but

not in such terms. The mayor said that ‘he could not say

the exact terms, but the impression on his mind was, that I

thought strychnia was there, but that Dr. Taylor could not find

it.’”—_Letter to Lord Campbell_, Appendix, p. xxxi.

[58] “The controversy,” as to the non-discovery of strychnia

by Dr. Taylor, says Mr. Justice Stephen, “was foreign to the

merits of the case, inasmuch as the evidence given for the

prisoner tended to prove, not that there was no strychnia in

Cook’s body, but that Dr. Taylor ought to have found it if it

was there. In other words it was relevant, not so much to the

guilt or innocence of the prisoner, as to whether Mr. Herapath

and Dr. Nunneley were better analytical chemists than Dr.

Taylor. The evidence could not be even considered relevant to

the shaking of Dr. Taylor’s credit, for no part of the case

rested on his evidence except the discovery of the antimony,

as to which he was corroborated by Mr. Brande, and not

contradicted by the prisoner’s witnesses.” (One does not see

how this could have been accomplished, as they were not present

at the analysis.) “His opinion as to the nature of Cook’s

symptoms was shared by many other medical witnesses of the

highest eminence, whose credit was altogether unimpeached. The

prisoner’s counsel was placed in a curious difficulty by this

state of the question. They had to attack, and did attack Dr.

Taylor’s credit vigorously, for the purpose of rebutting his

conclusion that Cook might have been poisoned by strychnia: yet

they had to maintain his credit as a skilful analyst. For if

they destroyed it, the fact that he did not discover strychnia

went for nothing. This dilemma was fatal. To admit his skill

was to admit their client’s guilt; to deny it, was to destroy

the value of nearly all their own evidence. The only possible

way was to admit his skill and deny his good faith; but this

too was useless for the reason just assigned.”—_History of

Criminal Law in England._ Vol. III., 418.

[59] Roberts, Theory and Practice of Medicine, 1877, Vol. II.,

23, gives the following symptoms of angina pectoris:—“Abrupt

suddenness—intense præcordial pain—oppression and constriction

of the chest—suffocation, no cyanosis—tenderness of chest

rare—face pale, sweat—expression of intense anxiety—pulse

mostly feeble, flickering occasionally—vomiting and eructation.

Conscious at first, but, if prolonged, may be syncope.

Spasmodic movements, and even general convulsions may be

observed. Usually several brief paroxysms with intermissions.

Tendency to rave under slight exciting causes.” Dr. Bristow,

Theory and Practice of Medicine, agrees with this, and adds,

“After death various lesions—most important _the calcification

of the coronary vessels_—fatty and other degenerations of

the muscular tissue of the heart. In other cases the heart

perfectly healthy.”

[60] In the _Appendix_, p. xxi., to the _letter to Lord

Campbell_, is a letter from a Mr. Lacy, a hatter of Nottingham,

dated June 2, to the _Morning News_, giving a very unfavourable

account of the earlier years of this witness. He appears to

have got out of the way after the trial, and to have evaded the

search made for him by the prisoner’s friends.

[61] In _cross-examination_, after admitting that he attested

the proposal to the _Prince of Wales_ office for £13,000 on

Walter Palmer’s life, and saying that he did not recollect

attesting another proposal on the same life to the _Universal_,

the proposal to that office was put into his hand, and he was

asked if the “Jeremiah Smith” attesting it was his signature.

“It is very like my signature,” he said, “but I have a doubt

of it.” (After a pause) “I believe it is not my handwriting; I

swear it is not. I think it a very good imitation. I did not

receive the document from Pratt; I might from W. Palmer. I

don’t recollect.” (After some hesitation) “No doubt he did give

it to me. I got it before it was signed.”

_Attorney-General._—“Do you now say it is not your signature?”

_Witness._—“I do.” (He then admitted getting appointed agent to

the Midland County office in order to get a policy for £10,000

on Bate’s life.)

_Attorney-General._—“I will refresh your memory with regard to

these proposals. Look at that, and tell me whether it is your

handwriting?”

_Witness._—“Yes.”

_Attorney-General._—“Now, refreshing your memory with that

document, were you applied to in December, 1854, to attest a

proposal of Walter Palmer to the _Solicitors’ and General_

office for £13,000?”

_Witness._—“That is my signature, certainly.”

_Attorney-General_ repeats the question.

_Witness._—“I don’t recollect.”

_Attorney-General._—“What, with your signature staring you in

the face?”

_Witness._—“I might have been a witness to it. I am speaking

from memory.”

_Attorney-General._—“Have you any doubt, after looking at that

document?”

_Witness._—“I have no doubt.”

_Attorney-General._—“At last we have got at it from you. Now

look to that document, and see if another month afterwards—in

January, 1855—you were asked to attest another proposal for

£13,000 to the _Prince of Wales_ office?”

_Witness_ (hesitating).—“That is my signature. (A pause.)

Perhaps if I saw the paper I could answer.”

_Attorney-General._—“There is the paper.”

_Witness_ (after a pause).—“I might have signed it in blank. I

have some doubt whether I did not sign some of these in blank.

The body of the papers is in the handwriting of William Palmer.”

_Attorney-General._—“Upon your oath, don’t you believe that

William Palmer applied to you to attest the proposal on his

brother’s life for £13,000?”

_Witness._—“He did apply to me.”

_Attorney-General._—“Was it not to attest the proposal for

£13,000 on his brother’s life?” _Witness._—“One of them was for

£13,000. I don’t think I was present when Walter Palmer signed

the assignment. I believe Jeremiah Smith’s (another witness of

that name) handwriting is very like mine.”

After much fencing with the question, the witness saying he

might or he might not have attested Walter Palmer’s signature

to a deed of assignment, the _Attorney-General_ put a cheque

for £5 into the witness’s hand, and asked him if it was William

Palmer’s signature to it.

_Answer._—“It is.”

_Question._—“Did you take that piece of paper to the bank and

get £5 for it, and that for attesting the signature of Walter

Palmer to the deed of assignment?”

_Answer._—“I may have got the £5 at the bank; but upon my

honour I do not know what for. (Laughter.) Cook, with reference

to the £200 bill, gave Palmer £10 for the accommodation, and he

took the money to Shrewsbury races. I cannot say who saw me on

the Monday night when I went up to Cook’s room at the ‘Talbot

Arms.’ I did not notice. I believe that either the chambermaid,

the waitress, or the cook saw me go into the hotel. I don’t

know who drove the fly to Stafford.”

This witness was also severely cross-examined as to his

relations with Mrs. Palmer, replying with the same caution as

to their impropriety, and could not get further than “that

there ought not to be any truth” in the imputation.

Mr. Justice Stephen, who was present at the trial, gives the

following graphic sketch of the demeanour of this witness:—“No

abbreviation can give the effect of this cross-examination. The

witness’s efforts to gain time, and his distress as the various

answers were extorted from him by degrees, may be faintly

traced in the report. His face was covered with sweat, and the

papers put into his hands shook and rattled.”—_Hist. Criminal

Law of England._ Vol. III., p. 399, note. “And yet, after

all,” as the learned judge adds, “he was right as to the time

according to the inspector at Euston. If Smith spoke the truth,

Newton could not have seen Palmer at all that night, and Mills,

if at all, must have seen him in Smith’s company. Mills never

mentioned Smith” (and was never asked by the defence if he came

with Palmer), “and Smith would not swear that she or anyone

else had seen him at the ‘Talbot’ that night.”

[62] Smith (not Jeremiah, subsequently examined, pp. 185-6),

when called for the defence, said that he sent the soup to Cook

by Rowley, but not to Palmer’s on the way.

[63] Palmer’s brother, in the letter to Lord Campbell, states

that Sanders, the trainer, if called (who had been examined

before the coroner), could have proved that Cook excused his

not giving him more than £10 when he came to see him, on the

plea “_that he had given all his money to Palmer to take with

him to London to settle his affairs_,” and that he was in

court at the trial, and when not called by the prosecution,

was sent out of the way to prevent his being called for the

defence.—_Letter to Lord Campbell_, pp. 18, 19.

He was called on his subpœna at the close of the evidence

for the defence (tenth day), and when he did not answer, the

Attorney-General said, “I should be deeply grieved if it could

be possibly thought that the absence of any witness could in

any way prejudice the prisoner’s case, and if my learned friend

makes any application on that ground it shall not be resisted

by me.” _No application was made._

[64] It was an acknowledgment that certain bills, of which the

dates and amounts were set out, were all for Cook’s benefit,

and signed either J.P. or I.P. Cook. Cheshire was under

Palmer’s influence, and a few days after opened Dr. Taylor’s

letter to Mr. Gardner with the account of the results of the

analytical examination, and disclosed them to Palmer, for which

he was prosecuted and punished.

[65] Whilst Palmer was in Stafford jail, inquests were held on

the bodies of his wife and his brother Walter. In the first

case there was no manner of doubt that she had been gradually

dosed to death by antimony. In that of the brother, the

analysis failed to detect any poison, a fact probably accounted

for by the length of time that had elapsed since the death and

the action of the lead coffin, if prussic acid was the poison

used. In both cases, however, verdicts of wilful murder against

Palmer were returned. On the 21st of January Palmer was brought

up from jail as a witness in an action on one of the £2000

bills purported to be signed by his mother, the signature of

which was denied by her; clerks in banks and others who knew

her handwriting well also agreeing that it was a forgery. At

last Palmer was produced in custody. He entered in a perfectly

cool and collected manner, nodded familiarly to his friends in

the crowded court, and gave the following evidence in a low,

yet firm and distinct voice, without a sign of trepidation:—

_Mr. Edwin James_ (putting the disputed bill into his

hand).—“Is the signature of William Palmer, as drawer of this

bill, in your handwriting?”

_Palmer._—“Yes.”

_Mr. James._—“And did you apply to Mr. Padwick to advance you

money on it?”

_Palmer._—“I did.”

_Mr. James._—“Who wrote Sarah Palmer’s acceptance on it?”

_Palmer._—“Anne Palmer.”

_Question._—“Who is she?”

_Palmer._—“She is dead.”

_Question_.—“Do you mean your wife?”

_Palmer._—“Yes.”

_Question._—“Did you see her write it?”

