Chapter VI: Trials for Poisoning by Arsenic (2)

Of the samples of _Murdoch’s_ and _Currie’s_ arsenic, which Dr. Penny had delivered to him, “The former,” he said, “contained the due proportion of soot; the latter was not coloured with the indigo prescribed by the Act—was not of a bluish, but greyish black colour, imperfectly mixed, and easily removeable by washing with cold water, which cannot easily be done with good indigo. The proportion was a thirty-sixth, and not a thirty-second, as the Act directs.”[110]

The _cross-examination_ of this witness was first directed to the probability of the colouring matter in the arsenic being detected in the portions of the body analysed.

“My attention,” said Professor Christison, “was not directed to colouring matter in arsenic. I got only one article in which it might have been found—the small intestine. The others had been subjected to a previous analysis. I was not asked to attend to the colouring matter. I did not see it, and did not search for it. Supposing soot or indigo to have been given with the arsenic, I think it might have been found in the intestines by careful examination. I can’t say it would have been found: many circumstances go to the possibility of its being found. Many component parts of soot are insoluble: it might have been removed by frequent vomiting. It is very difficult to remove soot from arsenic entirely. Indigo would have been found more easily from the peculiarity of its colour, and the chemical ingredients are so precise. _Currie’s_ arsenic is not coloured with true indigo; it is waste indigo, or what has been used by the dyer. I don’t know how it is prepared. I did not analyse the colouring matter of _Currie’s_ arsenic. I ascertained it was not the indigo directed by the Act to be used, and I ascertained the quantity. I separated the colouring matter from the arsenic, and subjected it to the action of sulphuric acid. Charcoal (more properly—_carbon_) is one of the constituents of good indigo, and necessarily of waste. The chief constituent of soot is charcoal also.”

The remainder of his _cross-examination_ was directed to the amount of arsenic found in the stomach, and the symptoms of, and the period at which the effects are exhibited.

“I was informed by Dr. Penny that he had found more than eighty grains in the stomach. There was also the white powder in addition. If there was great vomiting and purging, the quantity of arsenic administered must have been much greater than that found in the stomach and intestines. Much would depend whether means were taken to promote vomiting. If hot and cold water were freely given, that would facilitate the discharge of the poison. It is impossible to say the proportion ejected. I think it would be reasonable to suppose that as much would be vomited as remained: it might, without any extravagant supposition, be taken at four or five times as much.” _Symptoms._—“There was nothing in the symptoms mentioned in the last illness in this case inconsistent with death being produced by a single dose of arsenic. The ordinary symptoms of this kind are not unlike those of malignant cholera. _I think all the symptoms in this case might have occurred from malignant cholera. If there was a sense of choking and soreness of the throat, I think these are more symptoms of arsenic._ I don’t think they have occurred in cholera. I think the ulcers in the abdomen might indicate the previous existence of inflammation in the duodenum, called duodenitis. It might be a disease that would present the outward symptoms of bowel complaint or cholera.” _Appearance of effects of arsenic._—“The ordinary time that elapses between the administration of arsenic and death is from eighteen hours to two days and a half. The exceptions to this are numerous. Some of them are very anomalous as to the shortness of the intervals. The shortest are two and two-and-a-half hours: these have been ascertained; but it is not always possible to ascertain when it has been administered. I had a case lately in which it was five hours. There are also cases in which it was seven and even ten hours. It does not appear that the size of the dose affects this; it does not depend upon the amount taken, within certain bounds, of course; but I speak of the case as arsenic is usually administered. There are a good many cases of large doses. I think the dose in this case must have been double, probably more than double, the quantity found in the stomach. A dose of 220 grains may be considered a large dose. I can’t say if, in cases of as large a dose as this, they are intentionally administered: in great proportion of cases of suicide, the dose is generally found to be large—easily accounted for by the desire to make certain of death.”

_The Dean._—“In a case of murder no such large quantity would be used? It is in cases of suicide that double-shotted pistols are used and large doses given.”

