The determination of the College concerning the Questions proposed to
them by the King’s Majestie about the death of _Joseph Lane_.
The College of Physicians in London being lawfully assembled by the
command of their Sovereign Lord the King, about certain questions
proposed concerning the death of _Joseph Lane_, reported to be killed by
poison, and having made a diligent search, and well considering all
circumstances relating; 1. As to the state of the body of the foresaid
Lane; 2. As to the disease which (by a long series of violent symptoms)
brought him to his end; 3. As to the kind and appearance of his death;
4. As to the observations made upon his dead body by the Physicians and
Chirurgeons present; 5. As to the conjectures taken from the strict
examination of a _bolus_ extremely suspicious, whose parts were
artificially separated, found in Mr. _Lane_’s house when dead, and after
brought into Court before the Judges, and from thence to the Physicians
at their College: To whom (by the command and in the name of the King)
Letters were wrote from the Right honourable Sir John Cooke principal
Secretary of State that they might diligently enquire and give a
faithful account to the following Questions, 1 Concerning Lane’s death,
whether it was procured from Poison? 2 Their opinion about a purging
potion carried the 4th of April, 1632 from Mr. _Mathews_ an Apothecary’s
shop to _Lane’s_ House; and taken by Lane the 6th, whether it had any
thing of poison in it? The College after very mature deliberation, did
humbly present the following Decree to his sacred Majesty as a testimony
of their obedience.
1 That the said _Joseph Lane_ did certainly dye of a violent death. 2
That he had taken poison, and that corrosive. 3 That they could
determine nothing concerning the Potion sent and given by Mr. _Mathews_
the Apothecary to Mr. _Lane_ without the advice of any Physician,
because many of their Medicines were too negligently prepared by their
Servants; But if this potion did only consist of those ingredients which
he had given an account of, and for which we have solely his word, then
there was nothing of poison contained therein. 4. In the remainder of
the aforesaid _Bolus_ there was found Mercury Sublimate, not sweet, but
the most harsh and highly caustick, which was separated from the rest of
the _Bolus_ and shown to the whole College; In testimony whereof the
College by the unanimous Consent of the President and Fellows and all
present at this consultation, signed this Decree with their own hands,
and sealed it with the College Seal, that it might appear more
authentick.
And because that from the beginning of the world to this very day good
and wholesome Laws have derived their original from evil manners, the
whole College of Physicians doe most humbly beseach your most sacred
Majesty that as the Father of your Country, you would consult the health
and welfare both of your City Subjects and would by your Royal
Proclamation strictly command that for the future, No Grocer, Drugster,
Apothecary, Chymist, or any other person presume to sell Arsenick,
Quicksilver, Sublimate, Precipitate, Opium, Coloquintida, Scammony,
Hellebore, or other Druggs either poisonous or dangerous, to poor sorry
Women or poor people (which hath been too common) but only to those who
are willing to give their names; that if there should be occasion they
may give an account of the reason of their buying these dangerous
medicines.
May it likewise please your Majesty to issue out your Royal Edict under
the most severe penalties, that no Apothecary for the future shall dare
to compound for the Well, or administer to the Sick any medicines,
especially Vomits, Purges, Opiates, Mercurial or Antimonial remedies
without the prescription of Physicians then living; which prescription
they shall be bound to produce upon the command or request of the
Censors of the College. He that shall act contrary, shall be punished by
the Law as a publick enemy to the life of man. Dated from the College of
Physicians in London the Last day of May 1632 And subscribed
Dr. ARGENT President
(and seventeen others)
(_See Goodall’s Proceedings_)
Case of Standsfield.
Edinburgh Dec^r 1. 1687.
We under Subscribers, James Craufurd and James Muirhead, Chirurgeons in
Edinburgh, having order from Sir John Dalrymple his Majesty’s Advocate,
to go to Morum and there to take up the Corps of Sir James Standsfield,
and to sight and view the same exactly, and if need were, to open up the
body, and to consider whether there appeared any evidence of wounds,
bruises, or strangling upon the Corps, besides what might have happened
by his falling or drowning in the water, &c. In obedience thereto, we
caused take up the said corps in the presence of “(here follow the
names)” indwellers in New Milns, and some others. Having with all
possible exactness viewed the corps we observed the face a little
swelled, and inclining to a dark reddish colour, some fulness of some
capillarie veins in the pallet of the mouth towards the uvula, as also a
large and conspicuous swelling, about three inches broad, of a dark red
or blue colour, from one side of the larinx round backwards to the other
side thereof; we observed the jugular veins on both sides the neck very
large and distended and full of blood; there was a large swelling under
and betwixt the chin and the cartilago scutiformis; there was also a
little scratch below the left mandibula, which had rankled the cuticula,
and made some little impression on the cutis: Having made incission from
the chin down about the larinx, and cross upon the swelling of the neck,
we found a greater laxness and distance (as we think) than ordinary
betwixt the cartilago scutiformis and os hyoides; we found the tumour on
the neck, containing bruised, like dark or blackish blood; the jugulars,
when cut, bled inconsiderably especially that on the left side.
Having opened his breast we found the lungs distended to the filling up
their capacities, but free of water: his stomach, liver &c. were all in
good condition; we found no water at all; the breast, belly, privy
parts, &c. were all well coloured, there was no swelling in his belly,
nor any thing by ordinary to be seen on his head. This we attest and
subscribe with our hands.
James Craufurd
James Murehead
Report of the Chirurgeons of Edinburgh on the same case.
We under subscribers, Chirurgeons of Edinburgh, having fully considered
the report made by James Craufurd and James Murehead concerning the
condition of the corps of Sir James Standsfield, and though it be not
usual to declare more than matter of fact, yet in obedience to your
Lordships commands, where ye desire to be informed, if these symptoms
found upon the body, do import drowning or strangling; we humbly offer
opinion, so far as our art or experience will allow. And whereas the
report informs us, that there was found a swelling and preternatural
redness in the face, a large conspicuous tumour, about three inches
broad, of a dark red, or black colour, from the one side of the larynx
round backwards to the other side thereof, a large swelling betwixt the
chin and the cartilago scutiformis, the jugular veins on both sides very
much distended; and when incision was made downwards between the os
hyoid and larinx was observed a laxness, and distance between the os
hyoid and the cartilago scutiformis, incision was made cross alongst the
tumour it was found full of bruised blood; the jugulars likewise, when
opened, yielded a considerable quantity of blood, especially on the left
side, no smell or corruption appearing in any part of the body. It is
very probable these parts have suffered some external violence, which
hath made them appear so far different from their natural figure and
colour, and could not be caused by drowning simply. As to the other part
of the report, the breast and belly being opened, the lungs found
distended, the bronchi full of air, without any water, nor any water
found in the stomach or intestines, a body when drowned being generally
found to have much water in it with other circumstances of the report
considered, gives just ground to think he was not drowned. This we
subscribe at Edinburgh the 3d day of Feb^y 1687
John Ballie, Deacon,
Wil Borthwick
George Stirling
Thomas Edgar
James Craufurd
James Murehead
The Report of the College of Physicians,
Edinburgh February 6: 1687
The College of Physicians being assembled at the desire of his Majesty’s
Advocat, to consider a report made by some Chirurgeons, concerning the
body of the late Sir James Standsfield, and to give their opinion,
whether by the said report, there is any just ground to believe that the
said Sir James Standsfield was strangled or drowned? And they have
accordingly considered the said report. They are of opinion, supposing
the verity of the said report or declaration that there is sufficient
ground to believe, that the said Sir James Standsfield was strangled,
and not drowned. In testimony whereof these presents are subscribed by
Sir Andrew Balfour, President of the said College.
A. Balfour PCRM
(_From Howell’s State Trials_).
Extract from Medical Evidence in the Case of _Spencer Cowper_, Esq. for
the murder of _Sarah Stout_.
(13 Howell’s State Trials)
Page 1126. Mr. _Coatsworth_ a Surgeon sworn
My Lord in April last I was sent for by Dr. _Philips_ to come to
Hertford to see the body of Mrs. _Stout_ opened, who had been six weeks
buried; and he told me that there was a suspicion she was murdered, and
that her relations were willing to have her taken up and opened. I came
down I think on the 27th of April, and lay at Mrs. _Stout_’s house that
night; and by her discourse I understood she wanted to be satisfied,
whether her daughter was with child? I told her, it was my opinion we
should find the parts contained in the abdomen so rotten, that it would
be impossible to discover the uterus from the other parts; however, if
she would have her opened, I could not discover whether she was with
child, unless the infant was become bony. Her face and neck, to her
shoulders, appeared black, and so much corrupted that we were unwilling
to proceed any further: but, however, her mother would have it done, and
so we did open her; and as soon as she was opened, we perceived the
stomach and guts were as full of wind as if they had been blown with a
pair of bellows; we put her guts aside, and came to the uterus, and Dr.
_Philips_ shewed it us in his hand, and afterwards cut it out and laid
it on the table, and opened it, and we saw into the cavity of it, and if
there had been any thing there as minute as a hair, we might have seen
it, but it was perfectly free and empty; after that we put the
intestines into their places; and we bid him open the stomach, and it
was opened with an incision knife, and it sunk flat, and let out wind,
but no water; afterwards we opened the breast and lobes of the lungs,
and there was no water; then we looked on each side and took up the
lobes of the lungs too, to see if there was no water in the diaphragm,
and there was none, but all dry. Then I remember I said, this woman
could not be drowned, for if she had taken in water, the water must have
rotted all the guts: that was the construction I made of it then; but
for any marks about her head and neck, it was impossible for us to
discover it, because they were so rotten.
_Edward Clement_ (a seaman) sworn. In the year 89 or 90, in Beachy
fight, I saw several thrown over-board during the engagement, but one
particularly I took notice of, that was my friend, and killed by my
side; I saw him swim for a considerable distance from the ship; and a
ship coming under our stern, caused me to lose sight of him, but I saw
several dead bodies floating at the same time; likewise in another
engagement, where a man had both his legs shot off, and died instantly,
they threw over his legs; though they sunk I saw his body float:
likewise I have seen several men who have died natural deaths at sea,
they have when they have been dead, had a considerable weight of ballast
and shot made fast to them, and so were thrown overboard; because we
hold it for a general rule, that all men swim if they be dead before
they come into the water; and on the contrary, I have seen men when they
have been drowned, that they have sunk as soon as their breath was out
of their bodies, and I could see no more of them. For instance, a man
fell out of the Cornwall, and sunk down to rights, and seven days
afterwards we weighed anchor, and he was brought up grasping his arm
about the cable: and we have observed in several cases, that where men
fall overboard, as soon as their breath is out of their bodies they sink
downright; and on the contrary, where a dead body is thrown over-board
without weight, it will swim. * * * Men (that are killed) float with
their heads just down, and the small of their backs and buttocks
upwards, * * * why should government be at that vast charge to allow
threescore or fourscore weight of iron to sink any man, but only that
their swimming about should not be a discouragement to others.
_Robert Dew_ sworn—* * * (Question by the Prisoner) After she was taken
out, did you observe any froth or foam come from her mouth or nose?
_Dew_—There was a white froth came from her, and as they wiped it away,
it was on again presently.
—— _Young_—(another witness to a similar question)—* * And when they had
taken her up (out of the water) they laid her down upon a green place,
and after she was laid down a great quantity of froth, like the froth of
new beer, worked out of her nostrils. * * * It rose up in bladders, and
ran down on the sides of her face, and so rose again.
Dr. _Sloane_ sworn—* * As to my opinion of drowning it is plain, that if
a great quantity of water be swallowed into the stomach by the gullet,
it will not suffocate or drown the person: Drunkards who swallow a great
deal of liquor, and those who are forced by the civil law to drink a
great quantity of water, which in giving the question (as it is called)
is poured into them by way of torture to make them confess crimes, have
no suffocation or drowning happen to them: But on the other hand, when
any quantity comes into the wind-pipe, so as it does hinder or intercept
inspiration, or coming in of the air, which is necessary for inspiration
or breathing, the person is suffocated. Such a small quantity will do,
as sometimes in prescriptions, when people have been very weak, or
forced to take medicines, I have observed some spoonfuls in that
condition (if it went the wrong way) to have choaked or suffocated the
person. I take drowning in a great measure to be thus, and when one
struggles he may, to save himself from being choaked, swallow some
quantity of water, yet that is not the cause of his death, but that
which goes into the wind-pipe and lungs. Whether a person comes dead or
alive into the water, I believe some quantity will go into the
wind-pipe; and I believe without force after death, little will get into
the stomach, because that it should, swallowing is necessary, which
after death cannot be done. * * *
Baron _Hatsell_. But what do you say to this? if there had been water in
the body, would it not have putrified the parts after it had lain six
weeks.