_Palmer._—“Yes.”

The action was, of course, at once abandoned, and no further

proceedings taken on the other bills bearing the mother’s name.

[66] See Lord Campbell’s correction of this.—_Judge’s charge,

post._

[67] _Ante_, pp. 185 and 186, note.

[68] See the suggestion of Dr. Guy, that the death was probably

due to morphia, and the remarks thereon in Chapter V., _post_.

[69] On this point, which was also put very strongly by Lord

Campbell in his charge, the prisoner’s brother, in his letter

to that judge, accuses the prosecution of cunningly keeping

back a witness of the name of Cockayne, who had been examined

before the coroner and whose deposition was before the Court,

who would have explained the use for which the strychnia was

bought. “Had he been, as he ought to have been called, he

would have proved that he kept a gun loaded in the stable, by

order of my brother, to shoot the dogs that worried his brood

mares, and that he also threatened to poison them, and that

the strychnia was purchased for that object, and that he had

missed dogs since then, which had been in the habit of prowling

about the pastures and hunting the mares.” He also accounts

for the non-production of poisoned dogs, by the “medical fact

that they go away to die in secret, concealed and quiet places,

where they die undiscovered, and would be mortally attacked in

so short a time that they could not get to their own home.” He

further accuses them of sending this witness, and Sanders the

trainer, who would have proved that Cook told him he had given

Palmer all his money, out of the way, so that the prisoner’s

solicitor could not call them for the defence.—_Letter to Lord

Campbell_, pp. 17, 19. But see _ante_, p. 188, note.

[70] See _ante_, p. 216, note, on the evidence of a witness,

Cockayne, who was called before the coroner.

[71] The prisoner’s brother, on the contrary, says that he

distinctly, in a most solemn interview, declared his “perfect

guiltlessness of blood.” The same writer unfortunately lessens

the value of his other statements by a coarse attack on Lord

Campbell as a worthy successor of Jeffries, and imputes to him

and Baron Alderson a deliberate intention to force the jury

to a conviction. As I had not the advantage of being present

at the trial, I can only say nothing of this appears in any

of the reports of the trial which I have collated, and whilst

on the contrary we now have the evidence of an experienced

criminal lawyer, who saw and heard all. Still, however, remains

the great difficulty that strychnia, as every analytical

chemist will testify, ought to have been found, if it had been

given, though the failure to discover it does not conclusively

negative the probability of it having been administered. Dr.

Guy has suggested that morphia might have been the cause,

introduced into the pills, a point of which would seem to be

made in Serjeant Shee’s speech, and which would account for

Palmer’s statement that Cook was not killed by strychnia, and

with his wish for a further examination of the body by Mr.

Herapath.—_Hist. of Crim. Law of England._ Vol. III., pp.

423-4. See on this point Chapter V.

[72] For the report of this trial I have relied on the

apparently verbatim report in the _Times_ (probably from the

pen of the late Mr. Campbell Forster), collated with that

in the Annual Register of 1856, and with the Summary by Mr.

Justice Stephen based on the notes of the presiding judge.

[73] Mrs. Mary Wood. Mr. Overend objected to this witness being

asked as to her opinion of Dove’s state of mind, on the ground

that she was not a skilled witness. The objection was allowed

by Mr. Baron Bramwell, but on the suggestion of the judge, not

persevered in by the prosecution.

[74] Charles Harrison.

[75] These strong expressions were not supported by any

specific proof worth reporting. Mr. H. admitted he used to flog

him, but added, “I flogged him till I was satisfied there was

a want of reason, but not after.” He admitted that he flogged

him slightly (perhaps a stroke or two) the day before he

left.—_Stephens’ Summary_. Vol. III., p. 430.

[76] He used to point loaded fire-arms at his servants, and

threaten to shoot unoffending persons: tell strange stories of

being followed by robbers: wander about his fields without an

object.

[77] Evidence of his nurse, Mrs. Wood, Mr. Highley, Mr. C.

Harrison, Mr. Lord, and the servants at Whitwell Farm (James

Shaw, Mary Peek, Robert and William Tomlinson, Emma Spence,

and Emma and Fanny Wilson) called for the defence, and

cross-examination of Elizabeth Fisher, who had been his servant

at Normanton and Leeds, Mrs. Thornhill, charwoman, generally

employed at the house at Leeds, and Mary Hicks.

[78] In his second confession he fixes the date of this as

Sunday, February 24, and that he took then about ten grains.

[79] On the Monday he wrote the following letter to his

mother:—“My dear Mother,—I am sorry to tell you that my wife

is very ill indeed. She came down as I thought this morning

much better, took a nice breakfast for her, and then she

commenced to play (the piano). After that she told Mrs. Fisher

(who is with us) that she would help her to make the beds,

but instead of that she was seized in her limbs and could not

stand, neither could she take anything. I went to Mr. Morley,

and I am sure I did not expect to see her alive when I came

back; but thank God she was alive, and that was all; she was

entirely prostrated. Mother has been to see her. If you would

like to see her you had better come by London for three and

sixpence. Harriet would like to see her, but she thinks of the

expense. My dear wife’s love to you and all at home, and accept

the same from your affectionate son, WILLIAM DOVE. P.S.—I hope

Mary will not make fun of this small bit of paper; it would

be over-heavy if I had not torn it off.” [This was one of

the letters referred to by Baron Bramwell as disproof of his

imputed idiotcy.]

[80] This witness and Mr. Morley, the surgeon, were called in

Palmer’s trial to state the symptoms observed in the course of

Mrs. Dove’s illness and death, without mentioning her name,

and Mr. Morley also related the results of the analytical

examination of her body in conjunction with Mr. Nunneley, who

was called on behalf of Palmer, and maintained that if it had

been given, strychnia must have been found by analysis six days

after death (pp. 124-8).

[81] “He told me,” said Harrison, “that he was afflicted

by devils, but that I had more power over them, and could

send them to frighten his wife from her bed to sleep with

him—believed they were in his house, and attributed thunder

and lightning to them. I attributed this to _delirium

tremens_. Told me he had sold his soul to the devil. I did

not encourage him to think I could rule devils; it was his

own fancy. I told him I would cast his nativity, but when I

saw the state of his mind I did not finish it.”—_Harrison’s

evidence—cross-examination._ But see Dove’s account of Harrison

in his confession, _post_.

[82] In this case Baron Alderson also decided that if the

witnesses were called by the defence, the person calling them

made them his own witnesses, 2 C. & K. p. 520. Baron Parke,

Justice Cresswell, and Lord Campbell agreed with this. See _R._

v. _Cassidy_, F. &. F. p. 79.

[83] To the schoolmaster at Abeford—conjuring tricks!

[84] Should not this be “at _some_ times.”

[85] “That would be _moral_ insanity.”—_Judge’s Notes—Stephen._

[86] I cannot find in the reports to what particular act this

question refers.

[87] “The suggestion of Dr. Williams,” says Judge Stephen,

“that Dove had allowed his mind to dwell on his wife’s death

till at last he became the victim of an uncontrollable

propensity to kill her, if correct, would not prove that his

act was not voluntary. It is setting and keeping the mind in

motion towards an object plainly conceived that constitutes the

mental part of an act. Every act becomes irrevocable before it

is consummated. If a man, for example, strikes another, he may

repent while his arm is falling; but there is a point at which

he can no more deprive his arm of the impetus with which he has

animated it, than he can divert from its course a bullet which

has been fired from a rifle. Suppose he deals with his mind in

this manner at an earlier stage of the proceeding, and so fills

himself with a passionate, intense longing for the forbidden

object or result, that he becomes, as it were, a mere machine

in his own hands. Is not the case precisely similar, and does

not the action continue to be voluntary and wilful, although

the act of volition which made it irrevocable preceded its

completion by a longer interval than usual?

“It must, however, be remembered, that the proof that

Dove’s propensity was uncontrollable was very defective. An

uncontrollable propensity, which accidental difficulties or the

fear of detection constantly control and divert for a time, is

an inconceivable state of mind. Is there the smallest reason

to suppose that, if Mrs. Dove had met with a fatal accident,

and had been lying in bed dying before her husband gave her

any poison, his uncontrollable propensity to kill her would

have induced him to give her poison nevertheless? If not, the

propensity was like any other wicked feeling. It was certainly

uncontrolled, and it may probably have been strong, but that is

different to uncontrollable.”—_History of the Criminal Law of

England_, by Mr. Justice Stephen. Vol. III., p. 435-6.

[88] Baron Bramwell especially called attention to the letter

of the prisoner to his mother of the 25th of February,

describing his wife’s first attack (see _ante_, note p. 237),

and that to the Witchman, Harrison, asking him, in replying

about his nativity, to “write in milk, or lemon, or anything

else that would not show till put to the fire.”

[89] This was proved at the trial by the Fishers.

[90] Mr. Morley’s pupil had shown it to him; proved at the

trial.

[91] That would be February the 23rd, when Fisher’s mother come

to Dove’s to take her daughter’s place, and the first attack

was when Mrs. Dove fell whilst helping to make the beds on

the following Monday. Throughout his statement Dove is very

confused as to dates. The tasting by Mrs. Witham was several

days after this.

[92] Mrs. Witham states (see her evidence) that she gave her

medicine at 3.30 P.M., and she seemed better for it.

[93] In his comments on this extraordinary case, Mr. Justice

Stephen—after noting Dove’s predisposition to madness in his

infancy; the fact that the symptoms of the disease exhibited

themselves at frequent intervals, yet never reached such a

pitch as to induce his friends to treat him as a madman; the

prurience with which he dwelt on the prospect of his wife’s

death; the forming of the design of putting her to death, and

the deliberate contrivance and precaution with which he carried

it out—says:—“In this state of things can he be said to have

known, in the wider sense of the words, that his act was wrong?

He obviously knew that it was wrong in the sense that people

generally consider it so; but was he capable of thinking,

like an ordinary man, of the reasons why murder is wrong, and

of applying these reasons to his conduct? There was evidence

both ways. His irrationality, however, was occasional, and he

appears to have acted rationally enough as a rule, and to have

transacted all the common affairs of life. Did, then, this act

belong to the rational or irrational part of his conduct? Every

circumstance connected with it referred it to the former. It

was a continued series of deliberate and repeated attempts,

fully completed at last.”—_History of the Criminal Law._ Vol.