_Witness._—“But murder, even by injuries, and also by poison, is very often detected by the size of the dose. In all cases of poisoning by arsenic there is always more used than is necessary. I cannot recollect how much has been used, but I know very well that what is found in the stomach in undoubted cases of poisoning by others has been considerably larger than what is necessary to cause death: because the very fact of poison being found in the stomach at all, as in the case of arsenic, shows that more has been administered than is necessary, as it is not what is found in the stomach causes death, but what disappears from the stomach.”

_The Dean._—“But do you know any case in which so great a dose as the present was administered?”

_Witness._—“I cannot recollect at the present moment. In cases of charges of murder by arsenic it is scarcely possible to get any information as to the actual quantity used.”

_The Dean._—“You have information here in this charge of murder.”

_The Witness._—“You have information as to what was in the stomach.”

_The Dean._—“And you are enabled to draw an inference.”

_Witness._—“Of course: my inference is drawn by a sort of probability, but that is not an inference on which I am entitled to found any positive statement.”

_The Dean._—“Well, let me put this question. Did you ever know any person murdered by arsenic having 88 grains of it found in his stomach and intestines?”

_Witness._—“I don’t recollect at the present moment.”

_The Dean._—“Or anything approaching to it?”

_Witness._—“I don’t recollect, but I would not rely on my recollection as to a negative answer.”

_The Dean._—“You are not, at all events, able to give an example the other way.”

_Witness._—“Not at present. As far as my own observation goes, I can say that I never met with 80 grains in the stomach of a person who had been poisoned by arsenic. I can’t say what is the largest quantity I have found.”[111]

_The Dean._—“If a person designs to poison another the use of a large quantity of arsenic, greatly exceeding what is necessary, is to be avoided?”

_Witness._—“It is a great error. In some articles of food it is easy to administer a large quantity of arsenic, and in others it is difficult to do so. It is very rare for persons to take meals after arsenic has been administered; but there is a case of a girl who took arsenic at eleven A.M., and at two P.M. made a pretty good dinner. It was a French case, and the words as translated are, that she made a very good dinner, though it was observed she was uneasy previously. The author who notices that case notices it as a very extraordinary one. She died in thirteen or fourteen hours after the administration. It was a rapid case.”

_By the Lord Advocate._—“The amount of matter vomited is sometimes very little; and sometimes very large doses have been thrown off by vomiting. There is one case in which half an ounce was taken and no vomiting ensued. I think chocolate and cocoa would be a vehicle in which a considerable dose might be given. Active exercise would hasten the effect of arsenic; a long walk would do so. Exercise accelerates the effects of all poisons except narcotic. That a man should take poison at the Bridge of Allan, come to Coatbridge, walk eight miles to Glasgow, and reach that in good health and spirits, I should think very unlikely. Cases of protraction for five hours have occurred in persons who had gone to sleep after taking it. From half an hour to an hour is the usual time between administration and the symptoms manifesting themselves. The administration of previous doses predisposes the system to the effects of poison, and makes its action more rapid and violent. If the individual had recovered entirely, this would not be so much the case; but if he still laboured under the derangement of the stomach, I should look for violent effects.”

On the fifth day Professor Christison was recalled, and gave the following evidence as to the use of arsenic as a cosmetic, its taste, and its supposed presence naturally in the bodies of human beings.

_By the Lord Advocate._—“With regard to the use of arsenic as a cosmetic, do you think it possible to use it, by putting it in a basin of water and washing the face with it?”

_Witness._—“It would be very unsafe indeed. I should expect it to produce inflammation, probably, of the eyes and nostrils, and perhaps of the mouth. It might get into the mouth, and it would be very difficult to keep it out of the eyes and nostrils; and if it once got in, as it is a rather insoluble solid, it would be difficult to wash it out. A preparation made from common arsenic is sometimes used as a depilatory. The old name is ‘Arasma Cacoran,’ because it is used by the Turks. It is essentially a sulphuret of arsenic and a sulphuret of lime. It is only used for removing hairs from the skin, and not for the complexion.”

_By the Dean._—“The common arsenic of the shops, you say, is an insoluble solid.”