Dr. _Sloane_. My Lord, I am apt to think it would have putrified the
stomach less than the lungs, because the stomach is a part of the body
that is contrived by nature partly to receive liquids; but the
contrivance of the lungs is only for the receiving of air; they being of
a spongy nature, the water might sink more into them than the stomach;
but I believe it might putrify there too after some time. I am apt to
think, that when a body is buried under ground, according to the depth
of the grave, and difference of the weather and soil, the fermentation
may be greater or lesser, and that according to the several kinds of
meats or liquids in the stomach, the putrifaction will likewise vary so
that it seems to me to be very uncertain.
Baron _Hatsell_. But when they are in a coffin, how is it then?
Dr. _Sloane_. No doubt there will be a fermentation more or less,
according as the air comes more or less to the body. Indeed it may be
otherwise where the air is wholly shut out, which is supposed to be the
way of embalming, or preserving of dead bodies of late, without the use
of any spices, which is thought in a great measure to be brought about
by the closeness of the coffin, and hindering of the air from coming
into the body.
Question (by the Prisoner). Is it possible, in your judgment, for any
water to pass into the thorax?
Dr. _Sloane_. I believe it is hardly possible, that any should go from
the wind-pipe into the cavity of the thorax, without great violence and
force; for there is a membrane that covers the outside of the lungs,
that will hinder the water from passing through it into any part without
them.
Dr. _Garth_ sworn.—* * * All dead bodies (I believe) fall to the bottom,
unless they be prevented by some extraordinary tumour. * * * I believe
when she threw _herself_ in, she might not struggle to save herself, and
by consequence not sup up much water. Now there is no direct passage
into the stomach but by the gullet, which is contracted or pursed up by
a muscle in nature of a sphincter: for if this passage was always open
like that of the wind-pipe, the weight of the air would force itself
into the stomach, and we should be sensible of the greatest
inconveniences. * * * My Lord, I think we have reason to suspect the
Seaman’s evidence; for he saith that threescore pound of iron is allowed
to sink dead bodies, whereas six or seven pounds would do as well; * *
the design of tying weights to their bodies, is to prevent their
floating at all, which otherwise would happen in some few days.[182]
Dr. _Morley_, the next witness, related some experiments on animals.
Dr. _Wollaston_, sworn.—* * I saw two men that were drowned out of the
same boat. They were taken up the next day after they were drowned; one
of them was indeed prodigiously swelled, so much that his clothes were
burst in several places of his sides and arms, and his stockings in the
seams * * the other was not the least swelled in any part nor
discolored; he was as lank, I believe, as ever he was in his lifetime,
and there was not the least sign of any water in him, except the watery
froth at his mouth and nostrils.[183]
Mr. _W. Cooper_, sworn.—* * Dead bodies necessarily sink in water, if no
distention of their parts buoy them up; this distention sometimes
happens before death, at other times soon after, and in bodies that are
drowned after they lie under water.
Dr. _Crell_, sworn.—My Lord, it must be reading, as well as a man’s own
experience, that will make any one a Physician: for without the reading
of books in that art, the art itself cannot be attained to: besides, my
Lord, I humbly conceive, that in such a difficult case as this, we ought
to have a great deference for the reports and opinions of learned men:
neither do I see any reason why I should not quote the fathers of my
profession in this case, as well as you gentlemen of the long robe quote
_Coke_ upon _Littleton_ in others. * * I shall only insist on what
_Ambrose Pare_ relates in his Chapter of Renunciations. * *
Mr. _Harriot_ (a Naval Surgeon) sworn.—* * When we threw men overboard
that were killed, some of them swam and some sunk * * (when a dead body
is thrown overboard) I always observed that it did sink. * *
Mr. _Bartlet_ (a Naval Surgeon), sworn.—* * I never saw any bodies
float, either of the men that were killed in our ship, or in the ships
that have been near us; I have not seen a body on the surface of the
water.
--------------
We have merely made comparatively short extracts from this trial, as
more copious quotations, both of the evidence, and pamphlets
subsequently published, would have occupied too great a space. The whole
will be found in _Howell’s State Trials_, and is well worthy of the
attention of the Medical or Legal reader.
-------
Extracts from the Evidence of Doctor Anthony Addington, on the trial of
_Mary Blandy_ at Oxford 1752, for the Murder of her Father by Arsenic.
Dr. Anthony Addington & Dr. William Lewis sworn.
_Counsel._ Did you, Dr. Addington, attend Mr. Blandy in his last
illness?
_Dr. Addington._ Yes, Sir.
_C._ When was you called to him the first time?
_Dr. A._ On Saturday evening August the 10th.
_C._ In what condition did you find him?
_Dr. A._ He was in bed; and told me, that after drinking some gruel on
Monday night, August the 5th, he had perceived an extraordinary
grittiness in his mouth, attended with a very painful burning and
pricking in his tongue, throat, stomach, and bowels, and with sickness
and gripings; which symptoms had been relieved by fits of vomiting and
purging.
_C._ Were those fits owing to any physic he had taken or to the gruel?
_Dr. A._ Not to any physic; they came on very soon after taking the
gruel.
_C._ Had he taken no physic that day?
_Dr. A._ No.
_C._ Did he make any further complaints?
_Dr. A._ He said, that, after drinking more gruel on Tuesday night
August the 6th, he had felt the grittiness in his Mouth again, and that
the burning and pricking in his tongue, throat, stomach and bowels, had
returned with double violence and had been aggravated by a prodigious
swelling of the belly, and exquisite pains and prickings in every
external as well as internal part of his body, which prickings he
compared to an infinite number of needles darting into him all at once.
_C._ How soon after drinking the gruel?
_Dr. A._ Almost immediately. He told me likewise, that at the same time,
he had had cold sweats, hiccup, extreme restlessness and anxiety; but
that then, viz. on Saturday night August the 10th, having had a great
many stools, and some bloody ones, he was pretty easy every where,
except in his mouth, lips, nose, eyes, and fundament; and except some
transient gripings in his bowels. I asked him, to what he imputed those
uneasy sensations in his mouth, lips, nose, and eyes? he said to the
fumes of something he had taken in his gruel on Monday night August the
5th, and Tuesday night August the 6th.
On inspection, I found his tongue swelled and his throat slightly
inflamed and excoriated. His lips especially the upper one were dry and
rough, and had angry pimples on them. The inside of his nostrils was in
the same condition. His eyes were a little blood-shot. Besides these
appearances, I observed that he had a low, trembling, intermitting
pulse; a difficult unequal respiration; a yellowish complexion; a
difficulty in the utterance of his words; and an inability of swallowing
even a tea-spoonful of the thinnest liquor at a time.
As I suspected that these appearances and symptoms were the effect of
poison, I asked Miss Blandy whether Mr. Blandy had lately given offence
to either of his servants or clients or any other person? She answered
_That he was at Peace with all the World, and that all the World was at
Peace with him_. I then asked her whether he had ever been subject to
complaints of this kind before? She said, that he had often been subject
to the cholic and heart-burn; and that she supposed this was only a fit
of that sort, and would soon go off as usual. I told Mr. Blandy that I
asked these questions because I suspected that by some means or other he
had taken poison. He replied, _It might be so_, or in words to that
effect: but Miss Blandy said _It was impossible_.
On Saturday morning August the 10th, he seemed much relieved; his pulse,
breath, complexion, and power of swallowing, were greatly mended. He had
had several stools in the night and no blood in them. The complaints
which he had made of his mouth, lips, nose, and eyes were lessened; but
he said the pain in his fundament continued and that he still felt some
pinchings in his bowels. On viewing his fundament I found it almost
surrounded with gleety Excoriations and Ulcers.
About eight o’clock this Morning I took my leave of him, but before I
quitted the room, Miss Blandy desired I would visit him again the next
day.
When I got down stairs, one of the maids put a paper into my hands,
which she said Miss Blandy had thrown into the kitchen fire, several
holes were burnt in the paper but not a letter of the superscription was
effaced. The Superscription was, _The Powder to clean the Pebbles with_.
_C._ What is the maid’s name that gave you that paper?
_Dr. A._ I cannot recollect which of the maids it was that gave it to
me. I opened the paper very carefully, and found in it a whitish powder,
like white arsenic in taste, but slightly discoloured by a little burnt
paper mixed with it. I cannot swear this powder was arsenic or any other
poison, because the quantity was too small to make any experiment with,
that could be depended on.
_C._ What do you really suspect it to be?
_Dr. A._ I really suspect it to be white arsenic.
_C._ Please to proceed Sir.
_Dr. A._ As soon as the maid had left me, Mr. Norton the Apothecary
produced a powder, that, he said had been found at the bottom of that
mess of gruel, which, as was supposed had poisoned Mr. Blandy. He gave
me some of that powder, and I examined it at my leisure, and believe it
to be white arsenic.
On Monday morning August the 12th I found Mr. Blandy much worse than I
had left him the day before, his bowels were still in pain.
I now desired that another Physician might be called in, as I
apprehended Mr. Blandy to be in the utmost danger, and that this affair
might come before a Court of Judicature. Dr. Lewis was then sent for
from Oxford. I staid with Mr. Blandy all this day. I asked him more than
once whether he really thought he had taken poison? He answered each
time, that he believed he had. I asked him whether he thought he had
taken poison often? He answered in the affirmative. His reasons for
thinking so, were, because some of his teeth had decayed much faster
than was natural; and because he had frequently for some months past,
especially after his daughter had received a present of _Scotch Pebbles_
from Mr. _Cranstoun_, been affected with very violent and unaccountable
prickings and heats in his tongue and throat, and with most intolerable
burnings, and pains in his stomach and bowels, which used to go off in
vomitings and purgings. I asked him whom he suspected to be the giver of
the poison? The tears stood in his eyes; yet he forced a smile and
said—_A poor Love-sick Girl—I forgive her—I always thought there was
mischief in those cursed Scotch Pebbles_.
Dr. Lewis came about eight o’clock in the evening. Before he came Mr.
Blandy’s complexion, pulse, breath, and faculty of Swallowing were got
much better again; but he complained more of pain in the fundament.
* * * *
_Dr. Addington._ On Tuesday morning August the 13th, we found him worse
again. His countenance, pulse, breath and power of swallowing, were
extremely bad. He was excessively weak. His hands trembled. Both they
and his face were cold and clammy. The pain was intirely gone from his
bowels, but not from his fundament. He was now and then a little
delirious. He had frequently a short cough, and a very extraordinary
elevation of his chest, in fetching his breath; on which occasions an
ulcerous matter generally issued from his fundament. Yet in his sensible
intervals, he was cheerful and jocose; He said, _He was like a Person
bit by a Mad Dog; for that he should be glad to drink, but could not
swallow_.
About noon this day his speech faultered more and more. He was sometimes
very restless, at others very sleepy. His face was quite ghastly. This
night was a terrible one.
On Wednesday morning, August the 14th, he recovered his senses for an
hour or more. He told me, he would make his will in two or three days;
but he soon grew delirious again; and sinking every moment, died about
Two o’Clock in the afternoon.
_C._ Upon the whole, did you then think, from the symptoms you have
described, and the observations you made, that Mr. Blandy died by
poison?
_Dr. A._ Indeed I did.
_C._ And it is your present opinion?
_Dr. A._ It is; and I have never had the least occasion to alter it. His
case was so particular that he had not a symptom of any consequence, but
what other persons have had, who have taken White Arsenic; and, after
death, had no appearance (_except a stone in the Gall bladder_) in his
body, but what other persons have had, who have been destroyed by white
arsenic.
_C._ When was his body opened?
_Dr. A._ On Tuesday in the afternoon, August the 15th.
_C._ What appeard on opening it?
_Dr. A._ I committed the appearances to writing, and should be glad to
read them, if the Court will give me leave.
Then the Doctor, on leave given by the Court, read as follows:
Mr. Blandy’s back and the hinder part of his arms, thighs, and legs were
livid. That fat which lay on the muscles of his belly, was of a loose
texture, inclining to a state of fluidity. The muscles of his belly were
very pale and flaccid. The cawl was yellower than is natural; and on the
side next the stomach and intestines looked brownish. The heart was
variegated with purple spots. There was no water in the pericardium. The
lungs resembled bladders half filled with air and blotted in some places
with pale but in most with black ink. The liver and spleen were much
discoloured; the former looked as if it had been boiled, but that part
of it which covered the stomach was particularly dark. A stone was found
in the gall-bladder. The bile was very fluid and of a dirty yellow
colour, inclining to red. The kidneys were all over stained with livid
spots. The stomach and bowels were inflated, and appeared, before any
incision was made into them, as if they had been pinched, and
extravasated blood had stagnated between their membranes. They contained
nothing, as far as we examined, but a slimy bloody froth. Their coats
were remarkably smooth, thin, and flabby. The wrinkles of the stomach
were totally obliterated. The internal coat of the stomach and duodenum,
especially about the orifices of the former, were prodigiously inflamed
and excoriated. The redness of the white of the eye, in a violent
inflammation of that part, or rather the white of the eye just brushed
and bleeding with the beards of barley, may serve to give some idea how
this coat had been wounded. There was no schirrus in any gland of the
abdomen; no adhesion of the lungs to the pleura; nor indeed the least
trace of a natural decay in any part whatever.
