Chapter IV (8)

This witness had the cat dug out of the midden, in which the prisoner said he had buried it, and was present when Mr. Morley and Mr. Nunneley experimented on it.

MEDICAL AND ANALYTICAL EVIDENCE.

_Mr. George Morley_, a surgeon at Leeds, who had always attended the Dove family, was called in to the deceased in December, 1855, when he found her suffering from disordered digestion and nervous excitement. She improved, and he subsequently only saw her at long intervals till the 25th of February; on that day, he said—

“I found her in bed, and only observed _twitchings of the arms twice_. She told me she had had an attack in the morning with pains in the back and limbs, and had been often before so, and that she suffered from an excitable temperament. I thought it an hysterical attack, as she was at the age for them. Saw her every day during the week, and on the Wednesday and Thursday again _saw slight jerking of the arms_. On the Friday and Saturday she was decidedly better, and I did not alter my opinion of her case until the Saturday night, as I had often seen such symptoms arise from hysteria. I made the medicines antispasmodic and sedative: they would check the symptoms, and for a time seemed to do so. On Wednesday I proposed seeing another doctor, when Dove said she would not recover, and I warned him not to say so in her hearing, and that he had better call in a physician. Next day I received a note from him declining the proposed consultation, as his wife had perfect confidence in me. On Saturday I received a message that she was worse, and that I was to bring Dr. Hobson with me. Dove came afterwards to my house, and said he thought she would not recover, and that he should object to a _post mortem_ examination. I said I thought there would be no need of one, and that she would recover. He said his wife objected to it strongly. He seemed excited, as with drink, but quite rational. We were too late to see Mrs. Dove alive. From what Mr. Scarth told me I took measures for a _post mortem_ examination.

“I now attribute the symptoms I have heard described to the poison of strychnia—from the symptoms and what I found in the body—finding in the body no organic disease to account for death. _The symptoms do not correspond with those of any other disease, but do with those produced by strychnia._ In hysteria the symptoms are more irregular; they do not assume a tetanic character; there is more disturbance of the mind; and such attacks are never fatal. Tetanic affections are stiffening of the limbs, rigidity, and stretching out of the limbs, arching back of the trunk, stiffening of the neck and jaw. The symptoms of hysteria might be some of those symptoms. No one but might be found in hysteria, but not all together. The symptoms are separately and conjointly in accordance with poisoning by strychnia. On Monday, March 3rd, _forty-two_ hours after death, by authority of the prisoner’s mother, I made a _post mortem_ examination in conjunction with Mr. Nunneley, and drew up the following joint report.”

It is unnecessary to give in detail the first portion of this report, in which, from a most careful examination of all parts of the body, it was evident that the death could not be attributed to any known organic disease. With the exception of a slight appearance of congestion in the intestines, every part of the body was in a healthy state, and the stomach contained only usual food. The report then continued:—

“No appearance of irritation from any mineral or other irritant poison, nor any odour of any poison recognizable by smell. Hence we searched for strychnia. We divided the stomach and its contents into three parts:—(1.) The brown pulpy mass in the stomach; (2.) The mucous and all other matters that could be removed from the stomach; (3.) The stomach itself. By the usual tests we obtained strychnia from each of these. The spirituous extracts were also unusually bitter. In the contents of the intestines we found only faint traces. We obtained the body of the cat, that had been poisoned some time before, and proved that it is possible to discover strychnia in a dead body some time after death. The result was decidedly the same evidence as we had from the human body.”

The report then gave the details of the processes by which the strychnia had been detected. (1.) Taste; (2.) Nitric acid, producing a red colour (_the test for brucia_); (3.) Acetic acid and solution of chloride of gold, producing a yellowish-white precipitate (_of doubtful value_); (4.) Concentrated sulphuric acid and solution of bichromate of potash, both in powder and in solution, producing the purple colour; (5.) The application of the same tests to strychnia itself with the same results, by each of them separately, and repeated with such variations as could detect any error that might have crept in, and the conclusion to which the analysts came that the stomach contained strychnia enough to cause death.

The report then described the effects of administering portions of the spirituous extracts proved to have contained strychnia to several animals, five in number. In the cases of four of these, two rabbits, one mouse, and a guinea-pig, the liquid was given by inoculation through small openings either in the cellular tissues beneath the skin, or into one of the mucous cavities of the body; and in the case of one of the mice, by the mouth. In three cases death followed at the respective intervals of two, twelve, and fifty minutes after the introduction of the poison; and in one case—that of a rabbit—although for a time it remained nearly dead, it afterwards revived, and eventually recovered. In the case of the pig, the effects were much more slight; the spasms were not so violent as to throw it down and entirely disable it, but on the following day it was found dead, with the muscles rigid, and the hind legs extended, as if from poison. “_The symptoms preceding death, in all the cases, were, disturbed respiration, general distress, convulsive twitchings and jerkings, tetanic spasms, a peculiar out-stretching of the legs, and general rigidity, exactly those commonly produced by strychnia._” The same effects, for the sake of comparison, were produced in a parallel series of experiments on animals with ordinary strychnia, which, as a series, were not more severe, or more rapidly fatal. “These experiments,” said the analysts, “which add the test of physiological effect to that of the chemical reagent, directly confirm our analysis, and taking them in connection with the analyses and with the symptoms observed during life, and with the appearances noted after death, they afford, in our opinion, the most complete proof that the death of Mrs. Dove was from the poisonous effects of strychnia, and from no other cause.”