_Witness._—“It is said in general terms to be so. _It is sparingly soluble in cold water._ It is not absolutely insoluble, however, in cold water. _About the 500th part might be dissolved in cold water by violent agitation, and if the arsenic were to be boiled in the first instance, about a 32nd part would remain in cold water. Cold water is the worst of all things to hold arsenic in suspension. Only the fine parts of the powder would be held in suspension. The coarse arsenic sold in the shops would fall to the bottom._”[112]

_The Dean._—“Suppose water were used to wash the face and hands without drawing up the arsenic from the bottom, you would not expect any serious consequences to result?”

_Witness._—“I can only say, that I should not like to do it myself. I do not know absolutely what would follow; but, on account of the risk, any person who would do so would do a very imprudent thing.”

_By the Lord Advocate._—“Arsenic, though strictly heavier than water, would remain in suspension?”

_Witness._—“The finer parts of the powder would, but not long. I never made any experiment, but should say it would be for a very short time. I should say, speaking on mere hazard, in the course of three or four minutes there would be scarcely any of the arsenic remaining in suspension, and there would only remain what had dissolved. I am speaking, as I said, without having experimented.”

_By the Court._—“_Has arsenic any taste?_”

_Witness._—“Your lordship is aware that there is a great deal of dispute about that. After the strong affirmative of its having no taste which I published, a greater authority than I—_Professor Orfila of Paris—still adhered to the description that it had a taste._ All I can say about that is, that experiments were made by myself and two other medical gentlemen, as far as it was possible to make them with so dangerous a substance, and we found the taste to be very slight indeed; _if anything it was rather sweetish, but all but imperceptible_.”

_To the Court._—“Then there can be no doubt that large quantities of arsenic have been swallowed repeatedly by persons without observing?”

_Witness._—“The experiments were made by myself and two other medical gentlemen, and so far as we went we all agreed as to the result. Professor Orfila maintained that it had a taste, though he referred to my experiments. But I think I may add, that it has struck me as very strange, that neither Orfila nor any others who have doubted these observations of mine on the matter, said that they had made any experiments themselves. Orfila does not say so. He merely expresses his belief, notwithstanding what I have stated.”

_By the Court._—“If taken in coffee or cream, then, the arsenic, having, if any, a sweetish taste, would not be perceptible?”

_Witness._—“Not at all. I could put that in a clearer point of view by a preliminary observation, namely, that several persons who have taken arsenic largely without knowing at the time what they were taking observed no taste; some observed a sweetish taste, and others what they called an acrid taste. With regard to acrimony, however, there were two fallacies. One was that they confounded the acrimony with the roughness of taste in the mouth, and secondly with the burning effects slowly developed by the poison afterwards.”

_By the Dean._—“In these cases you have spoken of, in what medium was the arsenic given?”

_Witness._—“Sometimes in simple vehicles, such as coffee and water, and sometimes in thicker substances, such as soup. I think there are some instances where some roughness was observed in the case of porridge, but I cannot speak exactly as to the vehicles. I do not think the vehicle had much effect on the different tastes. I cannot state the quantity administered.”

_The Dean._—“Are these cases in which you were personally concerned?”

_Witness._—“Strange to say, I have only been personally concerned in two cases of poisoning by arsenic. I have of course been often in cases like the present. It only came twice under my personal observation. It is the opinion of Orfila that the taste of arsenic is an acrid and not a corrosive taste.”

_The Dean._—“Exciting salivation, is it not?”

_Witness._—“Yes, that is a pretty correct translation of the French word. The word acrid is a professional word, but Orfila uses the word _âpre_, which rather means rough.”

_The Dean._—“Yes, in his 1st vol., p. 377, he uses the word, but at p. 357 you will find he says the taste is _âcre et corrosive_.”

_Witness._—“I was not aware of that. ‘Notwithstanding the experiments of Dr. Christison,’ I think he says, ‘the taste of arsenic is acrid.’ He did not say he made the experiments himself, or give his authority. Orfila is a high name in the medical world; none higher of modern date in the department of medico-legal chemistry.”