-------
(Dr. Lewis confirmed this part of the Evidence.)
-------
Dr. Addington Cross examined.
* * * *
_Prisoners Counsel._ Why do you believe it to be White Arsenic?
_Dr. A._ For the following Reasons: 1. This Powder has a milky
Whiteness; so has White Arsenic. 2. This is gritty and almost insipid;
so is White Arsenic. 3. Part of it swims on the surface of cold water
like a pale sulphureous film; but the greatest part sinks to the bottom,
and remains there undissolved; the same is true of white arsenic. 4.
This thrown on red hot iron, does not flame, but rises entirely in thick
white fumes, which have the stench of garlick; and cover cold iron held
just over them, with white flowers; white arsenic does the same. 5. I
boiled ten grains of this powder in four ounces of clean water, and
then, passing the decoction through a filtre, divided into five equal
parts, which were put into as many glasses: Into one glass I poured a
few drops of Spirit of Sal Ammoniac; into another some of the Lixivium
of Tartar; into the third some strong Spirit of Vitriol; into the fourth
some Spirit of Salt; and into the last some Syrup of Violets. The Spirit
of Sal Ammoniac threw down a few particles of pale sediment. The
Lixivium of Tartar gave a white cloud, which hung a little about the
middle of the glass. The Spirits of Vitriol and Salt made a considerable
precipitation of a lightish coloured substance; which in the former,
hardened into glittering chrystals, sticking to the sides and bottom of
the glass. Syrup of Violets produced a beautiful pale green tincture.
Having washed the saucepan, funnel, and glasses, used in the foregoing
experiments, very clean, and provided a fresh filtre, I boiled ten
grains of white arsenic bought of Mr. Wilcock, Druggist in Reading, in
four ounces of clean water; and filtering it and dividing it into five
equal parts, proceeded with them just as I had done with the former
decoction. There was an exact similitude between the experiments made on
the two decoctions. They corresponded so nicely on each trial, that I
declare I never saw any two things in Nature more alike, than the
decoction made with the powder found in Mr. Blandy’s gruel, and that
made with white arsenic. From the experiments, and others, which I am
ready to produce, if desired, I believe that powder to be White Arsenic.
* * * *
She had put a little of it into his cup of tea; but that he never drank
it; that part of the powder swimming at top of the tea, and part sinking
at the bottom, she had poured it out of the window.
See Hargrave’s State Trials. Vol. 10.
Extracts from the Evidence delivered on the Trial of _John Donellan_,
Esq. for the Wilful Murder, by Poison, of Sir _Theodosius Edward
Allesley Boughton_, Bart. at the Assizes at Warwick, on Friday, March
30th, 1781.
(_Taken in Short-hand by J. Gurney._)
-------
EVIDENCE FOR THE CROWN.
_Lady Anna Maria Boughton_, Mother of the deceased, Sworn—Examined by
Mr. Howorth.
Q. Give the Jury an account of the physic you gave him, and the manner
of its operation.
A. I asked him where the bottle was: he said it stood there upon the
shelf. First of all he desired me to get him a bit of cheese in order to
take the taste out of his mouth, which I did: he desired me to read the
lable; I accordingly did, and found there was written upon it, _Purging
draught for Sir Theodosius Boughton_.
Q. When you gave him the draught, did he make any, and what observations
upon it?
A. As I was talking to him I omitted shaking the bottle: he, observing
that, said, Pour it back again, and shake the bottle, and in so doing I
spilt part of it upon the table; the rest I gave him. As he was taking
it, he observed it smelt and tasted very nauseous; upon which I said, I
think it smells very strongly like bitter almonds. I gave him the
cheese; he chewed it, and spit it out. He then remarked that he thought
he should not be able to keep the medicine upon his stomach. I asked him
if he would have some water; I gave him some. He washed his mouth, and
spit that out, and then laid down.
Q. Please to open that bottle, [giving Lady Boughton the genuine
draught] and smell at it, and inform the Court whether that smells at
all like the medicine Sir Theodosius took.
A. No, it does not.
Q. Please to smell to this, [giving Lady Boughton the draught with the
laurel water added to it.]
A. This has a smell very like the smell of the medicine which I gave
him.
Q. What was the first observation your Ladyship made of any appearances
upon Sir Theodosius after taking the medicine?
A. In two minutes, or two minutes and a half, after he had taken it, he
struggled very much; it appeared to me, as if it was to keep it down;
and made a prodigious rattling in his stomach, and guggling; and he
appeared to me to make very great efforts to keep it down.
_Court._ How did he make a rattling?
A. A noise in his stomach as if it would come up again.
Q. How long did you observe these symptoms continue?
A. About ten minutes; he then seemed as if he was going to sleep, or
inclined to dose. Perceiving him a little composed, I went out of the
room. I returned in about five minutes after into his room; then, to my
great surprise, I found him with his eyes fixed upwards, his teeth
clenched, and froth running out of each corner of his mouth.
Q. What did you do upon that?
A. I ran down stairs, and told the servant to take the first horse he
could get, and go immediately for Mr. Powell, the Apothecary.
Q. Was any other person sent for?
A. No.
Q. When did you first see Mr. Donellan after that?
A. I saw him in less than five minutes; he came up to the bed chamber
where my son was, and asked me, What do you want? I said I wanted to
inform him what a terrible thing had happened; that it was an
unaccountable thing in the doctor to send such a medicine, for if it had
been taken by a dog, it would have killed him; and I did not think my
son would live. He asked in what manner Sir Theodosius was taken; and I
told him. Then he asked me where the physic bottle was? I shewed him the
two draughts. He took up one of the bottles and said, Is this it? Yes,
said I. He took it up, poured some water out of the water bottle, which
was just by, into the phial, shook it, and then emptied it out into some
dirty water which was in a wash-hand bason.
Q. Did you make any observation upon that conduct?
A. After he had thrown the contents of the first bottle into the
wash-hand bason of dirty water, I observed that he ought not to do that:
I said, What are you at? you should not meddle with the bottle. Upon
that he snatched up the other bottle, and poured water into it, and
shook it; then he put his finger to it, and tasted it. I said, What are
you about? you ought not to meddle with the bottles. Upon which he said,
I did it to taste it.
Q. Had he tasted the first bottle?
A. No.
_Catharine Amos_ sworn. Examined by Mr. Geast.
Q. Did you live at Lawford-hall at the time of the death of Sir
Theodosius Boughton?
A. Yes.
Q. In what capacity?
A. I was cook.
Q. Was you sent for by Lady Boughton?
A. I was sent for to my lady, by the other maid, Sarah Blundell, who is
dead. I was called up stairs into that room where Sir Theodosius lay.
Q. When you came into the room in what situation was Sir Theodosius
Boughton?
A. He did not stir hand or foot, but frothed at his mouth. I wiped the
froth four or five times from his mouth.
Q. Was the body motionless?
A. The stomach heaved very much.
Q. Was there any noise?
A. He guggled at the throat.
Q. Give an account of any other circumstances that you observed?
A. I did not observe any thing more.
Q. Where did you go to from thence?
A. I went below stairs about my work. My work lay below stairs.
Q. How long afterwards was it before you saw Mr. Donellan?
A. It might be about a quarter of an hour. I saw him in the passage. Mr.
Donellan said, Sir Theodosius was out very late over night a fishing,
that it was very silly of him, as he had been taking such physick as he
had been taking of, before time.
Q. That is before that time?
A. Yes.
Q. Did he give any reason why he had been out so late a fishing?
A. No.
Q. Did he say any thing more at that time?
A. Not to the best of my knowledge.
Q. Did you see Mr. Donellan the day that the body was opened?
A. Yes.
Q. What did Mr. Donellan say at that time?
A. He said there was nothing the matter, that it was a blood-vessel had
broke which had occasioned Sir Theodosius’s death.
Q. Did Mr. Donellan bring any thing to you at or about the time of Sir
Theodosius’s death?
A. No.
Q. At any time before his death?
A. No, nothing at all.
Q. Did he never bring you any thing for any purpose?
A. No.
Q. Was any thing brought to you by Mr. Donellan within a fortnight or
three weeks before the death of Sir Theodosius Boughton?
A. No.
_Counsel for the Prisoner to Lady Boughton._ Did Sir Theodosius Boughton
speak at all after he had taken the medicine?
_Lady Boughton._ Not at all.
_Mr. Geast to Catharine Amos._ You said you was cook maid?
A. Yes.
Q. Was the oven under your direction?
A. Yes.
Q. Was any thing brought to you at any time?
A. Yes, a still.
Q. Who brought it?
A. Mr. Donellan.
Q. When was it?
A. Sometime after Sir Theodosius’s death.
Q. How long after?
A. To the best of my remembrance it might be a fortnight.
Q. What was there in it?
A. Nothing. It had been washed. He desired me to put it into the oven to
dry it, that it might not rust; I said if I put it in then it would
unsolder it, as it was made of tin.
_Dr. Rattray_ sworn. Examined by Mr. Balguy.
Q. You are, I believe, a Physician at Coventry?
A. I am.
* * * * * * * *
Q. How soon after this was it that you was again sent for upon this
melancholy occasion?
A. On the 9th of September; I think it was on a Saturday.
Q. Who did you receive a message from at that time?
A. I really do not know; I received a message by some strange
round-about way, in consequence of which I went, but I don’t know who
sent it. Mr. Wilmer and I went in company; we met Mr. Bucknill, Mr.
Powell, of Rugby, and Mr. Snow, of Southam; those were all the physical
people I believe. Mr. Bucknill opened the body.
Q. Where did you meet at that time?
A. In the church-yard at Newbold.
Q. The body had then been interred?
A. It had been in the vault at Newbold as I understood.
Q. What passed at that time?
A. We proceeded to the opening of the body as soon as we conveniently
could, and inspected as far as we were able the appearances of the body.
Q. What were the material appearances that struck you at that time?
A. The material appearances where, in the first place, the body appeared
upon a general view swoln or distended a good deal; the face of a round
figure extremely black, with the lips swelled and retracted and shewing
the gums; the teeth black except a small white speck on one of the fore
teeth; the tongue protruding beyond the fore teeth, and turning upwards
towards the nose; the blackness descended upon the throat, gradually
diminishing as it got towards the breast, and the body was spotted in
many parts but not very material. There was another circumstance which
for decency I have omitted, but if called upon I am ready to mention.
_Mr. Balguy._ That circumstance is not at all material. I meant to ask
you merely to such appearances as were material. Were there any
appearances upon the body sufficient to cause or confirm an opinion you
may by and by give upon the subject?
A. We proceeded to open the body, and in dissecting the skin the fat
appeared in a dissolving state a little watery; on getting into the
cavity of the belly the bowels in the lower belly seemed to put on the
appearance of inflammation. I choose to make use of the valgar term
_appearance_, in order to convey a general idea of the appearance things
in that state generally put on.
Q. Was it so with the stomach too?
A. Yes: the orifices of the stomach and the small arch of the stomach;
the heart upon opening the pericardium, the membrane which encloses it,
appeared to be in a natural state; the lungs appeared what I call
suffused with blood, looking red and spotted in many places with black
specks; and on the back part the blood had settled in a deep red colour,
almost approaching to purple; the diaphragm was in the same state, and
in general upon the depending surfaces of the body the blood was settled
in the like manner; the kidneys appeared black as tinder, and the liver
much in the same state. These I think are most of the appearances I need
mention upon the present occasion.
Q. Have you heard the evidence of Mr. Powell, the apothecary?
A. I have.
Q. And have heard too the evidence of Lady Boughton?
A. I have.
Q. Now from the evidence of Mr. Powell and the evidence of Lady
Boughton, independent of appearances, for I would have you forget them
for the present instant; what was in your judgment the occasion of Sir
Theodosius Boughton’s death?
A. Independent of the appearances of the body, I am of opinion that the
draught, in consequence of the symptoms which succeeded the swallowing
of it, as described by Lady Boughton, was poison; and the immediate
cause of his death.
Q. Please to smell upon that bottle; what in your judgment is the
noxious medicine in that bottle?
