Chapter I: Front Matter

TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES:

—Obvious print and punctuation errors were corrected.

—The subscript numbers, used in chemical formulae, have been rendered as H_{2}SO_{4}.

REPORTS OF TRIALS

FOR

MURDER BY POISONING.

REPORTS OF TRIALS

FOR

MURDER BY POISONING;

BY

PRUSSIC ACID, STRYCHNIA, ANTIMONY,
ARSENIC, AND ACONITIA.

INCLUDING THE

TRIALS OF TAWELL, W. PALMER, DOVE, MADELINE SMITH,
DR. PRITCHARD, SMETHURST, AND DR. LAMSON,

WITH

CHEMICAL INTRODUCTION AND NOTES ON
THE POISONS USED.

BY

G. LATHOM BROWNE,

OF THE MIDLAND CIRCUIT, BARRISTER-AT-LAW, AUTHOR OF “NARRATIVES OF
STATE TRIALS IN THE 19TH CENTURY,”

AND

C. G. STEWART,

SENIOR ASSISTANT IN THE LABORATORY OF ST. THOMAS’S HOSPITAL;
ASSOCIATE OF THE ROYAL COLLEGE OF SCIENCE, DUBLIN;
AND OF THE SOCIETY OF PUBLIC ANALYSTS.

LONDON:

STEVENS AND SONS, 119, CHANCERY LANE,

Law Publishers and Booksellers.

1883.

LONDON:

BRADBURY, AGNEW, & CO., PRINTERS, WHITEFRIARS.

PREFACES.

THIS volume of selected reports of the most remarkable trials for murder by poisoning, which have been held during the past half century, with essays and notes explanatory of the nature, and operation, and methods of detecting the various poisons supposed to have been employed, will it is hoped prove useful to the medical, as well as the legal profession. With this object the evidence of the medical and chemical witnesses has been given in detail, especially in those cases in which a conflict of scientific testimony arose, between experts of the highest professional character and reputation. Care has also been taken to state the scientific nomenclature of this class of witness correctly, a point on which the shorthand writers, otherwise so reliable, are naturally liable to fail, catching as they do only the sounds of a language unknown to them, in reporting which the error even in a single letter is often most important. My colleague, besides furnishing the latest information obtainable with reference to the various poisons, has offered from recent experiments, made specially for this purpose, explanations of those points in the several trials about which the rival experts disputed, bringing to bear on them the latest discoveries in chemical science.

In preparing these reports, I have followed the form adopted by the late Mr. Townsend, the Recorder of Macclesfield, in his valuable volumes of trials—now I believe quite out of print—grouping the witnesses under the heads of the case to which their evidence specially applied, dividing the scientific from the moral testimony, and wherever a conflict arose between the experts called for the prosecution and those for the defence, giving the evidence of the latter immediately after that of the former, so as to place the points at issue more clearly before the reader.

It would have been impossible, within reasonable limits, to have reported in detail the elaborate speeches of counsel (most of them models of argument, criticism, and eloquence), or the minute and exhaustive charges of many of the presiding judges. The abstracts which have been given will, however, serve to perpetuate the most important and notable parts of both. In some of the cases the immediate application of these either to certain points in the evidence, or to the arguments adduced on either side, has been shown by quotations in the notes. With these exceptions, and a few notes pointing out errors or discrepancies in the evidence, I have generally forborne to express an opinion on the verdict, preferring to present such reports of the evidence as may enable the student to form his own conclusions.

With the progress of chemical science the field of the poisoner is constantly extending. New poisons are yearly discovered, each succeeding one apparently more difficult of detection than the former. Death lurks in many unsuspected forms, and but for the parallel march of the science of detection, the poisoner would more often escape. A grave danger to society, too, lies in the patent medicines, so popular and so perilous; in the vermin killers, loaded with deadly poison, which can be bought without let or hindrance by any one; and the use of preparations for animals—not so deleterious to the latter, as they are death-dealing—if either intentionally or by accident given to a human being. Stringent as the regulations of the Poisons Act appear on paper, the facility with which Lamson purchased aconitia, merely on the credit of his name appearing in the Medical Directory, and the really unrestricted sale of patent medicines and vermin-killers, mark the practical inutility of the Act. A new Act, dealing with these points, has been promised by the Government, but there seems little probability of its passing this session.