_The Dean._—“Will you tell me the nature of the experiments you made with the two other medical gentlemen?”

_Witness._—“We tasted the arsenic both in a solid and a liquid state, and allowed both kinds to pass as far back along the tongue as it was possible to do with safety, so as to spit it out afterwards. We allowed it to remain on the tongue about two minutes, and washed the mouth carefully.”

_The Dean._—“Can you give me any idea how much arsenic there was in your mouth on that occasion?”

_Witness._—“About two grains. One of the gentlemen, the late Dr. Duncan, kept two grains in his mouth a long time. We allowed it to remain on the tongue generally two minutes, a time quite sufficient to ascertain the taste.”

_By the Lord Advocate._—“Is it a common thing in cases of this sort to ascertain the quantity of arsenic?”

_Witness._—“No. In the great majority of criminal cases it is not ascertained within presumption.”

_By the Lord Justice Clerk._—“Are you aware that a great chemist maintained that there was arsenic naturally in the bodies of all human beings?”

_Witness._—“I have heard that; but he afterwards surrendered his opinion.”

_By the Dean._—“There has been a great shifting of opinion among medical men as to the probable effect of arsenic, has there not?”

_Witness._—“Not during the last 35 years. Prior to that our information as to the effects of arsenic was very vague.”

_By the Dean._—“Was it not generally thought at one time that there was naturally arsenic in the human stomach?”

_Witness._—“It may be so, but it is quite new to me.”

_Robert Telfer Corbett_, physician in Glasgow, and senior surgeon in the infirmary, who had assisted at the _post-mortem_ examination and joined in the report, was called on the fourth day, and gave the following evidence.

“So far as he could judge without analysis the deceased had died from the effect of poison. The morbid appearances presented were of two kinds—one showing the result of recent action, the other of action at a period antecedent to it. The last of these appearances consisted of several ulcers, each about the 1/16th of an inch in diameter, with elevated edge, on the upper part of the duodenum. They might have been characteristic of the effect of irritant poison at the distance of a month, but it is impossible to fix any date. I think they were such as irritant poison, administered a month before, would have produced. They were of longer standing than immediately antecedent to death. In the duodenum and intestines the body had in colour and otherwise the appearances characteristic of arsenical poisoning. Inflammation and ulceration are the effect of inflammation; jaundice, I mean the yellow tinge of the skin, is an occasional, but not a necessary symptom of death by arsenic, but not a common one. Extreme thirst is one of the symptoms, and shows itself very early. It is not characteristic of British cholera in its earlier stages. The exact time a dose of arsenic takes to exhibit its symptoms is from a half to one hour—that is the average time. Longer periods have been known but are very unusual. They depend more on the mode in which the poison is given, and the state of the stomach, than on the quantity administered. If a person had been the subject of repeated doses, the irritability of the stomach would make it more likely to operate quickly. I have read of cases of murder where large quantities of arsenic have been found in the stomach. I can refer to cases in which details were not given, but the quantity was said to be large.”

The _cross-examination_ of this witness was mainly directed to his assertion that the yellowness of the skin seen in jaundice, and, as he added, of the conjunctiva of the eye also, was a known symptom in arsenical poison, but he admitted that the statement in Dr. Taylor’s book was his only authority: he only “knew it to be a secondary symptom from arsenical poisoning in his routine.” He admitted also that the ulcers on the duodenum might arise from some enteric fever, and that any cause of inflammation might produce them.

On _re-examination by the Lord Advocate_, he repeated that from his reading and study he knew jaundice to be an occasional symptom of arsenical poisoning. To a question whether “in a person during life who immediately after taking food had been seized with severe pain and intense thirst, he should think, because he had a yellow colour, that might not be the effect of arsenical poisoning?” he replied “that might or might not be,” and “that the appearance of jaundice would not sway him materially one way or the other.” This witness, though he had made many _post-mortem_ examinations, had only once before done so in a case of arsenical poisoning. With this witness the medical evidence for the prosecution was closed.