A. I know the liquid well; it is a distillation of laurel leaves,
commonly called laurel water.
Q. You have heard Mr. Powell’s account of the mixture he prepared for
Sir Theodosius Boughton; was the mixture innocent and proper?
A. In my opinion it was perfectly innocent.
Q. You have said that in your judgment laurel water is contained in this
bottle?
A. Yes.
Q. Have you made any particular experiments upon the effects of laurel
water?
A. I have several.
Q. You will please to relate the particular experiments you have made,
and the appearances in consequence of those experiments?
A. Mr. Wilmer and I made experiments together; our first experiment with
laurel water was upon a middle sized dog; I held his mouth open and
there was I believe nearly two ounces of laurel water poured down his
throat. I held the dog between my knees: in half a minute as nearly as I
can guess, he dropped dead to the ground without any motion, except a
tremulous motion once or twice of the lower jaw. The next animal on
which I tried the laurel water was likewise in company with Mr. Wilmer.
To an aged mare, we gave at repeated intervals out of an horn, I believe
about a pint and an half of laurel water In about two minutes she was
precipitated to the ground with her head under her, and then tumbled on
her back kicking violently; she afterwards lay without kicking but
seemed convulsed, her eyes rolling about, rearing up her head as if in
agonies, gulping at her stomach as if something lay there exceeding
offensive to her; and at that instant and during the whole time she
lived afterwards, heaving in the flanks in a most extraordinary manner,
and at the end of fifteen minutes she expired. After this in company
with Mr. Ewbank of Coventry, I gave to a cat about a spoonful of laurel
water which I had myself seen distilled; it was pale and limpid as pure
distilled waters, and seemed very weak. The cat though I believe she had
not half the quantity I intended she should have taken, died in three
minutes.
Q. What quantity did you pour down the cat’s throat?
A. About a spoonful, about half an ounce. At Southam, the beginning of
this week, I gave in presence of Mr. Snow, to another aged horse, about
a pint of laurel water, distilled by Mr. Snow. Upon his receiving into
his stomach the first horn full, which was a small one, no bigger than
we used in the former experiment, he dropped to the ground.
_Court._ What was the quantity that horn held?
A. I suppose three or four ounces. It was impossible to give the animal
the whole of it, full half was spilt. I conceived it to be very strong,
and desired Mr. Snow would give her no more at that time, in order to
try the strength of it. The horse dropped; he endeavoured to raise
himself up, but could rise no farther than by setting himself upon his
buttocks like a dog. I perceived he had entirely lost the use of his
hinder parts. We then gave him another horn full, which in its turn
knocked him down very soon, and at intervals we gave him several horns
full to the amount of above a pint in the whole, and at the end of
twenty-eight minutes he expired, violently convulsed, groaning, his
tongue lolling out of his mouth; and indeed the first horse’s tongue had
a very extraordinary appearance, for it darted backward and forward in
the manner of a dart, but this horse lolled his tongue out like a dog
when running. In both the horses the artery in the neck beat much, even
after the animal had ceased to breathe, except we call the motion of the
lower jaw, a kind of gasping, breathing. I saw all the bodies opened,
and in all of them there was a violent distention of the veinous system,
of the whole veins in the body, the stomach, bowels, lungs, and so on.
The veins were distended and full of blood, the lungs appeared red and
suffused. I said before that I did not use the term _inflammation_ in
any other way than to convey the vulgar idea the appearance of red
colour given to any part by blood. The lungs suffused with blood looking
very red, and in the first horse it was of the colour of a deep pink;
very different I conceive from the natural colour.
Q. You have smelled to the bottle which has the laurel water in it, do
you know any smell in medicine that corresponds in smell with that
mixture?
A. I do not know any medicine that smells like it.
Q. Does the smell described by Lady Boughton, something like bitter
almonds, convey to you an idea of that mixture?
A. It does, and I have given the laurel water to many people to smell
to, and they always described the smell to be something like bitter
almonds. I do not exactly know how they expressed themselves, but they
meant to say that.
Q. In your judgment is the quantity that one of these bottles contains
of laurel water sufficient to take away life from any human creature?
A. In my opinion it is.
Q. I have now got your opinion upon the subject, independent of any
appearances you observed upon the body of Sir Theodosius Boughton. Now
are you from these appearances confirmed, or otherwise, in the opinion
you have given?
A. Confirmed in it so far as upon viewing a body so long after the death
of the subject one can be allowed to form a judgment upon such
appearances.
_Dr. Rattray._ Cross-examined by Mr. Newnham.
Q. If I do not misunderstand you, Doctor, the last account you gave in
answer to the question, Whether you are confirmed in this opinion by the
appearance; you said Yes, so far as you might be allowed to form an
opinion viewing the body so long after the death of the subject?
A. Yes; so far as we may be allowed to form a judgment upon appearances
so long after death.
Q. By your putting it in that way, do you, or do you not mean to say
that all judgment upon such a subject, in such a case, is unfounded?
A. I cannot say that, because from the analogy between the appearances
in that body, and those distinguishable in animals killed by the poison
I have just mentioned, I think them so much alike that I am rather
confirmed in my opinion with respect to the operation of the draught.
Q. Those bodies were instantaneously opened?
A. Yes, so much so that there was the peristaltick motion of the bowels
upon their being pricked.
Q. This was upon the eleventh day after Sir Theodosius’s death?
A. Yes.
Q. What was the appearance of the body when you first went to Lawford
Hall?
A. At the first time I saw the body, what I did see of it was, the face
was in the condition I have described, with a maggot crawling over its
surface, it was black as I have described, it was quite in the same
state; in short, I saw no difference the last day, excepting that the
maggot was not upon it then.
Q. Were you or not offended by a violent stench as you approached the
dead body?
A. We were.
Q. Had not putrefaction considerably taken place?
A. I believe it had.
Q. Does not putrefaction increase very much in the space of five or six
days, in a hot summer?
A. I should think it must certainly increase.
Q. Was or not the body, in a very high state of putrefaction when you
saw it?
A. Upon the shroud being removed, the body appeared to me much fairer
than I expected; I expected to have seen it in a very black putrified
state, but the external appearance was not quite so highly so, as I
expected.
Q. You mentioned that the body was much swelled?
A. It was swelled.
Q. Appearing upon a gangrene, I suppose?
A. It rather put on the appearance of gangrene.
Q. I understand you have set your name to a description of certain
appearances that met your eye when you examined the body—I mean your
examination?
A. I have undoubtedly.
Q. Did you, or did you not, concur with Mr. Wilmer as to the appearances
of the body?
A. In general we did.
Q. You set your name to that examination?
A. I did not set my name to any thing but my own examination.
Q. Wherein the appearances are particularly described?
A. They are not particularly described, there is something said about
the stomach and bowels.
Q. For what purpose then did you attend there?
A. I did not know that it was necessary before a coroner’s jury to enter
into the particulars; I was quite a novice in the business.
Q. Do you mean a novice in the mode of dissection.
A. No, in the business before a coroner.
Q. Did the account you set your name to, contain a true description of
the appearances that met your eye upon the occasion?
A. So far as they went it did.
Q. Did you ever hear or know of any poison whatever occasioning any
immediate external appearances on the human body?
A. No, no immediate external appearances in the case of vegetable
poisons, except what I have heard, but they have not fallen under my own
knowledge.
Q. So far for the external appearance. Now I shall be glad to know
whether all the appearances you speak of in the face, the protuberance
of the tongue, and the lips being swelled and retracted, whether those
are not all signs of putrefaction?
A. I really don’t know that they are.
Q. I do not mean to give you any offence, but I beg leave to ask whether
you have been much used to anatomical dissection?
A. I have been as far as persons not particularly intended for
anatomical pursuits—I am not a professor of anatomy.
Q. Did you ever attend the dissection of a human body that was poisoned,
or suspected to have been poisoned?
A. Never.
Q. From the external appearances of the different parts of the body you
draw no kind of conclusion or inference, and form no opinion?
A. No, I don’t form any strong opinion from them.
Q. How were the appearances when the cavity of the abdomen was opened?
A. I have described them in general.
Q. Not being an anatomical man it has slipped my memory, will you please
to repeat it?
A. I believe I did not before mention the omentum or caul, that was
suffused with blood of a brownish red, the stomach and bowels appeared
in general red, which is vulgarly called an inflammation.
Q. Might not that be owing to a transfusion of the blood?
_Dr. Rattray._ From what cause?
_Mr. Newnham._ From putrefaction.
_Dr. Rattray._ Do you, by a transfusion of the blood, mean the passage
of the blood from the arteries into the veins?
_Mr. Newnham._ Yes.
_Dr. Rattray._ I cannot think it could arise from putrefaction.
Q. That is your opinion?
A. It is.
Q. Did you look at the stomach?
A. Yes.
Q. As Sir Theodosius Boughton is represented to have died in a few
minutes after taking this medicine, did you with correctness and
attention examine the stomach?
A. The contents of the stomach were about a spoonful and an half, or a
couple of ounces of a slimy reddish liquor, which I rubbed between my
finger and thumb, and it contained no gritty substance that I could
perceive.
Q. Is it not usual to find some such quantity of liquor in the stomach?
A. The stomach after death must contain something more or less according
to different circumstances.
Q. You said the stomach and the orifice of it and the small arch of it
bore the appearance of inflammation; pray is not inflammation and
appearance of inflammation much the same thing.
A. All that I have to say upon the present business is I perhaps don’t
know the cause of inflammation; but there is an appearance of
inflammation upon the stomach and bowels, owing to an injection of blood
into the veinous system, the veins being full of blood, put on a red
appearance.
Q. If you will not take upon you to say what is the cause, what are the
signs of inflammation?
A. An appearance of redness, sometimes but not always attended with
pain, and sometimes throbbing.
Q. Did you pursue your search through the bowels?
A. No; I cannot say I did, nor did I think it in my power.
Q. How far did you pursue your search in the stomach?
A. We examined the contents of the stomach; we took the stomach out, but
in taking it out a great part of the contents issued out of the bowels
next to it; and the smell was so offensive I did not choose to enter
into that matter.
Q. Whether a pursuit or enquiry, from an inspection through the bowels,
was not as likely to have led to a discovery of the cause of the death,
as any other part of the body which you did examine?
A. I do not believe a pursuit through the whole extent of the bowels
could have led to any discovery in these circumstances.
Q. Are not the bowels the seat of poison?
A. When it passes in there, no doubt it affects the bowels.
Q. Then why did you not examine into the contents of the bowels?
A. I did not think it in the power of any one to examine into the
contents of the bowels; their contents being so strong and disagreeable.
Q. Whether you do not form your judgment upon the appearances?
A. Not altogether; they corroborate my opinion upon the effect of the
draught.
Q. Did you or did you not know the contents of the draught Mr. Powell
had prepared when you was examined before the coroner?
A. Yes; I did.
Q. And you knew from the account given you how long Sir Theodosius
Boughton lived after he took that draught?
A. I took my information from Lady Boughton.
Q. Then whether many reasons have not occurred, subsequent to that time,
considerably, to induce you to form your judgment that he died of
arsenick?
A. Not subsequent to that time; at that time I did think he died of
arsenick; but I am now clear that I was then mistaken.
Q. Why may you not be mistaken now?
A. I cannot conceive that in these circumstances any one can be mistaken
as to the medicine; from the sensible qualities described by Lady
Boughton, I believe it to be of that nature.
Q. Did not you know at that time the symptoms described by Lady
Boughton?
A. I did.
Q. Then was not your judgment at that time as ripe for information as it
is now?
A. It is now since I have received the information.
Q. Whether you did not, after you heard Lady Boughton describe the
symptoms, and after you saw the body opened, give it as your opinion
that he died of arsenick?
A. I have had such an opinion.
Q. And have declared so?
A. I did.
Q. Was there or was there not a large quantity of extravasated blood in
the thorax?
A. On each side the lungs there was.
Q. About what quantity?
A. I think not quite a pint on each side the right and left lobe of the
lungs.
Q. Would not the rupture of a blood vessel occasion death?
A. The rupture of a blood vessel undoubtedly would have occasioned
death; but it would not in my apprehension have been attended with the
same appearances.
Q. Might not a blood vessel in an effort to reach be broken?
A. I should conceive, that if, in an effort to reach, a blood vessel of
that magnitude had ruptured that he must have died immediately without
convulsions.
Q. But supposing a person recovering from convulsions, for he is stated
to be inclined to sleep?
A. It is a case I am not supposing probable.
Q. Is it possible?
A. Every thing is possible under God.
Q. Did you never hear of any person dying of an epilepsy or of an
apoplexy with symptoms like those, being in convulsions?
A. I do not think the symptoms described as having taken place in Sir
Theodosius Boughton are like to an epilepsy.