G. L. B.

* * * * *

IN the compilation of these chemical notes it has been found very difficult to be sufficiently simple and complete in explanation for non-scientific readers, without either sacrificing many important details, or exceeding the limited space available. I have attempted as far as possible not only to solve the questions that arose in the trials, but to look forward to many that might occur in future cases. No claim is laid to originality except in a few experiments; but the search through existing authorities has involved so much labour, that I must plead a very limited leisure as an excuse for any incompleteness. In such portions as touched on medicine I have been guided by the later text-books, and by living advice. It has been thought preferable to give references in the text, at the very passage quoted, instead of in foot-notes.

With regard to the proposed new Poisons Act one or two considerations should not be forgotten. There are hundreds of ways of taking life: the poisoner’s is only one. Even in his method the number of fatal agents he may use is almost unlimited. To make a schedule of certain poisons that are not to be sold without restriction, seems like prohibiting knives, while allowing stilettos—the latter are certainly less usual, but quite as fatal. Moreover, the Act of 1868 only affects one channel by which poisons may reach the public—viz., through the retail chemists. It secures a record of ordinary shop purchases, and thus facilitates the tracing of crime. But the channels of trade are still open: hundred-weights of arsenic are obtained, where ounces could not be purchased; and these large stocks are often carelessly kept, and left open to servants, workmen, or even children. The result is that the supposed restrictions on obtaining poisons are almost illusory: these substances are sown broadcast among ignorant people, and are placed in cupboards unlabelled among articles of food. The following are recent illustrations:—

“At Corkley, Wilts, the wife of a labourer used, instead of baking-powder, a packet of arsenic, intended by her husband as medicine for his horses. The husband and wife died.”—_Weekly Dispatch, May 6, 1883._

“At Whitchurch, a farmer was accused of poisoning a large number of cattle and other animals with arsenic. In 1881 he had obtained several pounds of it from Liverpool, stating that he wanted it to destroy vermin.”—_Evening Standard, June 2, 1883._

In the schedule of the 1868 Act, among the _less dangerous poisons_, to be obtained without restriction beyond proper labelling, appears, “Almonds, Essential Oil of (_unless deprived of prussic acid_).” Yet this preparation is one of the most perilous, as has been shown by numbers of deaths, and lately by the West Malling case (not yet ripe enough for reporting). There are also other faults in the schedule.

Remembering, then, that legislation on the sale of poisons is utterly unable to _prevent_ poisoning, that all it can do is to make the means a little difficult, and the detection more easy, how can we approve the proposal at this moment made, to tack on a few, very tentative clauses to an unsuccessful Act, and four more names to a very defective schedule? Why insert chloride of antimony, and omit nitrate of silver, sulphate of copper, and chloride of tin? The essence of a “poison” is _quantity_; and no Act which does not specify the maximum quantity that may be sold, can be effective. Beyond this, why should it be more criminal to _sell_ a dangerous substance to a poisoner than to _give_ it to him, or by culpable negligence to allow him to take possession of it? If such neglect were made punishable, if people who left arsenic, &c., about in cupboards without precaution, had to suffer for the consequences, we should hear less of such “accidents.”

I am deeply indebted to Dr. Bernays, Professor of Chemistry at St. Thomas’s Hospital, for kind advice and facilities of consultation and experiment; to Doctors Harley, Ord, Acland, and to my namesake, Mr. Charles Stewart, F.L.S., for many valuable suggestions; and especially to Mr. E. G. Clayton, F.C.S., who contributed the main part of the chapter on Aconitia, and helped me materially in other portions of the chemical notes.