It will be convenient, as in Palmer’s case, to give in this place the evidence of the medical witnesses, called, at a subsequent period, for the defence.

MEDICAL EVIDENCE FOR THE DEFENCE.

Two physicians were called for the prisoner, with the object of proving (1), that arsenic could be used without danger as a cosmetic; (2), that the symptoms in L’Angelier’s last illness were consistent with the suggestion that he died of some form of cholera.

_Dr. James A. Lawrie_, a physician of Glasgow, many years in practice, who was first called, said—

“He had taken a quarter or half-an-ounce of arsenic, bought at _Currie’s_, and washed his hands freely with it, and on the previous Saturday had tried the same experiment with a half-an-ounce on his face, but washed his face afterwards with cold water. The effect was the same as using a ball of soap with sand—it softened the skin. He filled the basin with the usual quantity of water, and mixed the arsenic with it. It was a practice he should have no fear of repeating, and would not hesitate in using, if he had a case that required it, such as vermin on the skin. In consequence of the insolubility of arsenic, he did not think that increasing the quantity of arsenic would make any difference in the effect.”

On the second point this witness said:—

“I treated one case of poisoning by arsenic. Some years ago during the prevalence of cholera, I was asked to see a gentleman about seven or eight in the evening, and the account was that he had been ill since three or four in the morning. I found him labouring under premonitory symptoms of cholera, and I prescribed for him. I returned about ten, and found the symptoms very much aggravated, and the vomiting and purging still continued. His voice was not affected, and the vomiting was not the same as in cholera. It was a reddish yellowish matter, and I requested it to be set aside. I thought it was not a case of cholera, and asked him what he had taken. He said only his ordinary food, wine, &c., but nothing else. The symptoms went on still further, and I called a consultation of other medical men. He still said he had taken nothing. I was satisfied from the aggravation of the symptoms that something else was the matter, and at last he died about three in the morning. I next day learnt that he had purchased half-an-ounce of arsenic the day of his death. I had the vomit and contents of stomach analysed, and discovered arsenic in great quantities. Extreme thirst, as far as I know, is an early symptom in poisoning by arsenic—but not equally so in cholera, it belongs to a later stage in cholera.”

_Dr. Douglas Maclagan_, of Edinburgh, who had had some experience in arsenical poisonings, and devoted much of his time to chemistry, had the same opinion as Dr. Lawrie of the innocuousness of arsenic as a cosmetic (mainly from its insolubility).

“Unless there was some ulceration or abrasion of the skin, or it was kept long in contact with it. In warm water it would dissolve to a greater extent than in cold—in which some such proportion as only one 400th part would dissolve, and if you required to dissolve any great quantity it must, according to Dr. Taylor, be boiled violently for half-an-hour, and then it retains about 1-40th of its weight after the water cools.”

_The Dean._—“Will the presence of organic matter in a fluid interfere with its solvent power upon arsenic?”

_Witness._—“As a rule, it generally will. There does not appear to be any difference between tea, coffee, or water when poured upon arsenic. They dissolve but a very small quantity, I do not know how you can determine whether cocoa or chocolate is a sufficient solvent or not. You cannot filter them so as to determine the quantity. There is a great deal of organic matter in the ordinary chocolate or cocoa, it ought to be entirely organic matter, except so far as it is water.” (The Witness then gave an account of a case of a girl whom he attended, who took arsenic by accident, mistaking it for an effervescing powder.) “We all know the ordinary symptoms of arsenical poisoning. Most of them are very similar to, almost identical with, the symptoms of cholera. In the case of slight quantities of arsenic, it would appear that the symptoms very closely resemble those of what are called bilious or British cholera. In fatal cases they are more like malignant or Asiatic cholera.”

_The Dean._—“Can you diagnose a case of arsenical poisoning by the symptoms?”