Q. Nor an apoplexy?
A. They were entirely in my opinion the effects of the draught.
Q. Might not an epilepsy or an apoplexy be accompanied with those
symptoms?
A. I never saw either of them attended with an heaving at the stomach.
Q. When respiration grows feeble; is it not a common case that the
muscles of the throat are very much relaxed?
A. All the effects that succeeded the draught I believe were the
consequences of it; and if the muscles were relaxed or foam proceeded
from the mouth, they were in consequence of it.
Q. Is it not commonly the case with persons who die of almost every
disorder?
A. Very often.
Q. Are not the muscles of the throat instrumental in respiration?
A. So far as to the passage of the air in and out.
Q. Is it not a very common appearance a few minutes before death, when
respiration grows feeble for froth to issue from the mouth?
A. No, not commonly. I have seen it in epilepsies.
Q. What was your reason for supposing at one time that the deceased died
of arsenick?
A. Every man is mistaken now and then in his opinion, and that was my
case; I am not ashamed to own a mistake.
Q. Have you been very nice in your experiments; for instance, in the
conveying the laurel-water into the animals?
A. If there was any want of nicety the subject had less of it than I
intended.
Q. When an animal, suppose a dog or cat, is striving to refuse a draught
you are forcing into its mouth, whether it is not common for some part
of the liquor to get into the lungs?
A. If it did it would make it cough, but be attended with no bad
consequences unless it was poison.
Q. Did you ever convey poison immediately into the stomach?
_Dr. Rattray._ Do you mean by perforation through the ribs?
_Mr. Newnham._ Yes.
_Dr. Rattray._ I never have.
Q. Did you ever convey any into the veins of an animal?
A. I never have.
Q. Did you observe or smell that liquor which came out of the stomach?
A. I could not avoid smelling it.
Q. Had it the same offensive smell?
A. It in general had; one could not expect any smell but partaking of
that general putrefaction of the body; but I had a particular taste in
my mouth at that time, a kind of biting acrimony upon my tongue. And I
have in all the experiments I have made with laurel-water, always had
the same taste, from breathing over the water, a biting upon my tongue,
and sometimes a bitter taste upon the upper part of the fauces.
Q. Did you impute it to that cause then?
A. No, I imputed it to the volatile salts escaping the body.
Q. Were not the volatile salts likely to occasion that?
A. No. I complained to Mr. Wilmer, “I have a very odd taste in my mouth,
my gums bleed.”
Q. You attributed it to the volatility of the salts?
A. At that time I could not account for it, but in my experiments
afterwards with the laurel-water, the effluvia of it has constantly and
uniformly produced the same kind of taste; there is a very volatile oil
in it I am confident.
Q. Do not you understand that there cannot be any information at all
obtained in consequence of dissecting animals which have been destroyed
by laurel-water?
A. I do not think that the operation of these sort of substances upon
the inside of the stomach produce any violent appearances of redness,
but in most of the animals I have seen there has been small red spots
inside, of the size of a shilling perhaps, but the effect in the trials
I have made has been a driving the blood from the part of the body where
it should be. I believe the effect of the poison is to empty the
arteries in general, and push the blood into the veins; that is my
opinion at present, so far as I have gone into the matter.
Q. But you was mistaken at first relative to forming an opinion that the
death was occasioned by arsenick?
A. Yes.
_Mr. Balguy._ You say that when the shroud came to be taken off the body
you found the body less offensive than you had expected?
A. Less black.
Q. When you first saw the body on the 4th of September, did you or not
take the shroud off?
A. We did not.
Q. You saw nothing but the face?
A. Nothing but the face.
Q. If at that time Captain Donellan had insinuated to you any suspicion
of poison, whether you would or not have taken the shroud from the body?
A. I verily believe, had I known the tendency of the enquiry, I should
have sat there for a month rather than have left the body unopened.
Q. Should you at that time if the suspicion had been disclosed have
proceeded to open the body?
A. I should have attended the opening of it.
_Mr. Newnham._ I understand you to say that when the body was opened,
the external appearances did not contribute in any way to your forming a
judgment one way or other?
A. Nobody would attempt to form a judgment upon the external appearances
altogether.
Mr. _Bradford Wilmer_ sworn. Examined by Mr. Wheeler.
Q. You was sent for to Lawford-hall at the same time Dr. Rattray was?
A. I was; I went there with Dr. Rattray.
Q. When first you came there did you see Captain Donellan?
A. I did. He desired us to walk into the parlour; after we had had some
refreshment we were told that the coffin was unsoldered, and we were
desired to walk up stairs.
Q. Was any thing said to you at that time as to the means by which Sir
Theodosius Boughton had died?
A. Not the least in the world.
Q. Nothing said of poison?
A. I never heard a word of poison.
Q. When you did go up stairs, what part did you see of the corpse?
A. Only the face.
Q. We have learned from Dr. Rattray that you did not proceed any
farther, how happened that?
A. The body was so extremely putrid, that I declared my opinion to Dr.
Rattray that the proposed enquiry could give no sort of information.
Q. Supposing it had been communicated to you that Sir Theodosius
Boughton had died by poison, should you have been satisfied without
opening it?
A. I should then have opened the body at all events.
Q. You did not then open the body?
A. I certainly did not.
Q. You afterwards did open it at the time Dr. Rattray has spoken of?
A. I was present at the opening of the body, by Mr. Bucknill.
Q. Have you been employed in any experiments with Dr. Rattray?
A. I have.
Q. Without going into every particular of Dr. Rattray’s account, do you
and he concur in general as to the effect of that medicine?
A. I wish you would be more particular in that question.
Q. Do you agree with Dr. Rattray in what he has said respecting those
experiments at which you was present?
A. I do in general; but as Dr. Rattray has not described the appearances
which were visible upon the dissection of the horse, with your
lordship’s permission I will read my minutes. “On the 20th of March, one
ounce of the laurel water was given to a young greyhound; while Dr.
Rattray held the mouth open, I poured the water into the dog’s throat;
as soon as it was swallowed the Doctor released its head to observe the
effects of the poison, when, to our great surprise, he fell down upon
his side, and without the least struggle or any perceptible motion
(except what the doctor has explained about the dropping of the lower
jaw) expired. On the 22d of March, in the presence of Sir William
Wheeler, a pint and a quarter of laurel-water was given to a mare aged
twenty-eight years. Within a minute from the time it was swallowed she
seemed affected; her flanks were observed to heave much, and a trembling
seized her limbs; in two minutes she suddenly fell down upon her head,
and in a short time after was very violently convulsed; the convulsions
continued about five minutes, at the expiration of which time, she laid
still, but her breathing was very quick and laborious, and her eyes much
affected with spasms. At this time four ounces more of the water were
given her, after which she seemed much weaker, but without any more
return of convulsions, and in about fifteen minutes from the time of her
first seizure, she expired.”
Q. After her first convulsion she was quieter?
A. She was. “Upon opening the abdomen, a strong smell of laurel-water
was perceptible; the colon, one of the large intestines, was not altered
from its usual appearance, but the small intestines appeared of a purple
colour, and the veins were much distended with blood; the stomach
contained some hay mixed with laurel water; its internal surface was not
inflamed, except in a small degree near the lower orifice of the
stomach; the lungs appeared remarkably full of blood; the small vessels
upon their surface being as visible as if they had been injected with
red wax.”
Q. Whether you in general concur in sentiments with Dr. Rattray, as to
the effect of laurel-water?
_Mr. Wilmer._ Do you mean upon the human body, or upon brutes?
_Mr. Wheeler._ Upon both.
A. It has in four instances been fatal in the human body; I do not know
it of my own knowledge, but from my reading.
Q. Have you any doubt of its being fatal?
A. Not the least in the world.
Q. Now do you apprehend the quantity contained in that bottle is
sufficient to take away life?
A. I imagine one bottle of that size full of laurel-water, would be
sufficient to kill in half an hour’s time any man in this court.
Mr. _Bradford Wilmer_. Cross-examined by Mr. Green.
Q. Were there any symptoms in this case peculiarly different from the
symptoms attending a case of epilepsy or apoplexy?
A. The appearance of the body in the putrid state in which it was when I
had an opportunity of observing it, could give me no information to form
an opinion upon respecting the cause of the death.
Q. Have you had any opportunities in your own experience of observing
epilepsies?
A. I have. They are of two kinds, either primary or symptomatick. It
happens sometimes that without the least previous notice, a man in the
most perfect state of health, in the midst of pleasure or engaged in
business, as Suetonius says of Julius Cæsar, may in a moment, be seized
with the epilepsy, his senses will leave him, he will fall down, be
convulsed, foam at the mouth, his tongue will be black, and he either
may die or recover. As to the symptomatick epilepsy, I can speak from
experience: a patient of mine had a violent pain and tumour in his
finger; as soon as the pain, which gradually went up his arm, reached
his arm-pit, he fell down epileptick, and convulsed. But if previous to
an epilepsy, the patient heave very much at the stomach, and shew signs
of sickness, I should conclude the cause of that epilepsy was in the
stomach.
Q. Epilepsies proceed from various causes?
A. Numerous causes.
Q. Will not the loss of blood occasion an epilepsy?
A. I believe not.
Q. What quantity of blood was there in the stomach?
A. I did not measure it; I conclude about two pints; it lodged in the
cavity of the thorax.
Q. Might not that occasion convulsions?
A. I do not know; but if I might be allowed to reason from analogy, I
should conclude it would, for in all slaughtered animals, when the blood
runs out from them in a full stream, they lie quiet, but they never die
without convulsions. The loss of blood will evidently occasion
convulsions.
_Mr. Wheeler._ From the appearances of the body, and after the evidence
you have heard given both by Lady Boughton and the other witnesses, what
do you attribute this gentleman’s death to?
A. After having heard Lady Boughton’s evidence, and therefore being
acquainted with the symptoms which preceded the death of Sir Theodosius
Boughton, I am clearly of opinion that his death was occasioned by a
poisonous draught administered to him by Lady Boughton on the morning of
his death.
_Court._ Is the heaving in the stomach or the belly a circumstance which
attends an epilepsy?
A. It is not.
_Dr. Ashe_ sworn. Examined by Mr. Geast.
Q. You are a Physician and live at Birmingham?
A. Yes.
Q. You have heard the evidence that has been given?
A. I have.
Q. What in your judgment was the cause of the death of Sir Theodosius
Boughton?
A. I think he died in consequence of taking that draught, after the
taking of which he was seized in so extraordinary a manner.
Q. Mention the particular reasons you have for thinking so?
A. It does not appear, from any part of the evidence that has been this
day given, that the late Sir Theodosius had any disease upon him of a
nature either likely or in a degree sufficient to produce those violent
consequences which happened to him, neither do I know in nature any
medicine, properly so called, which administered in any dose, and in any
form, could possibly produce the same effects. I know nothing but a
poison speedy in its operation that could be attended with such terrible
consequences: As to the appearances of the body upon dissection they
were certainly, as far as could be collected at that distant period from
the time of the death, and in such hot weather, similar to those
appearances which are found in the bodies of animals that are killed by
poisons collected from vegetable substances, not from mineral ones.
Q. Will you please to look at that phial?
A. The vehicle of it is laurel-water.
Q. Would that quantity be sufficient to cause death?
A. I do not know how this is distilled, or how firm it may be, but I
know it may be made in this quantity to destroy animal life in a few
seconds. I do not know who distilled this, but I have made it frequently
myself, and in such a degree of strength as to destroy animal life in a
few seconds; if it is distilled enough to collect the essential oil, a
tea-spoonful of it would destroy animal life in a few seconds.
_Court._ If it was made on purpose?
A. Certainly; I dare say as strong a poison might be made from bitter
almonds as that.
Q. Do you or not, from the evidence you have heard, believe Sir
Theodosius Boughton died of poison?
A. I do.
_Court._ You are not to give your opinion from the evidence in general,
but upon the symptoms those witnesses have described?
A. By the symptoms those evidences have described, I am of opinion that
Sir Theodosius Boughton died of poison.
_Dr. Parsons_ sworn. Examined by Mr. Howorth.
Q. You are I believe professor of anatomy in the university of Oxford?
A. I am.
Q. You have heard the symptoms attending the death of Sir Theodosius
Boughton described by the witnesses produced to-day?
A. I have.
Q. What in your judgment occasioned the death of Sir Theodosius
Boughton?