III., pp. 435-6.

[94] This is probably an error of the reporter—rigid(?)

[95] The pills were produced at the inquest, and seen there by

Dr. Lees, but not submitted for analysis, either to him or Dr.

Bernays.

[96] In this the presence of strychnia was very distinct.

[97] The important evidence of this witness is given very

briefly on the report of the trial. From the notes of the

analyses made at the time in the laboratory I have been enabled

to give it in greater detail.

[98] Morphia gives with nitric acid a deep orange unchanged by

stannous chloride.

[99] See also case of Agnes Sennett, p. 121.

[100] A striking case of cure by chloroform is given in the

_London Med. Gazette_ for 1850, p. 187, quoted from the _Boston

Med. Journal_, July, 1850.

[101] Palmer administered to Cook so few pills, that unless

these consisted of solid morphia, which is impossible, they

could not much affect the above conclusion.

[102] The words “causing to be administered” were struck out on

the objection of Mr. Young that “they were not covered by the

major part of the indictment, and not material in any way.”

[103] This was distinctly denied by Miss Giubilei, who had been

a pupil teacher at the school.

[104] Mr. Minnoch, on the contrary, said, “She accepted me on

the 28th of January, and then she and I arranged it on the 12th

of March. From the 28th of January to the end of March there

was nothing to suggest to my mind a doubt as to the engagement

continuing. I had no idea she was engaged to any other. _When

the marriage was fixed in March it was to take place on the

18th of June._”

[105] “But surely,” said the Lord Justice Clerk, “had such been

the case, she would never have wished to be ‘clasped to the

heart,’ as she expresses it in her letter, of a man whom she

had to inform that she was engaged to another, and that all

relations must be broken off between them.”

[106] On this latter matter and the identification of the

envelopes for the respective letters much time was occupied.

In his charge the Lord Justice Clark said, that “though the

procedure adopted had been loose and slovenly, it did not

appear that the panel had suffered any prejudice from the

want of any of them. As to each letter being in its proper

envelope, in the first part of the correspondence, it did not

much signify whether such were the case; because there was no

doubt that those passionate letters written by the prisoner,

declaring such strong love for L’Angelier, and some of them

expressed in very licentious terms, were written by her at some

time or other.”

[107] “Arsenious oil applied to scalp to cure vermin caused

death on 10th day.”—Taylor, I., 254. “A solution to cure

itch caused death in two years.” _Cours de Med._, Leq.,

p. 121. “Arsenious acid and gum to the head, caused death

in 36 hours.”—_American Journal of Med. Science_, July,

1851. “When used as a face powder it caused poisoning

symptoms.”—Christison, p. 329. “Arsenical soap applied to

scrotum and axillæ produced violent pains in stomach, vomiting,

purging, but patient recovered in fourteen days.”—_Med. Times

and Gazette_, December 10, 1853. And see other similar cases in

list in “Woodman and Tidy.”

[108] See Chapter VII.

[109] Referring to the evidence of Dr. Penny, the Dean, in his

speech for the defence, said: “Here comes again another point

on which the evidence for the Crown is very defective, to say

the least of it. They knew very well when they were examining

the contents of this poor man’s stomach, and his intestines

generally, what was the arsenic that the prisoner had bought.

They knew from her own candid statement that she bought it

partly at _Murdoch’s_ and partly at _Currie’s_. If that arsenic

had been swallowed by the deceased, the colouring-matter could

have been detected in the stomach—there was one means of

connecting the prisoner with this poison which was found in

L’Angelier’s stomach, and a very obvious means. It may be very

well for Professor Penny and Dr. Christison to say now that

their attention was not directed to this matter. Whose fault

was this?—the whole thing was in the hand of the authorities.

They kept it to themselves—they dealt with it exclusively—and

they present this lame and impotent conclusion.”

[110] 14 Vict. c. 13, sec. 3: “Before the sale, the arsenic

shall be mixed with soot or indigo in the proportion of one

ounce of soot or half an ounce of indigo, at least, to one

pound of arsenic, except in cases where, according to the

representation of the purchaser, such mixture would render it

unfit for his purpose, when it may be sold in quantities of not

less than ten pounds.”

[111] In the _Edinburgh Monthly Journal_ of Dec., 1857,

Professor Christison gives the details of a case—not of

suicide—in which 90 to 100 grains were found, and the party

lived seven hours. In the case of _R._ v. _Dodds_, Lincoln

Assizes, December, 1860, 150 grains were found; in that of

_R._ v. _Hewitt_, or _Holt_, Chester Winter Assizes, 1863,

154 grains were found eleven weeks after death. Professor

Christison’s letter will be found in Appendix B., p. 358.

[112] In _Woodman and Tidy_ the following Table, showing the

solubility of arsenic, is given:—

┌────────────────────────────────┬───────────┬───────────┬───────────┐

│ │Transparent│ Opaque │Crystalline│

│ │ Form. │ Form. │ Acid. │

├────────────────────────────────┼───────────┼───────────┼───────────┤

│(1) 1,000 grains of distilled │ │ │ │

│ cold water, after standing │ 1·74 gr. │ 1·16 gr. │ 2·0 gr. │

│ 24 hours─dissolved │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │

│(2) 1,000 grains of boiling │ │ │ │

│ water, poured on the acid, │ 10·12 gr. │ 5·4 gr. │ 15·0 gr. │

│ and allowedto stand─24 │ │ │ │

│ hours─dissolved │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │ │

│(3) 1,000 grains of water, │ │ │ │

│ boiled for one hour, the │ │ │ │

│ quantity being kept uniform │ │ │ │

│ by the addition of boiling │ 64·5 gr. │ 76·5 gr. │ 87·0 gr. │

│ water from time to time, │ │ │ │

│ and filtered │ │ │ │

│ immediately─dissolved │ │ │ │

└────────────────────────────────┴───────────┴───────────┴───────────┘

[113] As proof that L’Angelier’s first illness could not have

been on the night of the 19th and morning of the 20th, the

Dean referred to the fact that “on the 21st he ordered of his

butcher the largest piece of beef to be found in his pass-book

(7lbs.), and had fresh herrings in such a quantity as to alarm

his landlady, and a still more alarming quantity and variety

of vegetables.” “There’s a dinner for a sick person!” He also

said, “I give my learned friend the option of being impaled

on one of the horns of the dilemma—I care not which. He was

ill from arsenical poisoning on the morning of the 20th, or he

was not. If he was, he received arsenic from other hands than

the prisoner’s. If he was not, the foundation of the case was

shaken.”

[114] “What is the evidence of Mrs. Jenkins on this point?

She says he was in his usual condition on the 21st, when he

made that celebrated dinner, and she thought he was making

himself ill, and on that 21st he told her he should not leave

the house all the following day—the Sunday. He had, therefore,

I maintain, no appointment to keep, else he would never have

made that statement. On the 22nd Mrs. Jenkins says she had no

recollection of his going out. When he did go out at night, and

came in late, what was his habit? Mrs. Jenkins says he never

got into the house on those occasions except in one of two

ways—either he asked her for a check key, and got one, or Thuau

opened the door for him. He did not ask for a key that night,

and Thuau says he certainly did not let him in.”—_Speech of the

Dean of Faculty for the defence._

[115] To the evidence for these statements, the Dean of Faculty

objected that, though the guard of the train from Stirling

was shown the photograph of L’Angelier, and identified him

by it, the photo. was not shown to Ross—that Ross only spoke

of him as a foreigner—that no one at the place where he had

refreshments at Coatbridge was called to identify him—that the

“foreigner” told Ross he had walked from Alloa (eight miles),

and not from the Bridge of Allan, and that on the Friday or

Saturday previous he had walked into Stirling to try and get

a cheque cashed, and yet no attempt was made to show that he

did so. The witnesses for the defence, on the contrary (Adams,

Kirk, Dickson, druggists), were clear (Adams) that at half-past

five on Sunday, the 22nd, a gentleman came to his shop for

25 drops of laudanum; Dickson, of Batherton, two miles from

Coatbridge, that one whom he recognised as extremely like the

photo. of L’Angelier came for a similar dose at 6.30 on a

Sunday at the end of March, suffering from a bowel complaint;

and Miss Kirk, of the Gallowgate, Glasgow, who remembered a

gentleman, “as like as anything I ever saw” to the photo. of

L’Angelier, came about 8 P.M. on a Sunday night at the end of

March for a medicine, and got a white powder. [But it must

be remarked that, weak as this evidence was, it was weakened

by the admission of Adams that his customer did not complain

of illness—by that of Dickson that it might have been in

April, and by the inability of Miss Kirk to fix any date for

the occurrence, or to state what the powder was, though she

identified the purse from which the party took the money for

the payment of it.]

[116] On the question whether this letter brought L’Angelier

to Glasgow, the Dean referred to an expression in one of his

letters to Thuau, that he did not know what “Mr. Mitchell

could want with him,” and inferred that it might be to hear

about this person that he hurried up to Glasgow and called on

M’Alister, who probably might have given some information on

this point had he been called. [If so, why was he not called

for the defence?]

[117] “I have already shown,” said the Dean, “how constantly

she repeated to him her warning that on no account he was

to make the slightest noise of any kind. Therefore, without

previous arrangement, it does not appear to me possible

for these parties to have met on the occasion on which the

prosecutor says they did. If I am right in reading that

letter, she expected him on Saturday evening, and she waited

and waited, as she had upon Thursday, but he did not come. On

the Sunday evening she did not expect him. Why should she?

When he did not come on Thursday evening, when he did not

come on Saturday evening, why should she expect him on the

following evening? Well, then, that is the state in which her

expectations were on that occasion, and her conduct precisely

squares with it. She is at home in the family. They are all at

prayers at nine o’clock. The servants come up to attend prayers

with the family. Mackenzie, the suitor of Haggart, remains

below while the family are at prayers. The servants afterwards

go down stairs to bed, as usual—one after the other. The family

then retire to rest, and the prisoner, with her youngest

sister, goes to her bedroom about half-past ten or eleven. They

both get into bed about the same time; and, so far as human

knowledge can go, that house is undisturbed and unapproached

till the prisoner is lying in the morning side by side with

her sister, as she had fallen asleep. The watchman was on his

beat—he knew L’Angelier well—and he saw nothing.”