_Witness._—“I believe you may. In the first place the vomiting would be bloody, from the violent irritation and the pouring out of a bloody mucus into the stomach—after that has been emptied of all its contents. I suppose there would be more affections of some of the mucous membranes, an unaccountable occurrence of an extensive inflammatory redness about the eyes, and the occurrence of nervous symptoms, such, for instance, as paralysis of the limbs. But these are not necessary symptoms. A person may be suffering from the effects of arsenic without these being produced if the quantity is small.”

_The Dean._—“You never saw jaundice as a symptom of arsenical poisoning?”

_Witness._—“I am not entitled to speak on my own experience, as I never saw it. There is a single line in Taylor’s book, which says, that it has been observed, and which refers to the remarks of Dr. Marshall on Turner’s case.” (Extract read.)

_The Dean._—“Is that a description of jaundice?”

_Witness._—“It is a description of at least one symptom of jaundice, yellowness of the skin; but it is rather strange that it does not mention the most common of all signs of jaundice, yellowness of the eyes. One looks to the eye first in a case of jaundice, because you see it best there.”

_The Dean._—“Do you think that a sensation of choking and a feeling of irritation of the throat are symptoms of arsenical poisoning?”

_Witness._—“Certainly.”

_The Dean._—“Would that occur in a case of British cholera?”

_Witness._—“I have seen persons who are affected with choleraic symptoms complaining of being sore about the throat, but it is generally the soreness arising from what they first vomit, and after that it is the muscular soreness.”

_Cross-examined by the Lord Advocate._—“What is it that causes the yellow outline of the eyes and skin?”

_Witness._—“The absorption of the choleraic matter into the blood.”

_Lord Advocate._—“I presume there is nothing in a case of arsenical poisoning that produces that?”

_Witness._—“It is certainly very remarkable that we have so many cases of arsenical poisoning where the jaundice shows itself: we have eruption of those same parts of the duodenum according with arsenical poisoning. I am not so certain that jaundice is a symptom of arsenical poisoning.”

_The Lord Justice Clerk._—“But if you saw the appearance of the eye was much darker than usual, would that lead you to think there might be jaundice?”

_Witness._—“Oh, certainly.”

_The Lord Justice Clerk._—“I knew a case of apparent jaundice arising from a cake of yellow soap.”

_The Lord Advocate._—“Suppose you were told that in a case the body after death had a yellow appearance, and it was found to be the effect of arsenical poisoning, would you not be surprised at that?”

_Witness._—“No, not at the yellowish aspect of the skin, but I would not expect that there would be marked jaundice.”

_The Lord Advocate._—“And if you found any symptom of that kind, where repeated doses of poison had been taken during the period from the time when the patient took ill, what would you say?”

_Witness._—“If such a case did occur, I should say that there would be some connection between the cause of death and the occurrence of the jaundice.”

_Lord Advocate._—“In regard to the vomiting, is there not a great difference in different kinds of arsenical poisoning?”

_Witness._—“Generally the vomiting is severe.”

_Lord Advocate._—“You state that the presence of organic matter detracts from the power of holding arsenic in solution: would you say the same as to holding it in suspension?”

_Witness._—“Certainly not.”

_Lord Advocate._—“Is great thirst a symptom of arsenic?”

_Witness._—“Generally it is, and generally an early and persistent symptom.”

_Lord Advocate._—“Is it so in cholera?”

_Witness._—“I should say that I have seen thirst very early in cholera. I think it is usually so. I do not know any injurious effect that would result if the face were washed with water containing arsenic, if you kept your mouth and eyes shut, but I do not recommend it.”

_To the Dean._—“I cannot say how much arsenic would be held in suspension by an ordinary cupful of chocolate and cocoa. It must depend upon the kind of chocolate. Cocoa in this country is generally thin, but chocolate in France is generally as thick as porridge. It is not so in this country.”

EVIDENCE OF THE OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF POISON.