A. From the description of the state of the young Baronet’s health,
previous to his taking the second dose, which was supposed to be similar
to that which he had taken two or three days before, and from the
violent nervous symptoms that immediately followed the taking thereof,
it is my opinion that he died in consequence of taking the second dose;
which instead of being a composition of jalap and rhubarb only, proved
to contain a poison, and of what nature that poison was, appears
sufficiently from the description that Lady Boughton gives of its smell
when she poured it out in order to give it to her son; her ladyship said
it smelt like the taste of bitter almonds, which particularly
characterises the smell of laurel-water. Perhaps it may not be improper
to produce some laurel-water for the jury to smell at, that they may
judge how well it agrees with the description that Lady Boughton has
given of the supposed physick. The violent nervous symptoms that came on
subsequent to his taking the second dose took place so soon, and were so
different from what attended the taking of the first, that undoubtedly
they were caused by something it had in it very different from the
contents of the first, much more active, and as it proved more
deleterious. Jalap sometimes disagrees with the stomach and may produce
sickness, but with respect to Sir Theodosius Boughton this medicine did
not create any sickness when given the first time.
_Court._ Could all the ingredients in the medicine mentioned by Mr.
Powell produce in Sir Theodosius Boughton the effects described?
A. No; I apprehend they could not; and as a proof of it, they did not
produce any such effects in the first instance, or dose.
Q. Are the symptoms which have been described by Lady Boughton such as
would attend an epilepsy, or is there any and what difference?
A. The epilepsy is distinguished by a total abolition of sense, but an
increase of motion in several of the muscles, so that the patient will
appear much convulsed, and seems to see and hear every thing that is
said and done, and to observe whatever is passing; yet when the fit goes
off he has no knowledge or recollection of what has happened. Apoplexy
is a sudden privation of all the powers of sense, and voluntary motion:
the person affected seeming to be in a profound sleep, accompanied with
considerable noise in breathing. As so little therefore is said of
convulsions as a part of Sir Theodosius’s symptoms, the state in which
he lay seems to have been more of the apoplectick kind than epileptick.
Q. It has been described by Lady Boughton that soon after taking this
draught the stomach heaved very much, and a noise could be perceived as
issuing from it; now is that in your judgment to be attributed to either
epilepsy or apoplexy, or the effect of the medicine?
A. The effects of the medicine I think undoubtedly, and not spontaneous
epilepsy or apoplexy; it is very immaterial whether you call the
symptoms epileptick or apoplectick; for which ever they resembled most I
consider them but as symptomatick.
Q. Was the heaving of the stomach the effect of apoplexy or epilepsy, or
of this draught?
A. No doubt, I think the draught was the cause, especially as
laurel-water, which the draught seems to have contained from its
peculiar smell, will produce similar effects.
Q. Then your judgment is, that the fatal effects were produced by the
medicine thus taken?
A. I think there can be no doubt of that as they commenced almost as
soon as he swallowed the draught; and a mixture such as he is supposed
to have taken, is known to have the power of producing them.
Q. And from your knowledge of the effects produced by laurel water, your
opinion is that laurel-water was the poison thus administered to Sir
Theodosius Boughton?
A. It is. Dr. Rutty relates a case of a girl of eighteen years of age
and in perfect health, who took a quantity, less than two spoons full of
the first runnings of simple water of laurel leaves; whereupon within
half a minute she fell down, was convulsed, foamed at the mouth, and
died in a short time.
Q. Could those effects be produced (speak from your own judgment) by
laurel-water?
A. I have no doubt of it. Dogs and other quadrupeds (as we are informed)
that take it, fall immediately into totterings and convulsions of the
limbs, which are presently followed by a total paralysis; these
convulsions, with some additional circumstances, as foaming at the mouth
and loss of sense, constitute the epilepsy which is described among the
effects of vegetable poisons.
Dr. _Parsons_ cross-examined by Mr. Newnham.
Q. From the appearances of health in Sir Theodosius Boughton, and from
the medicine not having occasioned any bad symptoms before, you conclude
his death was occasioned by some other medicine substituted instead of
that or in addition to it?
A. Most certainly; especially as the smell of it bespoke its having
received the addition of a very poisonous ingredient.
Q. Have you never known instances of persons being taken suddenly when
engaged in pleasure or business, or at dinner, dying convulsed,
epileptick, or apoplectick?
A. I have; but those who die suddenly of apoplexy are generally persons
of a full habit; and who are neither so thin nor so young as Sir
Theodosius Boughton.
Q. Have you never known instances of persons of a thin habit being
attacked by an apoplexy or an epilepsy?
A. By epilepsy they may.
Q. Have you never heard of a person having the appearance of perfect
health being seized with an epilepsy without any primary cause giving
any warning, have you never heard of people in perfect health being
seized with an epilepsy or apoplexy?
A. Yes; apoplexy proceeding from repletion or the sudden bursting of a
blood-vessel; epilepsy may proceed from a variety of causes partial or
general, in the head or elsewhere; but very seldom I believe proves so
suddenly fatal.
Q. Might not those have happened to Sir Theodosius Boughton?
A. There can be no doubt of the possibility of their attacking him, but
I think there is no reason to go so far for a cause as to _possibility_,
when this medicine as all the world knows will effect it.
Q. That is assuming as a fact that he took two ounces of laurel-water?
A. A much less quantity would be sufficient for the purpose, if we may
credit Dr. Rutty’s account.
Q. You collect that from the similarity of the smell?
A. We have nothing else to judge from but the similarity of the smell.
Q. Is not that the case with a variety of things; will not black
cherry-water have that smell?
A. Black cherry-water is said to have the same smell, but it is now out
of use; I don’t suppose there is an apothecary in the island who has it,
and therefore it could not be substituted by accident for the other
vehicle.
Q. Will not bitter almonds have that smell?
A. Yes; and spirits flavoured with them are said to be poisonous to the
human species.
Q. You ground your opinion upon the description of its smell by Lady
Boughton?
A. Yes; we can ground our opinion upon nothing else but that and the
subsequent effects.
_Mr. John Hunter_ sworn; examined by Mr. Newnham.
Q. Have you heard the evidence that has been given by these gentlemen?
A. I have been present the whole time.
Q. Did you hear Lady Boughton’s evidence?
A. I heard the whole.
Q. Did you attend to the symptoms her ladyship described, as appearing
upon Sir Theodosius Boughton, after the medicine was given him?
A. I did.
Q. Can any certain inference upon physical or chirurgical principles be
drawn from those symptoms, or from the appearances externally or
internally of the body, to enable you, in your judgment to decide, that
the death was occasioned by poison?
A. I was in London then, a gentleman who is in Court waited upon me with
a copy of the examination of Mr. Powell and Lady Boughton, and on
account of the dissection, and the physical gentlemen’s opinion upon
that dissection.
Q. I don’t wish to go into that, I put my question in a general way?
A. The whole appearances upon the dissection, explain nothing but
putrefaction.
Q. You have been long in the habit of dissecting human subjects? I
presume you have dissected more than any man in Europe?
A. I have dissected some thousands during these thirty-three years.
Q. Are those appearances you have heard described, such in your
judgment, as are the result of putrefaction in dead subjects?
A. Entirely.
Q. Are the symptoms that appeared after the medicine was given, such as
necessarily conclude that the person had taken poison?
A. Certainly not.
Q. If an apoplexy had come on, would not the symptoms have been nearly
or somewhat similar?
A. Very much the same.
Q. Have you ever known or heard of a young subject dying of an
apoplectic or epileptic fit?
A. Certainly; but with regard to the apoplexy not so frequent, young
subjects will perhaps die more frequently of epilepsies than old ones;
children are dying every day from teething, which is a species of
epilepsy arising from an irritation.
Q. Did you ever in your practice, know an instance of laurel-water being
given to a human subject?
A. No, never.
Q. Is any certain analogy to be drawn from the effects of any species of
poison upon an animal of the brute creation, to that it may have upon a
human subject?
A. As far as my experience goes, which is not a very confined one,
because I have poisoned some thousands of animals, they are very nearly
the same, opium for instance will poison a dog similar to a man; arsenic
will have very near the same effect upon a dog, as it would have, I take
it for granted, upon a man; I know something of the effects of them, and
I believe their operations will be nearly similar.
Q, Are there not many things which kill animals almost instantaneously,
that will have no detrimental or noxious effect upon a human subject;
spirits, for instance, occur to me?
A. I apprehend a great deal depends upon the mode of experiment; no man
is fit to make one, but those who have made many, and paid considerable
attention to all the circumstances that relate to experiments, it is a
common experiment which I believe seldom fails, and it is in the mouth
of every body, that a little brandy will kill a cat: I have made the
experiment, and have killed several cats, but it is a false experiment;
in all those cases where it kills the cat, it kills the cat by getting
into her lungs, not into her stomach, because, if you convey the same
quantity of brandy, or three times as much into the stomach, in such a
way as the lungs shall not be affected, the cat will not die; now in
those experiments that are made by forcing an animal to drink, there are
two operations going on, one is a refusing the liquor, by the animal,
its kicking and working with its throat, to refuse it, the other is a
forcing the liquor upon the animal, and there are very few operations of
that kind, but some of the liquor gets into the lungs. I have known it
from experience.
Q. If you had been called upon to dissect a body, suspected to have died
of poison, should you or not have thought it necessary to have pursued
your search through the guts?
A. Certainly.
Q. Do you not apprehend that you would have been more likely to receive
information from thence than any other part of the frame?
A. That is the track of the poison, and I should certainly have followed
that track through.
Q. You have heard of the froth issuing from Sir Theodosius’s mouth, a
minute or two before he died, is that peculiar to a man dying of poison,
or is it not very common in many other complaints?
A. I fancy it is a general effect, of people dying in what you may call
health, in an apoplexy, or epilepsy, in all sudden deaths, where the
person was a moment before that in perfect health.
Q. Have you ever had an opportunity of seeing such appearances upon such
subjects?
A. Hundreds of times.
Q. Should you consider yourself bound, by such an appearance, to impute
the death of the subject to poison?
A. No, certainly not; I should rather suspect an apoplexy, and I wish in
this case, the head had been opened to remove all doubts.
Q. If the head had been opened, do you apprehend all doubts would have
been removed?
A. It would have been still farther removed, because, although the body
was putrid, so that one could not tell whether it was a recent
inflammation, yet an apoplexy arises from an extravasation of blood in
the brain, which would have laid in a coagulum. I apprehend although the
body was putrid, that would have been much more visible than the effect
any poison could have had upon the stomach or intestines.
Q. Then in your judgment upon the appearances the gentlemen have
described no inference can be drawn from thence that Sir Theodosius
Boughton died of poison?
A. Certainly not; it does not give the least suspicion.
_Mr. John Hunter_ Cross-examined by _Mr. Howorth_.
Q. Having heard the account to-day that Sir Theodosius Boughton,
apparently in perfect health, had swallowed a draught which had produced
the symptoms described, I ask you whether any reasonable man can
entertain a doubt that that draught whatever it was produced those
appearances?
A. I don’t know well what answer to make to that question.
Q. Having heard the account given of the health of this young gentleman
on that morning, previous to taking the draught, and the symptoms that
were produced immediately upon taking the draught, I ask your opinion as
a man of judgment, whether you don’t think that draught was the occasion
of his death?
A. With regard to his being in health, that explains nothing; we
frequently, and indeed generally see the healthiest people dying
suddenly, therefore I shall lay little stress upon that; as to the
circumstances of the draught, I own they are suspicious, every man is
just as good a judge as I am.
Court. You are to give your opinion upon the symptoms only, not upon any
other evidence given.
_Mr. Howorth._ Upon the symptoms immediately produced, after the
swallowing of that draught, I ask whether, in your judgment and opinion,
that draught did not occasion his death? A. I can only say, that it is a
circumstance in favour of such an opinion.
Court. That the draught was the occasion of his death? A. No; because
the symptoms afterwards are those of a man dying, who was before in
perfect health; a man dying of an epilepsy or apoplexy, the symptoms
would give one those general ideas.
Court. It is the general idea you are asked about now, from the symptoms
which appeared upon Sir Theodosius Boughton immediately after he took
the draught followed by his death so very soon after; whether, upon that
part of the case, you are of opinion that the draught was the occasion
of his death? A. If I knew the draught was poison, I should say, most
probably, that the symptoms arose from that; but when, I don’t know that
that draught was poison, when I consider that a number of other things
might occasion his death, I cannot answer positively to it.
Court. You recollect the circumstance that was mentioned of a violent
heaving in the stomach? A. All that is the effect of the voluntary
action being lost, and nothing going on but the involuntary.
_Mr. Howorth._ Then you decline giving any opinion upon the subject? A.
I don’t form any opinion to myself; I cannot form an opinion because I
can conceive if he had taken a draught of poison it arose from that; I
can conceive it might arise from other causes.