The witness then spoke from his own personal knowledge of cases of poisoning by strychnia, and continued:—

“I cannot refer the death to any other cause, nor the symptoms during life, as described by the witnesses Witham, Fisher, and Wood. _There is no other substance that will produce such symptoms and appearances._ I tried similar experiments on a little dog, with the same results. _Strychnia is not a cumulative poison. The effect of of it passes off entirely by a gradual subsidence of the spasms. In part the strychnia is absorbed in the blood, in part it passes off by the secretions, part remains in the stomach, its carbon, hydrogen, and other constituents broken up. If not decomposed, it would act on other animals._ The series of symptoms produced by strychnia were complete. I have no doubt that each of the several attacks were produced by strychnia. Several of the medicines I sent to Mrs. Dove were bitter, containing aloes and gentian, and hot, containing ammonia and ether. _The effects of strychnia would follow from in a few seconds to an hour and a half, depending on the constitution of the person, and state of the stomach, and how the strychnia was administered._ Assuming that Mrs. Dove took no food or tea, I should refer the time at which she took the strychnia to the time at which she took the medicine. That would be the natural time for the attack; she would be attacked in a quarter to half an hour after taking it. The strychnia I had in my surgery was a soft white powder, fine, but not so fine as salt. There is a form of pure crystallised strychnia more like salt. I should judge that she had taken two to three grains to produce the results of Saturday night. You might take two or three grains between your finger and thumb: a quarter of a grain would kill a dog. I have examined one of the bottles of medicine which I sent to Mrs. Dove; it is the same as I sent.”

The witness also related the following conversations with the prisoner:—

“During the _post-mortem_ examination, I had a conversation with the prisoner at his mother’s. He asked me what we had found in the analysis—had we found poison? I said the analysis was not complete, and could not give any answer till it was. I said we had not found any natural causes of death. He asked me, ‘If poison was found, what would the jury say? ‘ I replied, that ‘They could only say it was taken by accident, or intentionally, or given to her by some one.’ He wished me to let him know before the inquest if we had found poison. I had inquired about his getting poison, and asked him how often. He replied, ‘Only once, and that he had it to kill mice, as well as cats; had placed it in his razor-case, and told his wife that it was the poison Palmer used; that it was a deadly poison, and she must not touch it.’ I never told him there should be no examination.”

On _cross-examination_ by Mr. Bliss, after speaking to his having attended the Dove family for many years, but seen but little of the prisoner before he came to Leeds, the witness said—

“When the conversation about strychnia took place, the prisoner asked me if I suspected him, and said, ‘Should I have done it openly if I had intended to do it? Should I have come to your surgery for it or have talked openly about it to other people? Could I have been so cruel?’ That was the first time that I named strychnia to any relative. I examined the little dog and have no doubt it died of strychnia. They brought me a piece of carpet and the board on which was blood, but I discovered no strychnia. I could not; the quantity was too small. I think the stains in the carpet and on the board could not have contained strychnia enough to have poisoned the dog. I discovered very little blood in the intestines. Strychnia is exceedingly bitter. One part in 40,000 would be bitter, less would be perceptibly bitter. There was a considerable quantity of fæces in the intestines, and three or four ounces of digested food. Mrs. Dove’s medicines were alkaline. I saw Mrs. Dove every day from Monday to Saturday, and she told me her ailments. I found nothing in the body to account for death but the strychnia taken on Saturday. Strychnia is not soluble in alkali. The symptoms I have heard to-day, prior to those on Saturday, are additional to what I saw. Hysteria would have left no symptoms. There was nothing inconsistent with strychnia having been administered before in the appearances of the body. The engorged state of the lungs and the condition of the brain favoured that view. _I say this guardedly._ She might with this condition of body have been better on Saturday, as congestion would pass away quickly. I found no symptoms on Saturday of the brain or lungs being engorged. She was better in health, in spirits, and in appetite. Mrs. Witham’s and Mrs. Fisher’s statements have changed my opinion. The symptoms they describe are all to be found separately in hysteria. Mr. Scarth’s account also influenced me, which I did not hear until after her death. It was my opinion at the time that she was affected with hysteria. _In a paroxysm from strychnia it is possible that a patient might wish to be rubbed, but it is not what I should ‘à priori,’ look for. Touch sometimes renews the spasms, but it depends upon the stage. The desire not to be touched is a symptom of strychnia._ After hearing of her symptoms I prescribed a liniment to be rubbed. _It consisted with the dose of strychnia said to have been administered that she should be better on Saturday._ The effect of hysteria would be to gorge the vessels of the brain and lungs. _Not shrinking from touch was consistent with strychnia, but a desire not to be touched was an indication of it._”

On _re-examination_, the witness said—

“_There are several cases in which persons labouring under strychnia had desired to be rubbed._ Parts of the body might fall on the floor as well as the blood.