[118] Regarding this third charge in the light of

probabilities, the Dean said:—“If you believe the evidence

of the Crown, he suspected the prisoner of having tried to

poison him. But my learned friend says his suspicions were

then lulled—she had become more kind to him before he left

town. I thought my learned friend said he was brooding over

it when in Edinburgh, and spoke of it in a serious tone to

the Towerses. That was on the 16th of March, after which date

he had nothing to change his mind in the shape of kindness

from the prisoner, and therefore if he did once entertain the

suspicion, however unfounded, there was nothing to remove it

from his mind anterior to the 22nd of March. A man, whose

suspicions are excited against a particular person, is not

very likely to take poison at that person’s hand; and yet,

what are we asked to believe that he took from her hand that

night? That he took from her hand a poisoned cup, in which

there lurked such a quantity of arsenic as was sufficient

to leave in his stomach after death 82 grains; such a dose

indicating the administration of at least double—aye, I think

Dr. Christison said the administration of at least half an

ounce (240 grains)—and that he took it that evening from the

hand of the prisoner, with all his previous suspicions that she

was practising on him. It is a dose which, as far as experience

goes, was never successfully administered by a murderer. There

is not a case on record in which it has ever been shown that

a person administering poison to another ever succeeded in

persuading him to swallow such a quantity.” [But note as to

confidence after suspicion, that of Cook in Palmer, after the

suspicious illness at Shrewsbury.—See Palmer’s Case, _ante_;

and as to quantity administered by murderers, note _ante_, p.

319, and Appendix B., p. 358.]

[119] _Christina Haggart_, if she was to be believed, appears

to contradict this assertion. On _re-examination_ she said that

between a month and two before her apprehension Miss Smith

asked her to leave the back gate into the lane open after ten

at night, and stay in the kitchen a little, as she was to see

her friend. When she did so she saw no one in the lane, but as

she went into the kitchen, which was in front of the house, she

met Miss Smith going towards the back door. She heard footsteps

coming through the gate—that she stayed in the kitchen till

she heard Miss Smith go to her own room. She stayed about half

an hour. “_Charlotte Maclean_, the cook, stayed in the kitchen

with me at my request.” In this she was confirmed by Maclean,

but she could not say she heard Miss Smith in the passage,

though she heard her afterwards go to her bedroom. Miss Smith’s

statement to Dr. Meau is true, if the meeting took place only

at the back gate. The Lord Justice Clerk, however, spoke of

this evidence as proving that L’Angelier was in the house in

Blythswood Square.

[120] In a letter with post-mark September 18, 1855, she

alludes to some such threat, “Beloved, you are young, you

ought to desire life.” In another with post-mark October 19,

1855, she writes, “‘Before long,’ you say, ‘I shall rid you

and all the world of my presence.’ God forbid that you should

do this.” “This,” said the Judge, “was a common enough mode of

influencing females; and if such was his design, he seemed to

have succeeded.”

[121] As to the evidence for the defence, that L’Angelier had

on one occasion threatened to throw himself out of the window

at the “Rainbow” Tavern, his lordship observed, “As the witness

was in bed at the time the deceased had ample opportunity to

have thrown himself over, if he had been so inclined, before

the witness could interfere; and the jury would consider

whether, when going about the room in that excited state, he

had only thrown open the window to get air. As to the other

stories that he would drown himself, if jilted, they did not

amount to much, as on one occasion he had been jilted, and

had not drowned himself. You will consider whether all this

is merely the vapouring of a loose, talkative man, fond of

awakening an interest in the minds of others about himself, or

whether it affords any indication that he was likely to commit

suicide. As to the evidence about giving arsenic to horses in

France, which would be useless unless given constantly, he did

not see its importance. If he was in the habit of taking it in

small quantities, he knew its qualities, and therefore this

did not aid the notion that he took an immense quantity on the

22nd to destroy himself. No doubt the prisoner was not bound to

prove that he poisoned himself, but it was a hazardous thing to

set up a defence that L’Angelier went out that night carrying

such a quantity of arsenic in his pocket, and that he swallowed

it, how, when, and where, no human being could conceive.”

[122] “It is very difficult,” said the learned Judge, “to

say what the exasperated feelings of a female placed in such

a situation as this woman was might not lead her to do. And

here it is that the correspondence becomes of the utmost

importance, as shewing what feelings she cherished about

that time, what state and disposition of mind she was in,

and whether there was any trace of moral sense or propriety

to be found in her letters, or whether they did not exhibit

such a degree of ill-regulated, disordered, distempered, and

licentious feelings, as shew that the writer was quite capable

of compassing any end by which she could avoid exposure and

disgrace, and of cherishing any feeling of revenge which such

treatment might excite in her mind, driven nearly to madness

by the thought of what might follow the revelation of this

correspondence. We have heard a good deal said by the Dean

of Faculty as to the character of this person: we have no

evidence on the subject, except what these letters exhibit,

and no witness to character is brought; and certainly these

letters exhibit as extraordinary a frame of mind and of passion

as perhaps ever appeared in a court of justice. Can you be

surprised, that after such letters as those of the 29th April

and 3rd May (inviting him in very plain terms to meet her for

that purpose at the garden gate of the country house), that

on the 6th May, three days afterwards, he got possession of

her person? On the 7th she again writes, and in that letter

is there the slightest appearance of grief, of repentance,

of remorse? It is the letter of a girl rejoicing in what had

passed, and alluding to it particularly in terms which I will

not read, for perhaps they were never previously committed to

paper, as having passed between man and woman. There could be

no doubt of the state of degraded and unholy feeling into which

she had sunk, probably not the less so if it was produced by

his undermining and corruption.”

[123] If this was the use for which the prisoner bought the

arsenic, it is at least curious that she did not buy it until

the 21st of February, 1857, when she was endeavouring to get

her letters back from L’Angelier. The article in _Blackwood_

was in December, 1853. _Johnston’s_ Book was published in 1855,

and of the papers in _Chambers_, the first was in December,

1851, the second in June, 1853, and the third in July, 1856.

[124] Without wishing to fight over again the case of _Eliza

Fenning_, I would refer any one at all curious on this point

to a letter to the _Times_, quoted in the “Annual Register”

for July 29, 1855, from the Rev. J. H. Gurney, the nephew of

the well-known shorthand writer, in which it is stated, on

the authority of an extract from his uncle’s note-book, that

_Eliza Fenning_ did confess the crime to the Rev. James Upton,

a Baptist minister, whose chapel she attended, though she

subsequently maintained her innocence to other visitors.

[125] The learned Judge had previously said, “If this had been

an appointment about business, and it had been shown that a

person came to town for the purpose of seeing another, and he

went out for that purpose, having no other object in coming

to Glasgow, they would probably scout the notion of a person

saying, ‘I never saw or heard of him that day that he came;’

but the inference they were asked to draw was this, that they

met on that night, when the fact of their meeting is the

foundation of the charge of murder. Therefore the jury must

feel that the grounds of drawing an inference in the ordinary

matters of civil business, or the actual appointment of mutual

friends is one thing, and the inference from the fact that he

came to Glasgow, that they did meet, and that, therefore, the

poison was administered to him by her at that time, is another,

and a most enormous jump in the category of inferences.”

[126] Evidence of _Samuel Peckeridge_, his fellow-workman;

_Thomas Denman_, who had seen him near the reservoir on

Stamford Hill, on the 24th, vomiting, and going to the

public-house for brandy; _James Ashby_, another turncock of the

East London Company’s; _Mrs. Gillett_, and _Mr. Toulmin_, of

Clapton.

[127] On Dr. Letheby’s evidence, see remarks in Chapter VII.,

p. 395.

[128] _A. Andrews_ also proved that she had only objected to

the _post-mortem_ because she knew the deceased objected to

it; that she said “Thank God, I am innocent. Poor dear soul, I

loved him too well to injure him;” and had told him that Annie

had eaten the rest of the gruel, and that Mrs. Gillett knew it.

[129] _James Urry_, the secretary of the benefit society,

proved that the deceased had been insured in it nearly two

years—these would not have been completed until February 2nd,

and that, in consequence, she would be entitled to only £7 10s.

instead of £10. When he saw the prisoner she seemed absorbed in

grief.

[130] See on this the remarks in Chapter VII. p. 395.

[131] Tidy (Handbook of Modern Chem., 1878, p. 397) states that

1,000 parts of boiling water, digested for twenty-four hours

with the powder, dissolve—of the opaque form, 5·4 parts; of the

transparent, 10; of the crystalline, 15.

[132] In this case, which was tried before the late Lord

Denman, at the Summer Assizes, 1848, very many of the guests

at a dinner given to celebrate the election of an Independent

minister were seriously affected, and the death of the chairman

(an invalid) hastened, by eating of a blancmange made in the

form of a cucumber, surrounded with leaves—all of the natural

green colour. In colouring this sweet, emerald green, in which,

on analysis, 47½ per cent. of arsenite of copper was found,

had been used to such an extent that the colour was in some

parts half an inch in depth. The pastrycook (Franklin) had

been previously warned, by the chemist who sold it to him, of

its poisonous qualities, and for a time had discontinued its

use for eatables; and the defence was, that in this case his

apprentice (Randall) had used it under the impression that the

sweet was only for ornament. They were both found guilty of

manslaughter, and sentenced to three months’ imprisonment with

hard labour.

[133] According to the _Apotheker Zeitung_, No. 14, April

3, 1879, out of 118 samples of children’s toys officially

examined in 1878, 53, or nearly one-half, were found adorned

with poisonous colours. In the cases of 46 the vendors were

punished. As to dresses, see Chem. News, v. 114.

[134] In the case of _Maria Gage_, tried at the Summer Assizes,

at Ipswich, on the 2nd of August, 1851, for the murder of her

husband, it was proved that she had got a neighbour to purchase

for her a pennyworth of stuff for rats and mice, which was

found to consist of linseed with arsenic enough to kill half a

dozen men.

[135] “Considerable sensation has been excited by the report

that arsenic had been detected in the paper collars, &c.,

manufactured by a Leipzig firm. On a careful examination,

conducted by six of the most eminent chemists, the accusation

was proved to be utterly unfounded.”—_Chemiker Zeitung_, No.