Q. If you are at all acquainted with the effects and operations of
distilled laurel-water, whether the having swallowed a draught of that,
would not have produced the symptom described? A. I should suppose it
would; I can only say this of the experiments I have made of
laurel-water upon animals, it has not been near so quick; I have
injected laurel-water directly into the blood of dogs, and they have not
died; I have thrown laurel-water, with a precaution, into the stomach,
and it never produced so quick an effect with me, as described by those
gentlemen.
Q. But you admit that laurel-water would have produced symptoms such as
have been described? A. I can conceive it might.
_Mr. Newnham._ Would not an apoplexy or an epilepsy, if it had seized
Sir Theodosius Boughton at this time, though he had taken no physic at
all, have produced similar symptoms too? A. Certainly.
Q. Where a father has died of an apoplexy, is not that understood, in
some measure, to be constitutional? A. There is no disease whatever,
that becomes constitutional, but what can be given to a child. There is
no disease which is acquired, that can be given to a child; but whatever
is constitutional in the father, the father has a power of giving that
to the children; by which means it becomes what is called hereditary;
there is no such thing as an hereditary disease; but there is an
hereditary disposition for a disease.
_Mr. Howorth._ Do you call apoplexy constitutional?
A. We see most diseases are constitutional; the small-pox is
constitutional, though it requires an immediate cause to produce the
effects. The venereal disease is hereditary. I conceive apoplexy as much
constitutional as any disease whatever.
Q. Is apoplexy likely to attack a thin young man who had been in a
course of taking cooling medicines before? A. Not so likely, surely, as
another man; but I have, in my account of dissections, two young women
dying of apoplexies.
Q. But in such an habit of body, particularly attended with the
circumstance of having taken cooling medicines, it was very unlikely to
happen? A. I do not know the nature of medicines so well as to know that
it would hinder an apoplexy from taking effect.
Court. Give me your opinion in the best manner you can, one way or the
other, whether upon the whole of the symptoms described, the death
proceeded from that medicine, or any other cause? A. I do not mean to
equivocate, but when I tell the sentiments of my own mind, what I feel
at the time, I can give nothing decisive.
Extracts from the Evidence delivered on the Trial of _Robert Sawle
Donnall_, Surgeon and Apothecary, for the wilful Murder, by Poison, of
his Mother-in-Law, Mrs. _Elizabeth Downing_, Widow, at the Assize at
Launceston, March 31, 1817.
(_Taken in short-hand by Alexander Fraser._)
-------
EVIDENCE FOR THE CROWN.
_Dr. Richard Edwards_ (examined by Mr. Sergt. Lens).
You are a physician, resident at Falmouth?—I am.
How many years have you been in the profession?—About sixteen years.
Do you recollect being called in, as a physician, to attend Mrs.
Elizabeth Downing upon the 3rd of November?—Yes, Sir; I was called in
between four and five o’clock on the Monday morning.
Were you in the habit of attending her?—Once before, at a distant
period.
Several months before?—More than that.
When you came there, and when you were introduced into the room in which
she was, what state did you find her in?—I was let into the house by Mr.
Donnall; I went into the back room and asked him some questions as to
Mrs. Downing’s illness, and he informed me she had an attack of Cholera
Morbus.
Did any thing more pass that was material, before you went into the room
where she was?—He told me she had a similar attack a fortnight before.
Did any further communication take place?—I asked him how long she had
been ill, and he said she was taken ill the evening before.
Did any thing more pass?—Mr. Donnall told me that she had been at church
twice that Sunday.
Did you then proceed into the room, or did any thing more pass?—Nothing
more passed.
When you went into her room, she was in bed?—Yes, Sir, she was; I asked
some questions of her attendants, before I spoke to Mrs. Downing; she
required some rousing before she could answer questions.
Were you able to rouse her?—Yes, Sir.
Do you recollect any thing particular, as to her situation?—I asked her
if she felt any pain, and she said she felt heat in her stomach, and
also cramp in her legs; I then felt her pulse, and found it a frequent
fluttering pulse. I then went down into the parlour again with Mr.
Donnell, and wrote a prescription.
Did you make any further inquiries about the state of her body before
you wrote the prescription?—I asked some questions of Mr. Donnall as to
the state of her stomach and bowels, and he said that she had violent
sickness, and that her bowels were very much relaxed.
After this you wrote the prescription?—Yes, Sir.
Did you at that time form, or could you form, any judgment of her
danger, or that it was likely she would recover?—I found that she was in
very great danger.
You had been apprised that she had symptoms of Cholera Morbus; did you
observe any thing of that kind?—No; at that time she had no sickness.
Was her state such as to shew that she had?—There was nothing particular
to draw my attention to that being her state; there was nothing to shew
the causes of the disease at that time.
How long did you stay on that occasion?—I suppose about twenty minutes;
I am not certain as to the time.
Did you learn from the prisoner whether he himself had given any
medicine?—I understood that he had given an opening medicine and an
emetic, a saline draught in a state of effervescence, and also a pill,
and some opium mixed with the saline draught; I believe he told me ten
drops of laudanum.
(By Mr. Justice Abbott.) Is that a large or a small dose?—It is a small
dose.
(By Mr. Sergt. Lens.) Would that only quiet her?—It was given, he said,
to quiet the irritation of the stomach.
Have you ever had occasion to attend a person who had been ill, and who
died of Cholera Morbus?—I never had a patient who died of that disease.
There is one circumstance I would mention: before I left Mr. Donnall, I
told him that as the quantity of active medicine in the prescription was
small, he had better give every three hours, instead of four hours, as
directed in the prescription; and observed at the same time, that it was
given in order to remove something which I considered to be offensive
either in the stomach or bowels.
In the course of your experience, how soon does Cholera Morbus produce
death?—In general not in less than two or three days; there may be some
instances, but I never met with one that produced death in less than
that time.
The space of time in this instance was fourteen hours?—Yes, Sir.
Can you tell me of any instance that Cholera Morbus would produce death
in so short a time?—I never heard or knew of any instance of its
producing death in so short a time.
In your judgment then, and from what you know since, did this patient
die of Cholera Morbus or not?—Certainly not.
You say you staid about twenty minutes?—About that time.
You then took your leave, having given directions about the
prescription, which you took for granted would be administered
afterwards?—Yes, Sir.
Did you see Mrs. Downing afterwards?—No, Sir.
She died at eight o’clock that same morning?—Yes.
How soon did you go again after you had heard of her decease?—I went on
the Thursday afternoon to examine the body.
When you went there, was it to examine the body as to the cause of the
death?—Yes; I was requested by the Coroner to examine the body.
You had heard of the letter that was sent, on suspicion being
awakened?—Yes.
Whom did you meet there?—Mr. Donnall.
Was there any other person there?—Soon afterwards Mr. John Street, a
surgeon, came there.
There is another person of the name of Street, a surgeon?—Yes, Sir; but
this was Mr. John Street.
Shortly afterwards did you go into the room where the body lay?—Yes,
Sir.
Did any thing pass before?—Nothing particular.
Who went with you?—Mr. John Street and Mr. Donnall; there was no other
medical person present.
What did you do?—We took the body from the shell, and placed it on the
table.
Who proceeded to operate on the body?—When the things were prepared,
such as water, &c. I perceived Mr. Donnall was preparing to operate,
with the instruments in his hands, and turning up the cuffs of his coat.
Did he proceed?—No; I told him that he was to have nothing to do with
the operation, and I turned to Mr. John Street and asked him to do it.
(By Mr. Justice Abbott.) Did you say any thing more to Donnall than that
he was to have nothing to do with the operation?—No, my Lord.
(By Mr. Sergt. Lens.) Did he (Mr. Street) prepare to do it?—He objected
to it, as not having been in the habit of operating for a long time.
And in the end you were under the necessity of doing it yourself?—Yes,
Sir, with Mr. Street’s occasional assistance.
When you opened the body, your particular object was the examination of
the stomach?—Yes, it was the chief object of our examination, and we
proceeded to do so immediately; we opened it, and examined it, and
poured the contents into a basin.
Did you take out all the contents, or only a part?—The whole of the
contents.
What was done with them after they were put into the basin?—We examined
that which was put into the basin with our fingers, in order to
ascertain whether any heavy or gritty substance had subsided to the
bottom.
(By Mr. Justice Abbott.) When you say “we,” whom do you mean besides
yourself?—Mr. John Street, my Lord.
(By Mr. Sergt. Lens.) Donnall did not interfere?—No, Sir.
In a few minutes you examined the bottom?—Yes.
Did you find any deposit?—No deposit of any heavy substance.
When you had done that, what did you do next?—Before we particularly
examined the contents of the stomach, we examined the state of the
stomach, and found it inflamed.
Was it a general or partial inflammation?—It was rather partial; or what
we call stellated, or in stars, in different parts of the stomach.
Were there many? were there several or only one, or were there two or
three?—There were many, in different parts of the stomach.
Was there any thing else you discovered?—On examining the villous, or
internal coat of the stomach, we found it softened, and in some parts
nearly destroyed by the action of some corrosive substance. The
stellated inflammation was on the nervous coat, but was very visible
through the villous coat.
Are we to understand that the villous coat is, in general, not so soft?
what should its natural state be?—It should have been much more firm
than we found it.
In what way did you examine the villous coat?—With the nail of my
finger, and it easily came off.
And in its proper state would it come off easily with the nail of a
finger?—No, Sir. We examined particularly the under part where the fluid
was.
Was it generally in that soft state?—The greatest part of it was so.
(By Mr. Justice Abbott.) The under part is where any thing in the
stomach would rest and would touch?—Yes, my Lord.
(By Mr. Sergt. Lens.) Did you observe any particularity in the
appearance?—The blood-vessels of the stomach were rather in a more
turgid state than they should be naturally. We also examined the liver
and lungs, and both appeared in a sound state.
Did you examine the heart?—I do not recollect; I am not quite certain.
Do you think that any thing affected it?—I did not examine it, that I
recollect.
Did you give any directions as to what was put into the basin?—After
examining the contents of the stomach, which were put into the basin, we
poured them into an earthen jug.
And your attention was particularly drawn to that in the basin?—I placed
the jug upon a chair, on which there was a cushion; and I took
particular care that, as the seat was elastic, it should rest against
the back, so as not to fall; and I said at the time that it must be
taken particular care of, as it was necessary for me to examine it.
Was that said to any one in particular, or was it said
generally?—Particularly to Mr. Donnall; we were very near each other.
Was there any other person present but you three?—Not at that time.
(By Mr. Justice Abbott.) The prisoner, Donnall, was in the room at that
time?—Yes, my Lord.
(By Mr. Sergt. Lens.) What did you proceed to do then?—We proceeded to
examine the intestines, and found them also inflamed in different parts,
particularly that part which was next the stomach, and some others that
were lower down.
Could a patient be sensible of the existence of such an inflammation, or
might it remain for any time, and the patient be perfectly well?—That is
impossible; a patient could not be well with such an inflammation
existing.
Could you judge at all of the length of time in which, in the common
course of nature, such an inflammation could be produced by any natural
cause? could it be produced by any natural cause?—Not in the time.
Such an inflammation could be produced by a natural cause, but not
within the time?—Not within the time.
What sort of substances will produce that sort of inflammation in so
short a time, not being natural causes?—Any active poison.
Could it be produced by any thing short of an active poison in any time,
or within so short a time?—I think not.
Did you proceed then to see whether there was any thing to be discovered
of an active nature?—I then turned to the contents of the stomach which
I had placed in a jug.
(By Mr. Justice Abbott.) Then your back had been to the jug?—It was
behind, or rather on my left side.
(By Mr. Sergt. Lens.) When you had turned round, did you find it in the
same situation?—Yes, I found it in the same situation, but I was
surprised to see it empty.
Did you express that surprise to any body?—I expressed it to Mr.
Donnall, and asked him what had become of it, and he told me he had
thrown it into the chamber utensil; I observed to him that he ought not
to have done so, as I had before said that it must be carefully
preserved; and I observed to him also, that it would give me a great
deal more trouble, as I must evaporate a larger quantity of water than I
should otherwise have had to do, to get at the object of my search.
Can you tell us what the quantity was in the basin, and what the
quantity was afterwards?—It was a little more than half a pint
originally.
And what was the quantity when mixed with the other water?—Nearly two
quarts. The chamber vessel was clean when I came into the room.
What had occasioned any used water in it?—I threw some of the water into
it, in which we had washed some part of the intestines.
What was then done with it?—As soon as we had finished the examination,
I left it to Mr. Street’s charge, who told me he would take care of the
contents of the stomach.
You did not see them again till they were at your own house?—No, not
till they were brought there in two bottles. I recollect putting this
chamber utensil further under the bed, in order that it might not be
disturbed, and desired that no one should touch it or go into the room,
during our absence, Mr. Donnall still remaining. Mr. Donnall had been
out of the room once or twice.