“_By a Juror._—If strychnia were put in the medicine it would not alter the colour of it, it might have left a powdery deposit. I never knew a case of hysteria cause death with such external appearances as in Mrs. Dove’s case.”

_Mr. Thomas Nunneley_, professor of surgery in the Leeds College of Medicine, who was examined in Palmer’s case on behalf of that prisoner, and then maintained that if Cook had been poisoned by strychnia it would have been found in his body by the chemical and other tests as late as the sixth day after his death, confirmed the statements in the joint report, and the opinion of Mr. Morley, that Mrs. Dove had died from the effects of strychnia. His experiments on strychnia in the cases of animals had been carried on for over thirty years, and he was of opinion that, “though he should not have anticipated the improvement spoken of on the Saturday, yet that it was not inconsistent with her having taken strychnia on the Friday.” On _cross-examination_ by Mr. Bliss, he gave the following evidence:—

“I found nothing on dissection that could not be referred to the strychnia taken on the Saturday night—the intensity of that attack might have produced the appearances in the brain and lungs. Hysteria will simulate the appearances of other diseases, and among them of tetanus. I did not examine the fæces and tissues of the body, but I should expect to find strychnia in the tissues if taken six days before. My attention was not called to its having been taken before Saturday, but even if it had I think I should have found it. This case and the one in London (Palmer’s) have advanced our knowledge in the discovery of this poison far beyond what it was before. _It accords with my experience that a person suffering from strychnia would not bear to be rubbed._”

_Re-examined._—“I attribute the symptoms exhibited before Saturday to strychnia. They are not so in accordance with any disease as with strychnia.”

_Dr. Christison_, the eminent writer on poisons, also agreed with Mr. Morley and Mr. Nunneley as to the cause of the symptoms. He admitted that “it was just possible to attribute them to hysteria, but had never seen such a combination of symptoms in an hysteric case. He thought it was unusual for a person to be insensible before death in a case of strychnia, but he had seen it lately in the case of an animal killed by that poison—the symptoms were exactly those which would be produced by an overdose of strychnia in the prior attacks.”

_Dr. Hobson_, who had seen the deceased with Mr. Morley a few minutes after her death, “saw nothing either in her countenance or position that he thought particular, and admitted that all the symptoms described before those of Saturday might be accounted for in an aggravated form of hysteria, but would not expect a person who suffered under such a form of hysteria to be conscious, nor did he attribute these symptoms to that disease.”

_Mr. Teal_, who had been in practice in Leeds for thirty-four years, agreed “in the symptoms being entirely in accord with strychnia, and though he had seen hysteria simulate strychnism, he had never seen it entirely resemble the entire group of symptoms represented in this case; had he heard only of the symptoms before Saturday, he should have considered them in strict accordance with the effects of that poison; and even if he had heard of hysteric symptoms before, he should have suspected strychnia, but would not deny the possibility of their being consistent with hysteria.” In reply to a juryman, he added the following evidence on the probable reason for the state of the prisoner’s mind:—

“Excessive drinking without producing _delirium tremens_ might cause the conduct of the prisoner, described by Harrison,[81] as to spirits and noises. He might have any delusions when under the influence of drink, but when sober such a man might be sound in mind and without delusions, and when partially drunk might have delusions without suffering under _delirium tremens_.”

_Mr. Richard Hey_, who had been in practice in York for twenty-seven years, and concurred with the other medical men, on _cross-examination_, said—

“I have had experience in hysteria, and have seen cases in which many of the symptoms would be the same as those described. The freedom from affection of the brain would lead me to suspect it to be strychnia. I think the violent twitchings and spasms, and the extreme pain they produced, would make a very marked distinction from the effects of hysteria. I have never seen instances of screaming out from pain in hysteria. I have heard of screaming out. They complain of pain, but not violent pain. _The spasm consequent on strychnia would, I imagine, induce a patient to be rubbed as in ordinary spasms and cramp, but I never saw spasms so intense as in those spoken of in strychnia. One of the most marked symptoms in strychnia, in aggravated cases, is not being able to bear to be touched, but it is not so in slight attacks._” _Re-examined._—“I never knew touching or walking across a room not bearable in hysteria, or pain in the jaws, or all these things combined in hysteria.”

The last witness called by the prosecution, _Mr. William Hey_, who had been in practice in Leeds for thirty-seven years, was equally of opinion that the symptoms were inconsistent with any known disease, but consistent with the effects of strychnia, and with nothing else. “Had he heard only the evidence of the symptoms down to Friday night, her hysterical temperament, and her recovery on the Saturday, he should not have attributed them to hysteria, but he should have thought it a most extraordinary case.”

THE PRISONER’S ACTIONS AND STATEMENTS.

In addition to the acts and statements of the prisoner reported in the “Early Life of the Prisoner” and the evidence already given, _Miss Fisher_ deposed to his very violent threats against his wife, especially when in liquor; his telling her on one occasion “to mind her own business, or he would do her job for her”; his threatening her with a knife and striking her, and telling her “he would give her a pill”; and to his wife saying, in his presence, “If I should die, it is my wish, Elizabeth, that you should tell my friends to have my body examined”; to his writing a letter to the witchman Harrison, asking him “to torment his wife when at Manchester, as she was not a right woman”; and telling the witness that Harrison had told him that his wife’s days would end in February. He also told another witness (_Elizabeth Thornhill_, a charwoman) that Harrison had told him that his wife would not live long, and that he would marry the lady next door (Mrs. Witham).