On the _first_ charge, that of administering poison on the 19th or 20th of February, it was urged on the jury that there was no reliable evidence that the lovers had met on either of these days, that Madeline Smith had at that time poison in her possession, or that the illness which L’Angelier was supposed to have had at that time showed arsenical symptoms. On the 17th of February L’Angelier told Miss Perry, the confidante of their loves, that he expected to meet Madeline on the 19th, and, from some other circumstances—what they were is not stated—when on the 2nd of March he told her how ill he had been, falling on the floor of his room, she said that “she knew that he referred to the 19th of February.” Mrs. Jenkins, however, could not fix the date of this attack: it might have been eight or ten days before the second illness (February 23), and, like his illness in January, she believed it to be due to bile, the symptoms being something the same as her own but more violent, on both occasions accompanied by a good deal of purging and vomiting. From Dr. Thomson’s evidence, however, it appears that his first illness in that year, which Dr. Thomson places on the 3rd of February, was due to a cold, with cough and boils, for which he prescribed. The only attempt that Miss Smith made to purchase poison before that date was that of sending the page boy to Dr. Yeaman’s to buy some prussic acid, which the doctor refused to sell to her. The Lord Advocate admitted that he could not prove that she had arsenic in her possession before that illness. “It would not do,” said the Lord Justice Clerk in his charge, “to infer, from her having arsenic afterwards, that she had it also on the first occasion.”[113]

On the second charge, that of administering poison on the 22nd or 23rd of February, the following evidence was offered. On the 21st of February Miss Smith openly purchased an ounce and a half of arsenic of the chemist Murdoch, ostensibly for the purpose—a false one, as the evidence proved—of killing rats at her father’s country house. It was mixed with soot, of which she some days afterwards spoke to the chemist, saying she thought arsenic was white. If, therefore, the lovers met on the 22nd, or 23rd, she had poison in her possession. Whether L’Angelier went out on the night of the 22nd, his landlady could not say:[114] she did not hear him come in, but, when she went into his room early the next morning, she found him suffering from his second attack of illness for which Dr. Thomson attended him, and from which he recovered in about eight days. That the symptoms were those of arsenical poisoning was hardly to be doubted, and though Dr. Thomson at the time attributed them to billious derangement, he said, that, “had he known that L’Angelier had taken an irritant poison, those were the symptoms he should expect to follow.” The evidence that the lovers had met on the night of the 22nd, or morning of the 23rd, rested on a letter, which not only did not bear any date or day of the week, but the post-mark on which was so obliterated that the post-office official could not fix any date, though he thought he could see the “M” of March on the stamp, which counsel on both sides agreed in considering an error. In that letter Miss Smith wrote: “I am so sorry to hear you are ill. I hope to God you will soon be better—-- you did look bad on Sunday night and Monday morning. I think you got sick with walking home so late, and the long want of food; so, next time we meet, I shall make you eat a loaf of bread before you go.” This letter the Lord Advocate assumed to be written on Wednesday, the 25th of February, and to refer to the meeting on the night of the 22nd and morning of the 23rd. To Miss Perry, on the 9th of March, L’Angelier spoke of having had a cup of coffee and chocolate from Miss Smith, which Miss Perry understood to refer to two occasions, and added, “I can’t think why I was so unwell after getting that coffee and chocolate from her.” “It ought not to be forgotten,” said the Lord Justice Clerk, “that the contents of the stomach on these two illnesses had not been examined, and therefore it was merely an inference that they were caused by arsenic—an inference drawn from the fact that on the 22nd of March he died from that poison.” With reference to the purchase of arsenic, the learned Judge added: “He attached little importance to the statements of the druggists as to what was said by the prisoner about rats; without stating some such objects she would not have got it at all; and it was not to be supposed, if she had wanted it as a cosmetic, that she would tell the druggist. Did she see the deceased on the Sunday night, before the arsenic was administered? Mrs. Jenkins did not see him go out of the house that night, and he asked the jury to consider whether there was, on the whole, apart from the correspondence, evidence that they had met together that night? If there was no proof that the administration took place on the 22nd of February, then there was great force in the observation that the foundation of the case for the prosecution had been shaken.”