45, 1879.

[136] In this case, which was tried in April, 1835, before

Sir Charles Wetherell, as Recorder of Bristol, a widow lady

of the name of Mary Smith, who had lodged with the prisoner,

was poisoned by her, in October, 1833, for the sake of the

money and other property she had with her. The accused was

proved to have purchased yellow arsenic about six days before

Mrs. Smith’s death, and to have been seen putting some yellow

powder out of a paper from her pocket into a basin of gruel,

after taking which Mrs. Smith was seized with dreadful

convulsions, and died. In consequence of suspicions created

by the prisoner’s subsequent conduct and false statements, a

_post-mortem_ was held of the body, exhumed fourteen months

after death. The report of this examination was very striking.

“A thick, yellow coating, like paint, lay on the mucous

membrane of the stomach, particularly over the pyloric third,

but it extended more or less with some small interjections of

unstained membrane to within two or three inches of the great

cul-de-sac.” The accused was convicted and executed.

[137] Phosphates give _nothing_ with sulphuretted hydrogen, and

a _yellow_ with silver nitrate.

[138] “A curious toxicological case is reported from Hamburg.

The body of a man who died in 1867 was taken for examination.

It was thought necessary to determine arsenic, not merely in

the corpse in question, but in the soil of the churchyard at

different distances from the coffin, and also in the body

of another man who had been subsequently buried in the same

grave. This latter body was perfectly free from arsenic,

which, however, was found in the first corpse in ample fatal

quantity (3·6 grains), whilst in the lid of the coffin and in

the adjacent ground very minute quantities were traced. Hence

the conclusion was fairly drawn that the man in question had

been poisoned with arsenic, and that a portion of the poison

had been gradually transferred from his body to the wood of

the coffin and the adjacent soil.”—_Chemiker Zeitung_, No. 7,

February 13th, 1879.

[139] See also a case in the _Gaz. Médicale_, 1850.

[140] When we bear in mind how small a space even 200 grains

of arsenic would occupy—not more than that of an ordinary

seidlitz powder—the suggestion of L’Angelier carrying this

means of suicide about him, when keeping the supposed

appointment on the Sunday night, is by no means improbable.

And when his evident tendency to attempt self-destruction,

when irritated or depresssed, is remembered, it is within the

range of probability, that, if either the meeting took place

and ended with a quarrel, or he failed to obtain a meeting,

in the excited state of mind which either circumstance would

have created, he in desperation swallowed the drug very shortly

before he returned to his lodgings, only to die. This is a

far more probable suggestion than that set up by the defence,

that he had been dosing himself with arsenic on the road from

Stirling to Glasgow. The difficulty is that purchases of

arsenic by L’Angelier could not be proved. But, looking to the

careless way in which it was exposed in the shops of some of

the firms with which he had relations (evidence of _Fleming_

and _Townsend_), he might have got it from thence, without its

being known, or he might have purchased it in Edinburgh on

his visit there, where he could not be easily recognised. He

certainly had an unwholesome hankering after this drug.—G. L. B.

[141] To the medical profession, for whose use, as well as for

that of their legal brethren, this volume is intended, any but

a detailed report of the medical evidence in this disputed case

would be useless.

[142] For the report of this trial I have relied on that

published in Edinburgh by William Kay, 1865.

[143] Evidence of _James Struthers_. Registrar of Deaths for

the Blythswood district of Glasgow.

[144] According to _Mary Patterson_, Mrs. Taylor was in the

kitchen about 7 P.M., as well as usual, only appearing a little

peevish in consequence of her night-watching. _Mary McLeod_

met her going up stairs from the consulting-room about nine

o’clock, and in a short time her bell rang, and she found her

in her daughter’s bedroom asking for hot water to make her

vomit, when she desired her to go for the doctor.

[145] See evidence, _ante_, p. 414 (note), of _McLeod_ and

_Paterson_, as to her health and actions during the evening

before her seizure.

[146] It was with reference to this visit that _Paterson_

afterwards expressed his opinion, that, but for the accident of

meeting Pritchard, he would not have been asked to visit his

wife. This was severely commented on by Mr. R. Clark as showing

the ill-feeling towards the prisoner which was imputed to the

witness.

[147] It was proved that he kept large quantities of antimony,

poisons, and other drugs in his consulting-room, though no

chlorodyne.—_Evidence of McCall, Dr. Penny, McHattie, Foulger,

and Kerr._

[148] In a letter to his father-in-law on the 3rd of March,

Pritchard wrote: “I am very much fatigued with being up

with dear Mary Jane, who was very much worse yesterday, and

passed a wretched night. Wednesday has been a periodic day

with her during this illness, and she always dreads it. Her

prostration is extreme, and her appetite quite failed. _Dr.

Paterson has recommended Dublin stout and some very simple

medicine._”—_Evidence of Mr. Taylor._ Second day.

[149] On Dr. Paterson’s evident feeling against the prisoner,

the Lord Justice Clerk made the following remarks: “It is

said that he exhibited a strong feeling against the prisoner;

no human being could feel otherwise if he had formed the

impression that Mrs. Pritchard was being poisoned in the hands

of her husband, her medical attendant. It is said that he

exhibited this feeling in a marked unpleasant manner in the

box. That is a matter of manner, and, if the feeling existed,

I do not know that he could have made his evidence really

more valuable if he had concealed the existence of it. It may

be an unpleasant thing to see what is called an _animus_ in

a witness exhibited in the witness-box. If he has a feeling

strong upon him, and that on good ground, he may come into

the box and entirely suppress all appearance of it, because

he has more command of his feeling, or a better manner of

concealing it. The fact remains, that if he takes up the

position I have described, he cannot, as a man of ordinary

feeling, feel otherwise than unfavourably prepossessed against

the prisoner.” Again, on his concealment of his suspicions,

the Judge said: “Now, he thought it consistent with his

professional duty—and I must also add with his duty as a

citizen of this country—to keep this opinion to himself. In

that I cannot say he did right. I should be very sorry to lead

you to think so. I care not for professional etiquette, or

professional rule. There is a rule of life and a consideration

far higher than these—the duty that every citizen of this

country, that every right-minded man owes to his neighbour—to

prevent the destruction of human life in this world, and in

that duty I cannot but say that Dr. Paterson has failed. Now

you will consider what effect that is to have, or whether it

is to have any effect on your minds. It is a very painful

subject—a subject which I would fain avoid, but the exigencies

of this case drive me to its consideration—and I am bound to

say that, because a man is so mistaken in regard to his duty to

his fellow-citizens, and his fellow-creatures, it by no means

follows that he is undeserving of credit as a witness. You may

con sider his evidence always in the light of that failing; if

you can see reason to modify anything that he says, because of

the existence of that failing, it is your bounden duty to do

that.”—_Charge of the Lord Justice Clerk._ Fifth day.

[150] From Western Branch of Glasgow Apothecaries’ Company,

September 19, 1864, 10 grains strychnia; November 4, ½ oz.

tincture conii (Hemlock); November 16, 1 oz. laudanum, 1 oz.

tartar emetic; November 24, 1 oz. tincture aconite; December 8,

1 oz. tincture (Fleming’s) aconite; December 9, 1 oz. tincture

conii. 1865: February 4, 1 oz. tincture conii; February 7, 1

oz. tartarised antimony, 1 oz. tincture of aconite; February

9, 1 oz. tincture of aconite; February 11, 1 oz. tincture

of digitalis; February 18, 2 oz. tincture conii (all sold

by the manager, _J. Campbell_); November 24, 1 oz. tincture

of aconite; December 9, 1 oz. tincture conii; February 4,

1865, 1 oz. tincture conii (sold by the assistant). Fleming’s

tincture of aconite is six times stronger than the ordinary

tincture.—_Evidence of J. Campbell._ From _John Currie_,

chemist in Glasgow:—1865: February 18, 2 oz. solution of

morphia and 1 oz. of Fleming’s tincture of aconite; March 8,

solution of atropine, 1 drachm, with 2 grains of atropia to a

drachm; March 13, ½ oz. of Fleming’s tincture of aconite; March

14, solution of atropine, 1 drachm, with 2 grains to a drachm;

March 16, solution of atropine, 1 drachm, with 5 grains to a

drachm.—_Evidence of John Currie._ Chloroform from July 13 to

December 9, 1864, 132 oz.—_J. Campbell._ This witness said that

2 oz. of tartarised antimony and about 1 to 2 ozs. of Fleming’s

tincture would cover the whole of their sales for a year, and

that the chloroform was also in excess of usual sale to one

person. For the defence it was proved that as much as 80 oz. of

Fleming’s tincture was sold by them within a year.—_Evidence

of John Simpson_, of Duncan, Flockhart & Co., of North Bridge,

Glasgow. And from 2 to 3 oz. of tartar emetic, besides larger

quantities to veterinary surgeons.—_Thomas Fairgreive_,

chemist, of Edinburgh.

[151] Evidence of _Alexander McCall_, superintendent of Glasgow

Police, and _John Murray_, an officer of the Sheriff—third day;

and reports of analyses by _Professor Frederick Penny_, same

day. Another specimen of tapioca, bought direct from Barton and

Henderson, had no antimony in it—Same witness.

[152] In reply to the Judge, the witness said that to take 7

grains of Fleming’s tincture Mrs. Taylor must have taken 100

drops of the poisoned Battley in a single dose, equal to a

teaspoonful; that 100 drops would not be an unusual amount to a

person accustomed to the use of it in moderation, and that many

opium eaters would not thank you for 100 drops. Aconite might

be given in divided doses, and not prove fatal, though the same

quantity was taken, the distressing effect of one dose going

off before the other was taken.

[153] _Dr. Gairdner_ stated that the only time he saw Mrs.

Pritchard was on the night of the 8th of February, and that

at that interview Pritchard told him Dr. Cowan had prescribed

stimulants, which he ordered to be discontinued, and no

medicine till he saw her again. Dr. Cowan said that he did

not see her until the 11th of February, “to the best of his

recollection, stopped all night, saw her again next day, and

left in the evening for Edinburgh.”