Whilst the inquest was proceeding he asked Mrs. Witham how it was going on, and when she said to him, “It is a very suspicious thing that you gave her the medicine at eight o’clock and that she became ill a quarter of an hour after,” he replied, “If they ask me if I gave the medicine, I shall say I did not; and if they ask if she took it herself, I shall say I do not know.”

To _Margaret Gray_, another witness, he stated on the Friday that his wife was ill of spasms, and he did not think she would live over Saturday night.

To _Mary Hicks_ he more than once stated that he was sure his wife would die, and that Mr. Morley would want a _post mortem_ examination, as he did in his father’s case, but that he would object to it, as he had promised his wife to do; that he should probably soon marry again; and when Mrs. Hicks told him to go back, as his wife might have another attack, he said she would not until half-past ten or eleven, and made no reply when again asked if the attacks were periodical. On the Sunday morning after his wife’s death, he told this witness that there was to be an inquest, and when she asked why, said, “Oh, we live in a bad neighbourhood, and have not lived happily together. It is all nonsense.” To the Rev. H. T. Sturgeon, the clergyman of Burley, whom he asked to visit his wife, and to whom he professed to be very anxious about her spiritual welfare, he assigned as his reason for not calling in further advice (as recommended by Mr. Morley) his fear of offending that gentleman. To a man of the name of _Rose_, a baker, whose name even he did not know, and whom he met by accident in a dram shop on the Thursday before his wife’s death, he said that he thought his wife would die, and told him “not to come to him till he saw her death in the paper, and then, if he lighted on a woman that would suit him, to bring her down to his house, as he could not do without one if his wife died.”

To _Harrison_, the watchman, on the Thursday after his wife’s death, when giving him a card for her funeral, he said there was an inquest on her. When Harrison asked why, the prisoner said, “Can they detect a grain or a grain and a half of strychnia?” “Why,” replied Harrison, “have you given her any?” “No,” replied Dove; “but I got some of Morley’s man to kill cats, and some might have been spilt and she have got it.” Again Harrison saw him the next day, when he said, “Mr. Morley has told me they have found poison in my wife. Could they take me if I go back?” “I should,” replied Harrison. “If you are innocent, go back; what occasion have you to be frightened? They will not take you if you are innocent,” and Dove then went away.

To his wife’s mother, _Mrs. Jenkins_, who came to his house after her daughter’s death, he said at breakfast on the Friday, the day of the adjourned inquest, “Do you know that a sprinkle of oil of almonds will kill a person? Arsenic you can detect in a body after 20 years. Belladonna you cannot; one is a mineral, the other a vegetable. There is a poison like this”—taking up a piece of salt—“in a man you can detect it, in a woman you cannot.” He told her also that he could not think but that he should marry again. When he talked about the poisons another person, a _Mrs. Risdon_, was present.

To _Mr. Scarth_, a pupil of Mr. Morley’s, who, in consequence of the latter’s engagement, was the first to see her on the 25th of February, he put the question whether Mr. Morley would require a _post mortem_ examination if his wife died. Scarth replied that Mr. Morley generally did on all his patients who died suddenly, when the prisoner said, “I will not consent.” “Probably,” said Scarth, “as you did when your father died.” “His wife,” replied Dove, “would not consent.”

On the close of the case for the prosecution, Mr. Bliss called on the counsel to put into the box the remainder of the witnesses whose names were on the back of the bill, and Mr. Hardy, in the absence of his leader, declining to take this responsibility, Baron Bramwell, on the authority of the case of _R._ v. _Woodhead_, ruled that the prosecutor need not do so, but was bound to have the witnesses in Court so that they might, if required, be called by the defence.[82]

THE DEFENCE.

Though the defence of the prisoner was mainly rested on the question of his sanity, Mr. Bliss urged on the jury that the circumstantial evidence against him was inconclusive, turning the openness of the prisoner’s acts and conversations, and his attention to his wife during her attacks, to the best advantage. On the question of his sanity, in addition to the mischievous and cruel acts that had been elicited in cross-examination, he cited as further proof his belief in witchcraft and his frequent consultations with the witchman Harrison, and his request to that person to torment his wife, professedly to force her to return to his bed. The witchman, said counsel, not contemplating the murderous result, encouraged him, and held out such promises of future happiness that the desire ripened into practice, and the wife was murdered. Even after detection was inevitable, the confidence of the dupe remained unimpaired, and he firmly believed that the witchman could rescue him from his doom. As a proof of this insane belief the following letter written in his own blood, which had been found in his pocket when in jail, was read:—

“Dear Devil,—If you will get me clear at the assizes, and let me have the enjoyment of life, wealth, tobacco, more food and better, and my wishes granted till I am sixty, come to me to-night. I remain, your faithful subject,

“WILLIAM DOVE.”

