Chapter XX: Part III (2)

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.