[154] _Dr. Paterson_ stated that he was called on the 24th of

February to see Mrs. Taylor, and then noticed the state in

which Mrs. Pritchard was, but not being asked did not prescribe

for her. He was called in to Mrs. Pritchard first on the 2nd

of March, when he prescribed powders containing camomile, blue

or gray powder, ipecacuanha, and aromatic powder, and he never

saw her again until five hours before her death. There is not

a word in his evidence of his having been previously consulted

about the use of Battley’s solution. The only interviews with

the prisoner, other than in the sick-room, were on the 1st of

March, when he met him in the street and he asked him to see

his wife, and on the 5th of March, when Pritchard called on

him, reported that the remedies had had a good effect, and Dr.

Paterson recommended their continuance.

[155] _Mary McLeod_ stated that she was in the bedroom from

the time Dr. Paterson left till Mrs. Pritchard died; that

she lay on the sofa, and that Pritchard told her to get the

mustard-plaster, and that it was applied to Mrs. Pritchard’s

stomach, and as it did not seem to do her good, she was sent

down again for another, and that when she and Mary Patterson

returned with it, Mrs. Pritchard was dead.

[156] From an account sent in to Mr. Taylor after his wife’s

death, the last purchases appeared to be:—18th January, 1865,

2 oz.; 29th January, 2 oz.; and 4th February, 2 oz. _James

Thomson_ stated that the last time he took the bottle to be

filled was on the night before Mrs. Taylor left for Glasgow,

and that for a year or so before her death he took the bottle

to be filled at first only once in every two or three months,

but latterly every two or three weeks.

[157] Evidence of _J. Foulger_ and _George Kerr_.

[158] This had previously been admitted by Dr. Penny.

[159] See remarks of the Lord Justice Clerk on the motive,

_post_, p. 445.

[160] See the argument of the Dean of Faculty imputing the

murder to McLeod, and the Judge’s charge on that point, _post_,

437-440.

[161] “Mr. Clark very properly said,” remarked the Judge

in this charge, “‘it is not his fault that he had abundant

opportunities. The relation existing between him and these

ladies is not his fault, and it was the existence of this

relation that gave him these opportunities.’ Quite true,

gentlemen—a very just observation; but remember, on the other

hand, that as the opportunities did in point of fact exist, he

cannot argue the case as if they did not.”

[162] “His possession of poisonous drugs,” said the Judge in

his charge, “to such an extent is not a suspicious circumstance

in the case of a medical man. They are in some degree

necessary; but the peculiar position of the matter in this

case—the nature of the drugs found in his consulting-room—is

certainly not to be lightly passed over, and still more the

nature of the purchases that he had been making from two

different apothecaries during the period to which our inquiries

particularly refer. In his consulting-room were found some

parcels of tartaric acid—not a very large quantity; some

phials, containing the remains of tincture of aconite and white

powder to the extent of three or four grains, containing a

somewhat strange and unexplained mixture of tartarised antimony

or tartar emetic and aconite. These things were found in his

consulting-room; but what had he been purchasing during the

period to which our inquiry refers? On the 16th of November

he purchased an ounce of tartar emetic, and upon the 7th

of February another ounce of the same poison—very unusual

quantities, as the apothecaries state. He also purchased

no less than 5½ ounces of tincture of aconite. That, the

apothecaries state, is a very unusual quantity for a medical

man to purchase: but I think it was a mistake in some respects

to push this statement to the extent to which the prosecutor

pressed it, because some of the other witnesses of the same

description said that for external application tincture of

aconite is sometimes used in considerable quantities, and if it

were used for that purpose we might account for such a large

quantity being used by the prisoner. But I do not think anybody

said, that two ounces of tartar emetic within a month or two

was a usual quantity for one medical man to use who was not in

the practice of mixing it at home, which the prisoner, in his

conversation with Dr. Paterson, says he was not. Besides, there

were other very strange purchases, which have no immediate

connection with this case—all of them strong poisons. He was,

therefore, undoubtedly possessed of a very large quantity of

different kinds of poisonous substances; but what is most

important is, that he was in possession of that very poison

to which the death of Mrs. Pritchard is undoubtedly to be

traced, and to which, in combination with others, the death of

Mrs. Taylor is to be traced—that is antimony. So that whether

we adopt to the full extent the suggestion of the Crown, it

appears beyond a doubt that some one had been practising a

system of poisoning, and that in the possession of the prisoner

were the agents necessary for carrying it on.”

[163] See, _post_, p. 446, the Judge’s remarks on this attempt

to throw the crime on McLeod.

[164] “It is said,” remarked the Lord Justice Clerk, “that

it would be very difficult that cheese could be poisoned by

antimony—very difficult to make a powder like tartar emetic

adhere to a piece of cheese in sufficient quantity to have any

effect, and that, if it did, it must have been visible to the

naked eye, because the cheese was yellow and the tartar emetic

was white. But we know from the evidence before us that tartar

emetic is easily dissolved, and the poisoned cheese could

easily have been poisoned by dipping it into a solution, quite

as easily as by dipping it into a powder.” _See Chapter IX._

[165] On this argument of the prisoner’s counsel the Lord

Justice Clerk said:—“It is difficult to offer an answer to

that. It is impossible to say what is the precise point to

which a poison of this kind will kill—what is the precise

amount that will at once destroy life as compared with

that which will only inflict suffering and torture. But

that Patterson did suffer these severe vomitings and pains

immediately after having tasted the egg-flip I suppose you

will not disbelieve, looking to the general character of the

evidence which she gave here as a witness.”

[166] With reference to the finding of the bottle of Battley’s

solution the Lord Justice Clerk made the following remarks:—“To

that scene I beg now to call your attention as given by Mary

Patterson. ‘When the bottle was found,’ she says, ‘he expressed

great surprise that she should have taken so much of its

contents in so short a time.’ Now he was quite aware, as you

will see by the evidence, that the old lady was in the habit

of taking a great quantity, and you will consider whether the

surprise was real or feigned. That is but a very small point,

however, in reference to this matter. His expression in regard

to it, seemed to me much more strong. He expressed surprise

at her having sent ‘a girl like that for it’—namely, McLeod.

I cannot see that there is anything so startling in that. Did

he mean to suggest that in sending such a messenger there

might be some mistake as to the contents of the bottle? Why,

what was it, ‘to send a girl like that?’ What was the harm of

sending a girl—an intelligent servant girl? What was wanted was

Battley’s solution, because it was what Mrs. Taylor wanted—was

accustomed to take. But still he thought that it was a very

serious matter—and further, that it was one of those things

that it would not do to have spoken of as having occurred in

his house—a man of his profession.”

[167] Had she survived the wife, would she not have been a most

important witness to aid in the conviction of the prisoner?

[168] For the report of this trial I have used that in the

Sessions Papers, Central Criminal Court, 1859, collated with

that given by Mr. Justice Stephen in his “History of the

Criminal Law of England,” vol. iii., p. 438, and that in the

Annual Register of 1859.

[169] According to her sister she had for some time suffered

from an affection of the uterus requiring the use of an

injection.

[170] The prisoner called on the solicitor on the Saturday

and asked him to come up the next day to draw the will, to

which he consented on the prisoner’s representation of the

state of the lady—but wished a medical man to be present. The

prisoner, however, assured him it was quite unnecessary, as

she was suffering only from diarrhœa, and was quite in her

right mind. “I went,” said the witness, “to the prisoner’s

lodging, and he informed me that they were not married, which

was another reason why he did not wish a medical man to be

present. I then went up to the bedroom of the deceased, and

the prisoner said to her, ‘My dear, this is the gentleman who

has come to make your will.’ She bowed, and handed me the

paper which I had seen on Saturday. I looked at it, and asked

her if that was what she wished, and read it to her, and she

said it was quite correct, except that she wished to leave a

brooch to a friend. I then drew up the will in accordance with

her instructions, in a lower room. The prisoner was with me,

and, when the will had been drawn up, said the daughter of the

landlady could be one of the witnesses, and he supposed I could

say it was some Chancery paper. I told him that would not do.

She must know it was a will, and he replied, ‘Oh, very well.’

Shortly afterwards the deceased executed the will, and I and

Miss Wheatley attested it, and I handed the document to the

prisoner, who paid me my fee. She appeared perfectly competent

to make a will.”—_Evidence of Mr. Senior._ The will was proved

by Smethurst, notwithstanding opposition, after his punishment

for bigamy.

[171] From the sudden and serious illness of one of the jurors,

however, the examination of the witnesses had to be suspended,

and the trial adjourned to the first day of the next Session.

Eventually he was put on his trial, before another jury, on

the 15th of August. As the statement of Serjeant Ballantine

was fully confirmed by the witnesses, the landladies of the

respective lodgings, and the sister, it will be necessary only

to report the medical evidence.

[172] It was apparently with reference to this case that the

name of a _Dr. Barker_, of _Bedford_, was repeatedly mentioned,

but he was not called to confirm or explain the supposed

instance of dysentery in early pregnancy.

[173] It must be borne in mind that there was no error in this

experiment, and that it was never suggested that the arsenic

in this case came from the copper, as it was not destroyed, as

when the bottle of chlorate of potash was afterwards tested

with copper gauze, which was destroyed by it, and the arsenic

in the gauze liberated. Serjeant Parry, of course, said that

the experiments in both cases were the same. So they were so

far as copper was used, but the presence of the chlorate of

potash in the other case made all the difference.—_See_ Chapter

IX.

[174] Had this discovery of arsenic not been erroneous, the

gap in the evidence, as to the possession of the poison by the

prisoner in a form most likely to be administered, would have

been filled up. It in no way, however, militated against the

discovery of arsenic in bottle 2. See _post_, Chap. IX., how

far Mr. Herapath was correct in asserting that more arsenic was

found than could have been released from the copper. In his

statement before the committing magistrates, on the 20th of

May, Serjeant Ballantine stated that bottle 21 had originally

been sent by Dr. Julius with a quinine mixture.

[175] On farther _cross-examination, Professor Brande_ said

that the copper he used in Reinsch’s test was generally rolled

down from a halfpenny, which he considered pure enough for the

purpose.

[176] But see his evidence, Palmer’s trial, p. 175, _ante_.