MEDICAL EVIDENCE FOR THE DEFENCE.

In support of the plea of insanity, in addition to the witnesses already referred to in the introduction to this case, three medical witnesses of tried experience in lunacy, _Dr. Caleb Williams_ (for 30 years the medical attendant at the York Asylum), _Dr. Pyeman Smith_ (of the Leeds Lunatic Asylum), and _Mr. John Kitchen_ (of The Retreat, at York), were called for the defence, whose evidence, it is only fair, should be given in some detail.

_Dr. Williams_, who had been in Court during the whole trial, and had also examined the prisoner with _Mr. Kitchen_ a few days before the trial, was decidedly of opinion, from the evidence he had heard, that the prisoner was of unsound mind, and that his violent emotions and his belief in supernatural agency were indications of it.

“Taking into account,” said the witness, “that he had written and said similar things before about selling his soul to the devil, I think that his letter to the devil was not simulated. It appears to be written with blood. I had conversation with him about that letter when I saw him, and he told me it was written under satanic influence. The result of that conversation was that, in my opinion, it was not simulated. I have no doubt that his illusion, that he had sold himself to the devil, was a real one. I believe his incantations spoken of were connected with his belief in supernatural agency; and I think his saying that he had put a spell on the steward arose from the same belief.[83] The letter to his schoolmaster, in which he declared his sanity, is very like what is done by insane persons—they declare they are sane. His talking to various persons about strychnia showed the weakness of his mind. The effect of drink on a lunatic are to make him violent and dangerous. Persons liable to insanity would exhibit a tendency and inclination to drink. _I think from what I have heard he has not the power of controlling his emotions and passions. None of them at all times.[84] There would be periods when he would have control over some._ The circumstance of his shooting the cat showed an uncontrollable impulse to injure or take life; and seeing it was not expended in injuring the man, he shot the cat. The effect of confining a person for several weeks on strictly sober diet, who has before been subject to get drunk, would be to reduce him to a calm condition. The Castle diet is sober (Dove’s prison). _From all I have heard and seen, I consider his powers of mind, during the fatal week were probably influenced by his notions regarding supernatural agency, and that consequently he was the subject of a delusion. During that week, labouring under such delusions, he might retain his power of adapting means to an end, and of judging of the consequences. He could not under those delusions have the power of resisting any impulse._”

_On cross-examination_ by Mr. Overend, after repudiating the notion that his evidence was tinged by religious objections to capital punishment, the witness said:—

“I should not call administering poison five or six times an _impulse_, but a _propensity_—an uncontrollable _propensity_ to destroy life, and give pain. For the time it would be a permanent condition of the mind, and might select the special object, and constantly seek opportunities of carrying out the _propensity_. _I think a person with such a propensity would not know that he was doing wrong. I think he might fear the consequences, and know that punishment would follow. He would know, probably, that he was breaking the law. I say that, because he would have a very incorrect appreciation of right and wrong. He would not know at the time that he would be hanged. I found that opinion on the occupation of the mind by the insane propensity. It is uncertain whether he would know it before he did it. He might after he had done it._ He might do a murder secretly, because he could not otherwise do it. A _propensity_ of that kind generally acts without a motive. One of the peculiarities is that a person seeks no escape: in certain cases acknowledges his crime. The _propensity may come on suddenly: an impulse comes on suddenly—a propensity more frequently comes on slowly, and starts from a considerable time_. If a man gives way to his passions, and commits a rape, I call that a _vice_, and not a _propensity_. Supposing a cruel man, who wishes to get rid of his wife, quarrels with her, in the abstract that is a _vice_. Supposing a man to have taken every precaution against discovery, and pains to procure poison for his wife, and to prepare for her death, I should think that a _vice_, and not a _delusion_. Supposing a man of cruel disposition had formed a dislike to his wife, and wanted to get rid of her, and had nursed that dislike into a _propensity_ to kill. I should call that _an insane propensity_. I don’t say that every man who dislikes his wife, and wishes to get rid of her, is insane. When he acquires the propensity to kill, and cannot control it, he is insane.”

_Question._—“If a person lived with his wife, hated her, and determined to, and did kill her, what is the difference between that determination which is _vice_, and that _propensity_ which is _insanity_?”

_Answer._—“The prisoner’s history would be required to determine whether it was _vice_ or _insanity_.”

_Question._—“Supposing a man was determined to kill his wife, and he nurses the thought for six months, till the desire becomes uncontrollable, when does the desire become insanity?”

_Answer._—“When by nourishing such an idea, the mind becomes diseased, and he cannot control his acts—that applies to other things.”

_Question._—“If a man dwells on the possession of a woman till he cannot control his desire, would that be _vice_ or _insanity_?”

_Answer._—“It might be insanity, and might apply to rape.[85] In insanity there is a tendency to thieve. Theft is one of the indications of moral insanity; and a man may desire to possess another man’s goods, till he cannot control his acts. He is then insane. If a man permits himself to indulge a passion till he becomes uncontrollable, that is _moral insanity_, and he is not responsible. Consulting a sorcerer, and all superstitious beliefs, are indications of a weak mind. Belief in clairvoyance and dreams is not necessarily an indication of insanity. A belief in spiritual rappings, I should infer, was an indication of a weak mind. Talking to persons about strychnia, and his wife’s death, I think indicated a feeble state of mind.”