But was he there when that direction was given?——Yes, Sir.
Did you afterwards, and when, proceed to examine the contents of the two
bottles?—It was two days before I had finished that examination.
How soon afterwards did you see it in the two bottles in your house?—On
the same day that we examined the body.
Did you upon examination trace any thing of the sort that you looked
for?—I examined it in different ways by chemical tests, and they all
shewed the presence of arsenic; if necessary I will state the method I
followed.
In consequence of the experiment, you detected it to be arsenic?—Arsenic
in solution but not in substance.
How did you detect it?—I tried it by chemical re-agents that would
produce a certain colour when arsenic was present.
In general, upon that part of the subject, what is your opinion of the
cause of the death of this lady, from your observation on what you took
away and examined afterwards?—From the appearance of the stomach and the
examination of its contents, I have not the least doubt that it was
produced by poison.
Independently of that appearance to be arsenic, what is your opinion of
the general appearance, so as to judge of the cause of the death?—I have
no doubt that the death was produced by the effects of arsenic.
Could you have formed any judgment independently of the analysis, or is
this latter part necessary to your judgment?—I should have believed,
from the examination of the stomach and intestines only, that the death
had been produced by some corrosive substance.
Should you have been of opinion, without any analysis, but from the
general appearance of the stomach, that she had died of poison?—I should
certainly have been of that opinion.
But not arsenic in particular?—No; but some corrosive substance.
Could that corrosive substance have been produced in the body itself, or
must it have been administered from without?—It is not possible that it
should have been produced internally; it must have been introduced from
without.
(Cross-examined by Mr. Sergt. Pell.)
I think you said, that you found this lady’s pulse frequent and
fluttering?—Yes, Sir.
The medicine you prescribed for her was of a purgative nature?—Yes.
How often would she have had to take that medicine, between the time you
gave that prescription and the time when she died?—I gave her the
prescription for every four hours, but I left instructions to give it
every three hours.
Is that the prescription? (_shewing it_)—Yes, Sir.
Be so good as to mention what are the materials—or first, what is the
nature of that complaint, called Cholera Morbus?—It is generally
produced in hot seasons, by bile getting into the stomach, and causing
irritation in the stomach and bowels.
Is not cramp sometimes a symptom of a violent bilious attack?—Cramp
often comes on in violent irritations of the stomach and bowels,
whatever may be the cause of that irritation.
Is not cramp a certain symptom of a violent bilious attack?—It very
often accompanies it.
(By Mr. Justice Abbott.) Cramp of the legs generally arises from those
causes?—Yes, my Lord; most frequently from a violent action of the
stomach.
(By Mr. Sergt. Pell.) Might it not arise from a bilious disorganization
of the stomach?—Yes.
This complaint of Cholera Morbus may proceed to a very painful
degree?—It may kill.
Is it a very painful complaint?—It is a very distressing complaint.
As far as you have had an opportunity of visiting patients, do you know
it to be a painful complaint?—It produces cramp, which is painful, and
it certainly produces pain in the stomach and bowels by its violent
action.
Do you apprehend that a purgative medicine would be a proper medicine
for a person in that situation, supposing it to have been Cholera
Morbus?—There were no symptoms of Cholera Morbus when I saw Mrs.
Downing; but from what I heard of her complaint, I imagined that there
was something offensive either in the stomach or bowels, which ought to
be evacuated.
Were ten drops of laudanum a proper thing to give her?—It is sometimes
given to allay the irritation of those parts.
Might not a powerful administration of laudanum be of use in Cholera
Morbus?—Seldom, I think, in large quantities, but is given in small
doses frequently, if the case be urgent.
I think you have stated, that the result of your chemical experiment was
not the production of any gross arsenic, or arsenic in substance?—Not
arsenic in substance.
And you judged from the application of chemical tests?—Yes, Sir.
Be so good as to state what the chemical tests were which you used?—The
first was with the sulphate of copper, which is the common blue vitriol.
If you put a little carbonate of potash into water containing a solution
of arsenic, and then add the sulphate of copper in solution, a _green_
precipitate will be produced; whereas, if no arsenic be present, a
_blue_ precipitate would be formed: that was the first test which I
used.
What was the second test?—The second test was with the nitrate of
silver, or common lunar caustic, (these are the same in substance, but
the lunar caustic is the more common term). Put a little carbonate of
potash into water containing arsenic in solution, and dip the end of a
cylindrical piece of lunar caustic into the water, a _yellow_
precipitate will be produced; whereas if no arsenic be present, a
_white_ precipitate would be formed. Those were the chief tests which I
used; but in order to ascertain whether any thing which had been taken
into the stomach, or was naturally contained in it, would alter the
appearances produced by the tests, so as to make the result uncertain, I
tried other experiments. I concluded that bile formed part of the
contents of the stomach; I therefore procured some and mixed it with
water, and subjected it to the same tests in the same manner, and I
found that the appearance of the precipitate was not the same as if
arsenic were present; I therefore inferred that bile, in the quantity in
which it may occasionally be found in the stomach, would not alter the
conclusion I had drawn from the result of my first experiments.—I was
informed that Mrs. Downing had eaten onions; I boiled some in water in
the usual way, and after pouring off the water in which they were
boiled, I poured some boiling water on them, and let them stand for some
hours; I then ascertained what effect this water would produce on the
tests, and was satisfied that it would not, when the experiment was
carefully made, produce the appearance of arsenic.—I also understood
that some tartarized antimony had been given; I tried the tests with a
solution of that substance, and the precipitate had not the appearance
which arsenic, if present, would put on.
Do you happen to know who was the first person who discovered these
tests?—I believe Mr. Hume discovered that with nitrate of silver.
Do you know Dr. Marcett?—Yes, I know him from his writings, to be a
clever man.
You don’t happen to know whether he first discovered this mode?—No.
Do you know of any mode of managing any fluid substance, in which
arsenic has been mixed, so as to produce arsenic in substance?—By
evaporating the solution containing arsenic, and by exposing it to heat
in a close vessel, you will produce it in a white solid state; and by
mixing the residuum of a solution of arsenic with an inflammable
substance, arsenic will be sublimed in its metallic state by the same
process.
The result of that experiment would not have deceived any one in the
world?—It would not certainly; but there was such a small quantity left,
after my other experiments, that it was not tried.
It would have produced it, so that any person would know the thing to be
arsenic?—Certainly.
You mix the fluid, in which the arsenic is, with an alkali, when you
seek to re-produce the mineral in substance? you mix the solution with
an alkali, don’t you?—No; there is no occasion for an alkali.
You put it in solution and expose it to heat?—If the arsenic be in
solution, it must be evaporated; and by doing that which I have before
stated with the residuum, it will be produced in its metallic state.
With respect to the other tests, do you consider those as conclusive and
infallible?—Yes, in the way I used them.
This business, of course, must have made a great bustle in Falmouth,
when people first talked about it?—Yes, Sir.
When were you examined before the Coroner?—Upon the same day of the
funeral, and on the Thursday preceding. I begged the inquest might be
put off for two days, till I had examined the contents of the stomach;
and it was put off for two days.
You were examined, I believe, before you made the analyses?—I remember
that I was examined on the Thursday as to the appearances I found on the
stomach.
Can you recollect whether you did or did not state, before the Gentlemen
of the Jury, that the appearances of the stomach were such as proceeded
from a natural cause?—No, certainly not.
You did however desire that it might be postponed two days, that you
might make some experiments on the contents of the stomach?—Yes, Sir.
Are persons, particularly women, of an elderly time of life, more
subject to the attack of Cholera Morbus, than people who are
young?—There is very little difference.
The age of the person does not predispose him or her more to that
complaint, than a youthful person?—No, I don’t think it does; it is
rather the contrary.
You say there was nothing in the chamber vessel but water that had been
poured in, with which you had washed some parts of the stomach?—I poured
the water in myself, at a time when I believe it was empty.
Mr. Sergt. Pell—So that the effect of it would be only to give more
trouble in evaporating a greater quantity of fluid, it having been made
before.
(Re-examined by Mr. Sergt. Lens.)
You have been asked several questions about the nature of Cholera
Morbus; do you change your opinion, in any respect, as to this not being
Cholera Morbus that occasioned the death?—I do not.
You have been asked particularly about a third test that you did not
make use of; I wish to ask you how it happened that you did not resort
to that test as well as to the others?—There was not sufficient left so
as to ascertain it accurately.
So that that last test would not be so proper as the others?—The tests I
used would detect a more minute portion of arsenic, and therefore were
more proper for that occasion, as I found that there could not be much
arsenic in the fluid, from the appearances produced by these tests.
And that was the reason that you resorted to those tests instead of this
last test, which you did not use?—Yes, that was the reason, when I found
by the other tests that the arsenic was not in a large quantity.
Had the quantity been larger, how would you have proceeded?—I should
have resorted also to the last if there had been a larger quantity.
(By Mr. Justice Abbott.) The portion detected was very small?—Yes, my
Lord.
Do I understand you to say that it was so small that you did not think
it fit to try the other test, or that of evaporation?—That was my
reason. I accounted for the smallness of the quantity of poison in this
way—from the frequent throwing up, and the purging, which would carry
off large portions.
Suppose the contents of the stomach had been suffered to remain in the
jug as you had put them, unmixed with any quantity of fluid, would it
have been more easy to perform the experiment, and securing its
effect?—There would be the same result, but a difference in regard to
the length of time that it would take to evaporate.
After having tried and made use of these tests, would it have been
practicable still to have tried the test by evaporation and
sublimation?—I did not do it as the quantity of fluid was so small, and
I did not conceive that a small quantity would do. If I had evaporated
the whole of it in the first place, I might perhaps have detected
arsenic in substance; but I had made use of a great quantity in trying
the other tests, which I threw away.
That would not have been proper to have tried again, that which had been
tried before?—It would not have been so easily done.
The application of the lunar caustic in the one instance, and the
sulphate of copper in the other, would not have prevented the other
operation?—It would not have been so correct.
Do you happen to know that the prisoner, Mr. Donnall, ever desired that
any other test should be applied?—I don’t recollect that he did; but
some one came to my house, and requested me to give him a part of the
contents of the stomach to try it, but I had none.
If any application was made, it was too late?—Yes, my Lord.
Was any person with you when you tried these tests?—Mr. Street, a
brother of the gentleman I have spoken of, was with me.
That is Mr. Samuel Spyvee Street?—Yes, my Lord.
Any other person, at the other time of the experiments?—Mr. John Street
was present at the other.
(_Witness withdrew._)
_Mr. John Street_ (examined by Mr. Gazelee).
You were a surgeon?—Yes, Sir.
How long have you been retired from that profession?—About five years.
Was any application made to you to attend the opening of the body of
Mrs. Downing?—Yes, Sir, there was.
Who applied to you?—Mr. Donnall.
Upon what day did he apply to you?—Upon the Thursday.
To assist him in opening the body?—Yes, Sir.
What time did you go to the house?—Mr. Donnall called upon me about
half-past one o’clock upon the Thursday, and I went to the house about
two o’clock, or half-past two.
Whom did you find there?—Mr. Donnall and Dr. Edwards.
The operation was performed by Dr. Edwards?—Yes, and I assisted him.
Do you remember the circumstance of the contents of the stomach being
taken out and put into a jug?—Yes, I do.
What became of the jug, or was any thing said about it?—Dr. Edwards
poured the contents of the stomach into a jug, and requested it should
be taken particular care of, addressing himself particularly to Mr.
Donnall, who was very near him.
After that, did you proceed to examine the stomach itself?—We did.
Describe the appearances upon the stomach?—After opening the stomach, I
perceived it to be very much inflamed, and remarked it to Dr. Edwards,
and also to Mr. Donnall, who was upon my right hand, that the
inflammation was very extensive, and the blood-vessels very turgid;
there were stars, and the villous coat very highly inflamed; that was
the appearance of the stomach; we then examined the Duodenum, we found
that very much inflamed; the Jejunium and Illium we found but slightly
inflamed; the Cæcum was the next part that we opened, that was inflamed
but slightly.
(By Mr. Justice Abbott.) Those are the parts of the body connected with
the stomach?—Yes; after that we opened the chest to examine the heart,
liver, and lungs, and we found them in a perfect state.
(By Mr. Gazelee.) From those appearances, could you form any judgment as
to what was the occasion of the death of the deceased?—From the
appearances I should attribute the death to some corrosive matter taken
into the stomach.
You found that the contents of the jug had been removed into a chamber
utensil, did you not?—Yes.
That chamber vessel was afterwards removed further in under the
bed?—Yes, Sir, by Dr. Edwards.