The main authorities drawn upon have been:—

Taylor’s Medical Jurisprudence, 1873.
Taylor on Poisons.
Woodman and Tidy’s Handy-Book of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology,
1877.
Blyth’s Manual of Practical Chemistry, 1879.
Guy and Ferrier’s Forensic Medicine, 1881.
Allen’s Commercial Organic Analysis, 1879.
Royle’s Materia Medica, edited by Dr. J. Harley, 1876.
Christison on Poisons, 1829.
Fresenius’ Qual. and Quant. Analysis.
Watt’s Dictionary of Chemistry.
Chemical Society’s Journal.
Chemical News, Lancet, &c.
Farquharson’s Therapeutics.
Mohr’s Toxicologie, trans. by Gautier, 1876.
Casper’s Handbook of Forensic Medicine, trans. by Balfour, 1861-5.
Beilstein’s Organische Chemie, 1882.
Year Book of Pharmacy.
British and other Pharmacopœias.
Squire’s Companion.

In conclusion, it has been obviously impossible in the limited space to explain elementary facts or principles. These may be ascertained from any of the standard textbooks.

C. G. S.

CONTENTS.

PAGE PREFACES v

ADDENDA: DIFFERENCES BETWEEN STRYCHNIA AND MORPHIA xv

” PROCESS FOR OBTAINING PURE CHLORINE xvi

CHAPTER I.

CHEMICAL INTRODUCTION.

Summary of symptoms exhibited by various poisons: (1) Sudden
death—(2) Insensibility—(3) Vomiting—(4) Action on the eye—(5)
Convulsions—(6) Chronic poisoning. Alkaloids, chemically
and physiologically—Processes for their detection—Necessity
for keeping the extracts separate—Dragendorff’s process—Dr.
Guy’s sublimation process—Effects on animals—Doubtful value
of this test—Preparation and effects of reagents: (1)
Mayer’s—(2) Potassium tri-iodide—(3) Sonnenschein’s test—(4)
Bismuth—(5) Phosphotungstic acid—(6) Picric acid—(7) Animal
charcoal—(8) Platinic chloride—(9) Tannin or Tannic acid—(10)
Phospho-antimonic acid—(11) Silico-tungstic acid—(12) Auric,
palladium and mercuric chlorides—Ptomaines or cadaveric
alkaloids; difficulties raised by their discovery—Principles to
be observed in analysing 1

CHAPTER II.

TRIALS FOR POISONING BY PRUSSIC ACID 16

(1) John Tawell (_Slough Case_), March, 1850.

(2) George Ball (_Lewes Case_), July, 1860.

(3) Peter Walker (_Egglesham Case_), Dec., 1857.

CHAPTER III.

HYDROCYANIC OR PRUSSIC ACID.

Nature of—Strength of different preparations of, English
and foreign—Where found—Tests, preliminary: (1) Odour—(2)
Silver—(3) Prussian blue—(4) Sulphur—(5) Guaiacum—(6)
Uranium—(7) Picric acid—(8) Cupric sulphate—(9) Cobalt
chloride—(10) Mercuric oxide—(11) Peroxide of hydrogen—(12)
Mercurous nitrate. Test apparatus—Salts of hydrocyanic acid:
(1) Potassium cyanide—(2) Mercuric cyanide—(3) Cyanides of
the heavy metals—(4) Double cyanides—(5) Sulphocyanides—Oil
of bitter almonds—Antidotes—Fatal dose—Symptoms—Post-mortem
appearances—Drops and minims—Period after death at which
hydrocyanic acid can be discovered—Formic acid to be tested
for—Processes 55

CHAPTER IV.

TRIALS FOR POISONING BY STRYCHNIA 84

(1) William Palmer (_Rugeley Case_), May, 1856.
(2) William Dove (_Leeds Case_), July, 1856.
(3) Silas Barlow (_Vauxhall Case_), November, 1876.