On _re-examination_, _Dr. Williams_ said—

“Imitativeness is one of the characteristics of insanity, and hearing strychnia and Palmer’s trial very much talked about would be very likely, in a weak mind, to produce imitation. You must know a man’s history before you can say whether his acts proceed from vice or insanity. Madness very frequently developes itself in great cunning and foresightedness when reasoning on false premises. I have frequently known insane persons to attempt to escape from the asylum, and to have shown great cleverness in their preparations for it extending over several days.”

_Question._—“Suppose you had heard the case of a man put to you who wished to get rid of his wife, and had from his childhood displayed cruelty of disposition—had threatened to shoot his father; said he heard supernatural noises, sometimes treated his wife kindly, and sometimes cried like no other man, would you have any doubt that he was insane?”

_Answer._—“No! and not fit to be at large. I should have no difficulty, as a medical man, in certifying that he was a lunatic. Lunatics have often displayed great ingenuity in committing theft and concealing it. The passion of lust frequently becomes a disease of the mind. When the prisoner gave his cows linseed to take one night, to fatten them for market the next morning, that I should deem an indication of an unsound mind.”

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

_”It would require a longer period than a month to establish disease and an uncontrollable propensity to commit a crime. If a man committed a crime, having thought of it for a month, I should not say he was of unsound mind. The difference would depend on length of time. Some men’s minds, previously weak, would take a shorter time, and very exciting causes would shorten the time; but there must be an appreciable period, and an interval for the mind to pass into a morbid condition from the continual contemplation of one object._ The period is necessarily very uncertain, from the variable effect of emotions and circumstances on the mind.”

_The Judge._—“Suppose, at the time when he shot the cat, a policeman had come in, would he have shot it?”[86]

_Answer._—“No. The presence of the policeman would probably have controlled him; he would probably have expended the impulse on some person or something else. Unless the person is exceedingly violent, the presence of a policeman would have some influence to control him.”

_Question._—“_Whenever a man commits a crime, is it because he is uncontrolled by existing circumstances?_”

_Answer._—“_It is._”

_The Judge._—“_Then what is the difference between such a man and the case you put?_”

_Answer._—“_In the case I put the impulse is uncontrollable, because his mind would be so occupied with his purpose._”

_The Judge._—“Is it true of everybody, whether sane or insane, that when intent on an act they forget the consequences?”

_Answer._—“An insane man would be more likely to forget consequences. Sane and insane persons would talk about occurrences. How and what they talked about would depend on their judgment.”

The witness wished to say with regard to the question as to shooting the cat, that he thought the impulse of destruction was so strong at the time, that he could not control it, and must have shot something.[87]

_Dr. Pyeman Smith_, the proprietor of a private lunatic asylum at Leeds for the past 15 years, though, from what he had heard and seen, he was prepared to declare that Dove was of unsound mind during the fatal week, and had been so for the last 20 years, admitted, on _cross-examination_, that he did know right from wrong during that period. He, however, _on re-examination_, qualified this admission.

“A decided lunatic,” said the witness, “very often knows right from wrong, and yet may be regardless of any consequences from his acts. _He may be utterly unable to refrain from doing an act, though he knew it was wrong. I cannot say the prisoner was utterly unable to refrain from wrong during the fatal week. Circumstances might enable him to refrain—other circumstances._”

_To the Judge._—“Not a greater degree of punishment. I have already said he was entirely regardless of circumstances.”

_Mr. Bliss_ objected to this line of examination by the judge.

_The Judge._—“I am entitled to, and in my opinion bound to, and I will put the questions.”

_Witness_ then continued—

“_Not possessing the poison would be a circumstance which would have prevented him._ I believe, during the week, it was from unsoundness of mind that he was regardless of consequences.”

_Mr. John Kitchen_, superintendent of The Retreat at York, where the patients averaged a hundred, also agreed with the previous medical witnesses, that Dove was of unsound mind during the fatal week. He, however, admitted that “_during that period he knew right from wrong, had some knowledge of the difference—some knowledge that he was committing murder—and that if found out he would be punished_.” This admission he sought to explain away, _on re-examination_, protesting that what he meant was “that Dove knew he was killing his wife, but did not know he was doing a wrong act—that he would know in proportion as he knew the difference between right and wrong.”

_Question by a juryman._—“Do you adopt the theory of Dr. Smith as to irresistible propensity in mania?”

_Answer._—“In general terms I do.”

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

_Answer._—“I do not. I account for the murder, if he committed it, on different principles. We have a man of deficient mental powers; besides that he is insane; he is liable to do any absurd, cruel, or vicious or irrational action that presented itself to his mind, as his life shows. Supposing him to be insane, I should apply the term _vicious_ or _malignant_ to him. We have heard, in evidence, that he was brought up by pious parents, put to the best schools, and was unable to receive the smallest amount of education. We see him carried away to do the most foolish things. Where he loves, he loves with a foolish intensity; and where he hates, he hates with a foolish malignity: and if a woman puts herself into the power of such a man as his wife, what has happened is just what might have been expected.”