[177] _Handbuch der Pathologischen Anatomie_, by Baron Carl von

Rokitansky, Vienna, 1842-46, of which a translation by various

English medical men of eminence was published by the _Sydenham

Society_ in 4 vols. 8vo. 1849-54. It is still considered a

valuable book of reference.

[178] Subsequent to the verdict, in a memorial to the Prince

Consort, it was stated that “a lady friend of the deceased

was a witness,” to Miss Bankes’ knowledge, of the fact that

he was married already, and that she wished the ceremony to

be gone through. This lady, the memorial stated, was to have

been called, but Mr. Parry deemed it unnecessary. Upon this,

the Lord Chief Baron, in his report to the Home Secretary,

observed—“I do not believe Mr. Serjeant Parry gave any such

advice; but if it be true that any such evidence was ready,

why is not the lady friend named, and why is not her statement

or declaration now offered and laid before you? Such evidence

would, in my opinion, much alter the complexion of the

case.”—_Judge Stephen’s Hist. of Crim, Law_, iii., 461. [What

need was there of this evidence, when it had been proved that

for weeks together Miss Bankes had been lodging and associating

in the same house with Smethurst and his wife?]

[179] Not quite correct; on the prisoners representations of

the effect of the sister’s prior visit, Dr. Bird had advised

that she should not see her—at any rate at present.—_See his

evidence, ante_, p. 450.

[180] When _Dr. Julius_ was recalled, and stated that at the

first examination before the magistrates the prisoner urged

that it was necessary for him to go back to his wife; that

her death might be occasioned by his absence; and that it was

imperative that he should go; Serjeant Parry asked the witness

“whether the magistrates at that time did not direct or require

him not to interfere further with the patient?” To this he

replied—“I do not think it was addressed to him, but it was

addressed generally—it was in his presence. It might have been

a general direction, but he might have heard it.”

[181] “And not only in the evacuations, where small portions of

both were found?” They also laid great stress on the absence of

certain symptoms generally present in slow poisoning by arsenic

or antimony, or both.

[182] Or he might have added, the results of his experiments on

the evacuations, the correctness of which were proved by the

subsequent 76 tests by Reinsch’s method.

[183] “There were,” says Judge Stephen, “_fourteen_ reasons in

all assigned by Sir B. Brodie, _six_ in favour of the prisoner,

and _eight_ against him, of which only _two_ of the first and

_four_ of the second proceeded on medical or chemical grounds.

Until these are published it is impossible to judge fairly of

Brodie’s opinion.”

[184] _Stephen’s Hist. Crim. Law of Eng._, iii., 465.

[185] _Margaret Higgins_, a servant of Mrs. James, told a very

different story when put into the box for _cross-examination_, her

evidence not being taken for the prosecution. “On the morning of

the 10th I went into Mrs. James’s bedroom, about half-past eight,

and found two or three spoonsful of _warm_sago in a tea-cup by the

bedside, and two cups on the table. I took the cup from the chair by

the bedside down stairs, and ate the sago, which did me no harm.”[As

the prisoner said he took it in about 5 a.m., the sago, being in an

open cup, could not have been _warm_ at 8·30. It was also clear, from

other parts of her evidence, that she was in favour of the prisoner,

and anxious to throw the crime on the Cafferatas.

[186] Evidence of _Mrs. Cafferata_, _Dr. Cameron_, _Mr.

Clarence Pemberton_ (surgeon), _Mr. Tennyson Lloyd_

(solicitor), Inspector _Horne_, and detective _Kehoe_, who

proved the seizure of the medicine bottles, &c., and their safe

delivery to _Dr. Edwards_.

[187] “Free antimony” is what has not been taken up into the

system. “Eliminated,” which has been taken up into the system.

[188] For these acids I have used the systematic nomenclature

corresponding to the phosphates, as in Bernay’s “Notes for

Students,” in preference to Fremy’s original titles.

[189] Sulphuric acid may be freed from arsenic or antimony by

treating it with a few small fragments of charcoal and a little

rock salt, and boiling till the hydrochloric and sulphurous

acids have been expelled.

[190] Solutions of bismuth give with water white precipitates,

which are _not re-dissolved_ by tartaric acid.

[191] But it must be borne in mind that it was late in the

evening when the cheese was taken up to the bedroom, where the

light was not likely to have been strong; probably, on the

contrary, was carefully shaded, so as not to annoy the invalid.

[192] This bottle, according to Serjeant Ballantine’s

statement, had been sent by Dr. Julius to the deceased

containing a quinine mixture.

[193] Arsenic is tasteless. See evidence of _Professor

Christison_, in Madeline Smith’s case, _ante_, p. 322.

[194] This must be an error of the reporter, and must mean

McIntyre, who, with Dr. Bird, took possession of the bottles in

the bedroom. Dr. Bird delivered only bottles 1, 2, 3.

[195] In his evidence at the trial _Dr. Taylor_ said that he

found less than half a grain of arsenic, equal to 2¼ per cent.

in the copper dissolved—an impossibility.

[196] “An attempt,” says Mr. Justice Stephen, “was made to

account for the presence of antimony and arsenic alleged to be

discovered by Dr. Taylor, by the suggestion that it might have

been contained in the medicines administered to Miss Bankes

during her life. Arsenic is generally found in bismuth, and

for three or four days doses of bismuth, containing five or

six grains, were administered to Miss Bankes. Dr. Richardson

put the proportion of arsenic in bismuth at half a grain to

an ounce, and as an ounce contains 480 grains, each dose

would have contained about 1/140 of a grain of arsenic. If,

therefore, Miss Bankes took twelve doses of bismuth, she would

have taken between one-eleventh and one-twelfth of a grain

of arsenic in four days. This seems (for it is not perfectly

clear), from Dr. Bird’s evidence, to have been more than a week

before the day on which he obtained the evacuation analysed by

Dr. Taylor, and in 4 oz. of which he said he found nearly a

quarter of a grain.”—_History of Criminal Law of England_, Vol.

III., 459.

[197] The authorities relied on for this report are—(1) The

Central Criminal Court Sessions Paper, 5th session of 1882;

(2) the report in the _Standard_, in which the evidence is

in many points given more fully and clearly, including the

charge of the learned judge, in which he has kindly made some

corrections; (3) the Summary of Affidavits in support of the

petition to the Home Secretary, and the affidavits themselves,

70 in number, relating to his conduct and state of mind from

his youth to his conviction.

[198] _Dublin Medical Journal_, vol. xix., p. 403.

[199] On the death of Herbert John, in 1879, the prisoner had

received £479 India Stock and £269 Consols as his wife’s share

of that child’s property.—_Evidence of Mr. Chapman, and of Mr.

Ormond, the trustee._

[200] At Blenheim House he had two wheel-chairs—one on the

basement floor, and one on the bedroom floor. From the evidence

of _Mrs. Jolliffe_, at whose house the Chapmans lodged at

Shanklin, in August, 1880, he was then able to get himself up

and down stairs, but with great difficulty—crawling up on his

hands and knees. The spinal-curvature was gradually increasing.

[201] It will be seen later that he went through the form

of going to Wimbledon that evening with Mr. Tulloch, and

pretending to him that he had been to the school.—_See evidence

of John Law Tulloch, post._

[202] It is incorrectly stated, in the Summary of Affidavits,

that symptoms of poisoning did not begin till about

three-quarters of an hour after Lamson had left (p. 5).

[203] According to _Banbury_, a pupil, the boy had gone over

some examination papers with him after tea, and was in good

health and spirits. _Ball_, another pupil, gave the same

account of the boy’s health.

[204] The following is a list of the various articles delivered

to Dr. Stevenson for analysis:—“I received a number of bottles

and things from Mr. Bond. There was a bottle, duly secured

and sealed, and labelled ‘liver, spleen, and kidneys.’ That

was labelled with the letter A. I received a bottle labelled

‘B,’ containing parts of small intestines, cæcum and colon,

and other parts of the intestines handed to Dr. Bond on

December 7. A third bottle was received, containing part of the

stomach. The fourth was a bottle secured, sealed, and labelled

‘stomach,’ handed to Dr. Dupré by Mr. Bond on December 7th,

‘D.’ The fifth was a bottle, sealed and secured as before,

‘urine,’ handed to Dr. Dupré by Mr. Bond on December 7, ‘E.’

The sixth was a bottle, sealed and labelled ‘vomit;’ and on

another label, handed to Dr. Bond by Dr. Berry, December

6, ‘F.’ With this was a broken bottle, unlabelled, and a

gutta-percha wrapper, with two seals upon it, as Mr. Griffin

said. The next, ‘7,’ was a pill-box. It was secured and sealed,

and marked on the tape which secured it ‘C.B.’ That is the

pill-box (identified), and it is sealed in the same manner as

the wrapper of the broken bottle. ‘8’ was a newspaper parcel

sealed; ‘9’ was a brown paper parcel sealed; ‘10’ was a paper

parcel sealed. That was the whole of what I received from Mr.

Bond. ‘11’ I received from Inspector Butcher. That was opened

in the presence of Mr. Bond. It contained a box—(this is the

box)—with capsules in it. These capsules in the bottle were

some of the 107 capsules. There was a paper with some sugar in

it; some loose sugar, sweetmeat sugar. It contained a box of

quinine powders—(box identified)—labelled ‘quinine powders’

in writing, and had the name ‘J. W. Littlefield, Ventnor,’ in

print. There were four pills loose, one large comfit from a

Dundee cake, and one of the capsules contained what appeared to

be a pill, but which was really a similar comfit.”

“I don’t think you said what was in the newspaper parcel?”

“Eight packets.”

“What did the next parcel contain?”

“Nine packets. Packet 11 I received from Inspector Butcher on

December 12, marked ‘1 W. D.’ Inside that there were two little

tinfoil packages. Twelve was received from Butcher on December

14. It was a parcel labelled ‘The remainder of the sugar from

Dr. Bedbrook’s.’ Sherry from the decanter used by Lamson was

handed to me by Butcher on the 14th.”

“Did you later on receive this box and wafers?”

“Yes. It is marked 14.”

[205] See _post_, Chapter XI.

[206] See _post_, Chapter XI.