_To Mr. Overend._—“_I think he knew right from wrong—that it was wrong to steal or murder._ If he murdered, I should expect him to deny it in that form of insanity. In one form of insanity, impulsive madness, they own their crime. This case was only partly impulsive, and I should not expect him to divulge it. If he thought of this crime before he committed it, he would know it was wrong. He probably would learn it was wrong in his childhood. It is impossible to say when he committed the act he knew it was wrong. I don’t know when he would know it was wrong. I can give no opinion about it.”

_On re-examination_, he said:—

“There are dangerous wards in some asylums, but I should not expect to find the greatest number of impulsive cases in that ward. Sometimes impulsive lunatics are dangerous. The keepers have an influence over them—a mental influence. They formerly worked on their fears, and thus kept patients under control. There is a madness which consists in a _propensity_ to kill. If a stranger was left with such a one in a room alone, I should expect him to exercise his _propensity_ and kill him; and yet, probably, that patient would yield his keeper obedience. Probably the fear of some chastisement would induce fear of his keeper.”

THE JUDGE’S CHARGE.

The greater portion of Baron Bramwell’s charge was necessarily occupied by reading over and commenting on the evidence produced by the prosecution—that the death of the wife had been due to the administration of strychnia, and that the prisoner had opportunities of administering it. The evidence on these points has been already so fully reported that it is needless to give this portion of his exhaustive summing-up. His remarks on the rule of law on the plea of insanity, and on the nature of the insanity suggested by the medical witnesses, are too valuable to be omitted.

“The rules of law,” said the learned Baron, “are that it must be clearly proved that, at the time of committing the act, the party accused was labouring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing; or, if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing wrong. If the accused was conscious of the act he did, he is punishable; and what you have to consider is, had he sufficient degree of sanity to know he was doing wrong? With respect to delusions the law is the same. According to the law, as I lay it down to you on the highest authority, to exempt a man from the penal consequence of his act, the act being contrary to the law, you must be of opinion that at the time he did the act he was not conscious that it was one he ought not to do; for if he was conscious that it was contrary to law, he is punishable. You must be satisfied that he had not a sufficient degree of reason to know that he was doing an act that was wrong—of course that means an act prohibited by law: because a man might imagine that the thing was a right thing to do, and it might not be contrary to law. He might think it right to take from the rich and give to the poor. But if he did it, not knowing it was wrong, he must not know that the thing which he did was what the law would punish him for. It is not necessary for me to justify the law, or for you to approve it. We have only to administer it. Don’t, however, suppose for a moment that I doubt the reasonableness of it.

“Let me put a case to you. A man labours under a delusion. He thinks I have done him wrong—have traduced his character. He waylays and murders me. Why should he be acquitted? Suppose he was wronged, that would not justify his taking away my life. Suppose, again, a person imagined some part of his person to be made of glass, or had swallowed something, or got something wrong in his inside. Imagine that man deliberately waylaying a person, knowing that he possessed property, to take it from him, and afterwards to conceal what he had done, and to act in every other respect as a rational man. Why should he be held irresponsible for this because he was irrational in other respects?

“Why should punishment be administered at all? It was not inflicted on a man who had committed a crime because he had inflicted that upon others, but in order to hold out an example to deter other people. If you punish an insane man, you hold out no example, because you are punishing a man who thinks he is doing right. But take the case of a man who is labouring under a delusion—under an evil propensity. If you punish him when he does wrong, or any other person with a similar propensity to commit that offence, and he knows, that when he indulged in it, or that when somebody else did, he was punished for it, that will deter him from repeating or from doing that act. Take the case of a man who has a strong propensity to thieve—a strong desire on him to do it; his intellect not very strong, and he knows that he is punished if he does such an act: do not you think, if he is punished, it will deter him from doing it again? There cannot be a doubt that it is so; and if you were to announce to all the world, that a man who has a strong propensity to an evil, that a person in his condition, shall not be punished, you take away from such persons the only thing that would deter them from committing the evil. Take a man of a weak mind and strong animal propensities, and it will not deter him from committing such an act.”

Again, after going carefully through the evidence in the case, and pointing out the application of the different classes of proofs, the learned Baron said that “he thought none of the instances of strange conduct adduced when the prisoner was a boy evidence of insanity more than might be found in the conduct of a perverse, ill-conducted boy;” and contrasted the opinions of the witnesses as to his being almost an idiot with the letters written by him, which exhibited no traces of mental incapacity.[88] In commenting on the opinions of the medical men of experience in insanity, he adopted the judgment of Dr. Lushington in the Dyce Sombre case, “that the facts to which they depose, and not their opinions alone, were of weight;” and added “that he sincerely believed that the jury were as capable of judging as these mad doctors.”

“Two of them,” continued the learned judge, “were of opinion that the contemplation of a crime constituted insanity, if it were only contemplated enough. Then it was said that a man who had a propensity to vice, to cruelty, to crime, was insane. Take the case of a man found guilty at these assizes of a crime. It is found that he has twice been convicted before and in prison half a dozen times, and that he has a general propensity to commit crime. In such a case, why should not Dr. Williams come forward and say, “You are wrong. He is insane; you ought not to punish him.” If they believed these experts you would take away protection from the community, because they would have a check less to prevent the commission of crime. It would be affectation in him to say that he did not set a value on this scientific evidence. But he would rather take his own independent opinion, than that of others, on the facts. But it was not for him to do more than comment, and for the jury to judge of its value—of the conduct of the prisoner, of his letters, and of the arguments before them.”

After a brief consideration the jury returned a verdict of “guilty, but recommended him to mercy on the ground of his defective intellect.” Sentence of death was passed on him, and he was executed at York.

THE PRISONER’S CONFESSIONS.

A day or two before his execution Dove dictated two long and extraordinary statements of his connection with the “Witchman,” and the part played in the tragedy by this dangerous man, which contrast strongly with the evidence given by Harrison himself, and probably disclose facts which that person was glad to conceal at the time of his examination.

In the first of these statements he details his earlier interviews with the “Witchman” on the subjects of recovering lost cattle, removing strange noises from his house, and the bewitching of his live stock, in which Harrison appears to have played off on him the common tricks of his trade. His confidence in this fellow was unfortunately largely increased by his prophecying that Dove’s father would die before a certain Christmas Day—he died on Christmas Eve—and led him to consult the “Witchman” about his wife when he first conceived his violent hatred towards her.

“About August, 1855,” he says, “I had some unpleasantness with my wife, and went over to Harrison at Leeds, told him of it, and he promised to make it all right. He told me I must let him know by letter how things went on. In two days after this I wrote him that my wife was no better, and that he must do something to make peace. I sent this by Fisher, a porter at the railway station, to post. Mrs. Dove knew I had written, but not what about. She therefore sent the servant to Fisher, got back the letter, took out what I had written, and put in a blank sheet.[89] I did not know this at the time, but, hearing some whispering, wrote another letter, and posted it myself about two o’clock. At three I went myself to Harrison, who told me he had received a blank sheet, and asked why, and I told him. I then informed him of the unpleasantness and unhappiness with my wife, and he said ‘You will never have happiness till she is out of the way.’ I said ‘How do you know that.’ He said ‘Come upstairs and I’ll tell you, for I’ve got your nativity marked out.’ [Upstairs he showed him a paper with the signs of the Zodiac, and hieroglyphical forms and numbers, which he describes at length.] Harrison then read out of a book my destiny. Between twenty-seven and thirty-two all would go against me. I should have nothing but misfortunes; that at thirty-two the sun and moon would come into conjunction, and then everything would be in my favour; that at thirty-two I should lose my wife, marry again, and have a child, and an addition to my fortune; and that for my sake he did not care how soon it was here, for until then I should never be a happy man; that after ‘thirty-two’ everything would go well for a few years. He made other remarks as to different periods of my life.”

Then follow the usual enquiries about the kind of person that was to be his second wife.

“I saw Harrison again in November about my wife’s temper. He said never mind, ‘she will die before the end of February or March, I am not certain which.’ When he told me my wife would die soon I said ‘You have told me before she would die at thirty-two.’ He replied ‘Before thirty-two, but I did not say how much before.’ In a few days afterwards (after December 21) I went to the ‘New Cross Inn,’ and Harrison came in with a newspaper and read about Palmer’s case. I then asked him whether strychnia could be detected, and he said ‘No, nor any other vegetable poison.’ I then said ‘What other vegetable poisons are there that cannot be detected? and he said ‘Digitalis, belladonna, particularly if crystallised; he could not remember more then.’ I then asked him to get or make me some strychnia, as we were much annoyed in our new house with cats, but he refused. I told him I would get some elsewhere.

“I went to him again in January last about my wife. I told him about my wife’s temper and her being poorly then, and he again said, ‘She won’t live long; she will never get better. As I told you before, she will die in February.’

“I had no further communication with Harrison until the 6th of March, when I sent for him to the ‘New Cross Inn,’ and told him my wife had died, and that an inquest was to be held. He asked, ‘Why?’ I said, ‘My wife died very suddenly, and Mr. Morley cannot account for it, and it is known that I had strychnia in the house. Mr. Morley thinks some may have been spilt, and my wife got at it accidentally.’ I then said, ‘You told me strychnia could not be detected, but I have seen in the _Materia Medica_ that it can;[90] what is your opinion now? Can a grain to a grain and a half be detected, for there is a great difference on the subject? Professor Taylor says it cannot be detected twenty-four hours after death in the human body.’ Harrison said, ‘What, have you poisoned your wife?’ I replied, ‘No, I should be very sorry to.’ Nothing more passed then.

“On Friday, the 7th, whilst the inquest was going on, I went to the back door of Harrison’s house, about 3 P.M., and said to him ‘that several witnesses had been called, and I was suspected of poisoning my wife,’ and added, ‘How will the case go?’ He said, ‘It will be a very difficult case, but I can get you out.’ I said, ‘You only say you can; but tell me, will you?’ and he replied, ‘Set yourself altogether at rest; I will.’”