[207] The only evidence offered of his being at Shanklin on the

29th was an entry, in the “luggage and cloak office” book of

the Shanklin railway station, of a ticket having been issued

for luggage on the 29th August, in the name of “Lamson,” which

Mr. Poland proposed the porter (John Durrant) should use to

refresh his memory. As the witness could not identify the

prisoner as the party; without saying that it was strictly

inadmissible, Mr. Justice Hawkins considered it would have

little effect, and it was not pressed. Neither _Mr. Chapman_

nor _Mrs. Jolliffe_ saw him there on that day.

[208] Evidence of _William Tulloch_, and the pawnbroker,

_Robinson_, of Mortimer Street, Regent Street.

[209] There is some error in the report, as it was on the 1st

December that the prisoner wrote to the deceased that it was

too late to come that day; and Mr. Montagu Williams admitted,

in his speech, that the prisoner visited Wimbledon, and said

he went to the school on the 2nd. It must have been on the 2nd

that the witness went with him, the first time, to Wimbledon.

In his affidavit in support of the plea of insanity J. L.

Tulloch says, that “he saw Dr. Lamson at his brother’s (W.

Tulloch) for a few minutes on the 1st, and next day proceeded

with him to Wimbledon.”

[210] He had previously, on the 15th November, tried to change

a cheque for £15 at the American Exchange, in the Strand, where

a parcel had been sent for him.—_Evidence of Sidney Harbord,

the cashier._

[211] In the _cross-examination_ of _Mrs. Bowles_, the

school-matron, Mr. Williams endeavoured to get from her an

admission that the chemicals kept in the house for the purposes

of the scientific lectures were unsecurely kept, and within

the reach of the boy. _Mr. Bedbrook_, however, proved that

the button of the cupboard in which they were kept was 6 feet

6 inches from the floor It was also proved by the chemical

lecturer that the chemicals were only those acids commonly used

in the production of gases—acetate of lead, hydrochloric and

sulphuric acids.—_Evidence of Eastick and Whalley._

[212] In the boy’s box, on the ground floor, five pills mixed

with capsules were found. Twenty white powders, which were

numbered 1 to 20, were got from a box in the dining-room,

marked “J. Littlefield,” six of which—1 to. 6—were large.

The tin box with the two pills was handed to the police

inspector by Mr. Bedbrook, and a decanter of sherry from the

sitting-room, and the remainder of the sugar from the matron.

The evidence of _Inspector Fuller_, and other policemen, proved

that after being transferred from various hands, these things

were handed to the analyst, the Judge remarking on the want of

care in transmitting such important pieces of evidence, most

unnecessarily, through so many hands.

[213] The assistant at _Messrs. Bell & Co.’s_ stated the price

of atropia to a medical man as 4_d._ per grain—hence the

remark of Mr. Montagu Williams on the entry of “8_d._” “C.” in

the cash book of that day. The assistants at Messrs. Allen’s

altered their minds, on consultation together, within three

hours after they had told the police that it was atropia they

had sold to the prisoner.

[214] The fact of this poison having been sold by Allen &

Hanbury’s assistant to the prisoner, on the faith of finding

his name in the _Medical Directory_, was severely commented

on by the Judge. No doubt by 31 Vict. cap. 121, sec. 17,

Schedule A. Amendment Act, 32 & 33 Vict. cap. 117, sec. 3, it

is not required, in the case of a medical man, that the name

of the purchaser, the name and quantity of poison sold, and

the purpose for which it is to be used, should be entered, and

the signature of the purchaser is not required. The following

questions and answers call for publication:—

_The Judge._—“Suppose I applied and gave a name out of the

Medical Directory, and asked for two grains of aconitia, would

you sell it me?”

_Answer._—“If I were satisfied at the time you were a medical

man I should let you have it.”

_The Judge._—“Then anybody of respectable appearance and well

dressed might apply? and is there anything by which you can

satisfy yourself that the applicant is not an impostor and

telling you that which is not true?”

_Answer._—“The only thing would be the style of writing—whether

it was in the style characteristic of medical men.”

_The Judge._—“That hardly seems satisfactory.”

_Mr. Poland._—“The Act does not require registration in the

case of sale to a medical man.”

_The Judge._—“It strikes me that anyone could go, if he had

sufficient knowledge to write in the technical style of medical

men, and get poison without difficulty; and though the matter

is not before us in this case, it may be that the law requires

amendment in this particular.”

The jury also appended to their verdict a presentment urging

greater restrictions on the sale of poisons, with which the

Judge thoroughly agreed, and undertook to forward it to the

Home Secretary. During the present Session of Parliament

the Government have announced that a “New Poisons Act” is

preparing, and that it will deal with patent medicines. It is

imperatively required.

[215] Entries in the Register of the New York Bloomingdale

Asylum.

[216] Affidavit of Dr. G. H. Boyland, of Baltimore, U.S.,

a fellow student, and Dr. John Swinborne, of Albany, N.Y.,

Surgeon-in-Chief of the American Ambulance.

[217] Affidavits of Dr. Charles H. Von Klein, of Hamilton,

County Butler, U.S., Surgeon in the Russian army, and Dr. F.

P. Carey, of Auburn, N.Y., fellow surgeons with Lamson at

Bucharest.

[218] Statutory declarations of about thirty persons—friends,

servants, and such as occasionally came in contact with him

during his residence at Bournemouth.

[219] Ernest Juch, of 1, New Broad Street, journalist, and

formerly a medical practitioner, who met Lamson in New York,

August, 1881, and saw him daily for two months.

[220] Mrs. McElroy, when, with Lamson’s consent, taking

charge of his medicines, found among other things an unmarked

box of “sugar pills,” which Lamson said were either morphia

or quinine, he did not know which. On this evidence the

following remark is made on the accused’s behalf:—“After he

(Lamson) left, and when John was taken ill, several pills were

discovered on the table, which were not noticed while Lamson

was there. It is believed that as John was suffering from

indigestion (he had dined at one, and portions of his dinner

were vomited undigested at nine) he determined to take a pill,

and try with it one of the capsules just given him. John’s

symptoms of poisoning did not begin till about three-quarters

of an hour (_really twenty-five minutes_, see p. 520) after

Lamson left, and he lived for about four hours after, whereas

if he had taken the poison in the capsule, while Lamson was

there, it is almost certain that the symptoms would have set in

much earlier, especially considering the enormous quantity of

poison said to have been taken. He then, unhappily, selected

one containing aconitia. From the foregoing evidence of the

way in which Lamson used and prescribed aconitia, taken with

what Mrs. McElroy says of his ignorance as to what his own

medicaments contained, it might well be that he ignorantly or

insanely mixed these pills, and sent them to Percy John without

any murderous intent.”

[221] A sample of “English aconitine,” recently obtained

from Morson’s, was amorphous, slightly coloured, and gave

a red-brown colour, with all acids, even acetic; yet its

physiological action was perfect.

[222] In “Unbeaten Tracks in Japan” (Isabella L. Bird, 1880),

it is stated that the Ainos, an interesting race inhabiting a

part of that country, poison their arrow-heads with a paste

prepared from the root of a species of aconite, Aconitum

Japonicum.

[223] A servant girl was recently poisoned in New York by

repeatedly rubbing tincture of aconite on the gums to relieve

pain. She died in three days. (British Medical Journal, Aug.

26, 1882.)

[224] Woodman and Tidy, p. 393, wrongly give this as “one ounce

of the tincture.”

[225] The case of Reg. _v._ McConkey, already referred to

(_ante_, p. 515), furnishes us with an instance of aconite root

being administered with criminal intent, and with fatal result.

In Aug., 1882, four boys and a girl suffered severely from

chewing dried aconite root, which they had found in the street.

The symptoms, tingling and numbness, abdominal pain, nausea,

vomiting, giddiness, muscular weakness, pains in the legs,

and coldness of the feet, set in very rapidly, the greatest

delay being a quarter of an hour. There was no dyspnœa, and

the pupils in all were _widely dilated_. The treatment adopted

was the administration of emetics (sulphate of zinc and vin.

ipecac.), coffee and brandy, and castor oil. Recovery in two to

seven days. Quantity taken, “a very small piece.” (Brit. Med.

Journal, 1882, p. 1039.)

[226] An illustration of the dangerous character of these

preparations, and of the serious results which may ensue from

the mistake of a person ignorant of medicine, is afforded

by the following case, reported in the _Medical Times and

Gazette_, of January 22, 1853. An inquest was held on January

15th, 1853, to inquire into the death of Emma Forty, an

inmate of the Roman Catholic Convent of the Good Shepherd at

Arnosvale, near Bristol. The deceased suffered from tapeworm,

for which the medical attendant of the convent had prescribed

a decoction of pomegranate bark and quinine. According to the

general custom at the convent, the medicine was prepared by

Miss Ryder, the sister-attendant, who unfortunately took a

wrong bottle from the dispensary, and gave, instead of the

decoction, _a drachm of Fleming’s Tincture of Aconite_. This

mixture was given to the deceased on the Monday preceding the

inquest (Jan. 10th); and death occurred in about five hours

after the draught had been swallowed. After some remarks by

the Coroner as to the imminent danger of unskilled persons

being allowed to dispense drugs, the jury returned a verdict

that death was occasioned by the administration of aconite

by Miss Ryder, and expressed the opinion that much blame was

attributable to the authorities of the convent for allowing

persons, without the necessary knowledge, to dispense

medicines: they hoped that in future such a practice would be

discontinued.

[227] A report of the inquest is to be found in the

Pharmaceutical Journal, 1872, p. 618. The deceased was the

Hon. Gowran Charles Vernon, Recorder of Lincoln, and second

son of Lord Lyvedon. According to the evidence of a brother of

Mr. Vernon, the latter had for some time past complained of

pains in his head, and had been in the habit of using neuraline

with the object of relieving these pains. On returning to his

residence, after a walk with his wife, the deceased was seized

with a fit, and shortly afterwards died. The doctors considered

that he was suffering from neuralgia and epileptic fits.

Mr. G. Harley, M.D., M.R.C.S., stated that he had analysed

neuraline, and found it to be an extract of aconite, mixed

with rose-water; it also contained chloroform. The Coroner

(Dr. Lankester) said there was no doubt that the deceased had

expired from natural causes, and that he had been seized with a

fit of convulsions, from the effects of which he died.