On the third charge—that of poisoning on the 22nd or 23rd of March, the following facts were proved. On his return to work, after his second illness, L’Angelier was so altered in health, his complexion wan, with a dark, hectic spot on each cheek, that leave of absence was given to him, for the first time since he had been in this employ. Miss Smith had advised him to take rest and change, and L’Angelier had apparently told her that he should go to the Bridge of Allan. On the third of March, however, Miss Smith writes that her family are going to the same place, and the next day suggests that he should go to the South of England. On the 5th of March he writes her a painfully earnest letter on the reports about her intended marriage with Mr. Minnoch, concluding: “Mind, I insist on having an explicit answer to the question you evaded in my last.” Next day the prisoner purchases another sixpenny-worth of arsenic, not again of Murdoch, but of Currie, and this time the excuse is that the house in Blythswood Square is so overrun with rats, that it is to be shut up and the servants sent away till the vermin is eradicated. This again was pure invention on her part. The family went to the Bridge of Allan, whence on Tuesday, the 10th of March, the prisoner wrote to L’Angelier that they would be home again in Glasgow on the next Monday or Tuesday, when she would write to arrange an interview, adding, “I long to see you, to kiss and embrace you, my only sweet love.” Before this the Minnoch marriage had been arranged, and the day talked about, if not definitively fixed. Again on the 13th she wrote him: “I think we shall be home on Tuesday, so I shall let you know, my own beloved sweet pet, when we shall have a dear, sweet interview; when I may be pressed to your heart, and kissed by you, my own sweet love. A fond, tender embrace; a kiss, sweet love! I hope you will enjoy your visit here.” It had been previously arranged between them that L’Angelier should not come to the Bridge of Allan until her family had left.

During this visit of the Smiths to the Bridge of Allan, L’Angelier was taking his leave of absence. On the 6th of March he left for Edinburgh, and returned to Glasgow on the 17th, and, finding no letter for him, stayed at home all the next day waiting for it. On the 19th he left for the Bridge of Allan, where he was to stay for a week, his friend Thuau undertaking to forward his letters. On the 19th, after he had left, a letter came, and Thuau forwarded it that night, and it reached Stirling at nine the next morning. That letter was not to be found. In his tourist’s bag, however, the envelope of it was discovered, and, from a letter which he wrote to Miss Perry on the 20th, in which he said, “I should have come to see some one last night, but the letter was too late,” it may be fairly assumed that it contained the wished for appointment for the Thursday night. On the 18th the prisoner bought her third packet of arsenic at Currie’s. Several dead rats, she said, had been found, and it was feared some large ones still remained. This time she had a female companion with her, and, as she had to Murdoch expressed her surprise at the arsenic she had previously purchased not being white, she again used the same expression at Currie’s. This arsenic was coloured with indigo. On the 21st the last of the long series of letters reached L’Angelier’s lodgings, and was forwarded at once by Thuau. “Why, my beloved, did you not come to me?” she wrote. “Oh, my beloved, are you ill? Come to me. Sweet one, I waited and waited for you, but you came not. I shall wait again to-morrow night—same hour and arrangement.” That letter, which was found in his pocket, was received by him after nine on Sunday morning. He left the Bridge of Allan shortly after evening service began, and was at his lodgings by eight o’clock that evening. To accomplish this L’Angelier had walked to Stirling, taken the train from there to Coatbridge, where a Mr. Ross found him, and, after some refreshment at the station, walked with him to Glasgow, apparently quite well, and walking briskly.[115] When he arrived at his lodgings he appeared greatly improved in health since he left on the previous Thursday, was in high spirits, and said that the letter had brought him back. He left his lodgings about nine o’clock, is seen soon after sauntering in the direction of Blythswood Square, but not near the Smiths’ house, as it was the hour there for family prayers. To wile away the time he calls on a Mr. M’Alister, who is not at home, and from that time till he came back to his lodgings, after midnight, all trace of him is lost. At two o’clock the next morning the door-bell rang violently; his landlady went down, and found L’Angelier at the door, standing with his arms across his stomach. He was suffering from his fatal illness, already too bad to be able to use his pass key. How that attack progressed, and what its symptoms were, and what was the result of the _post-mortem_ and analytical examinations, has already been reported.

“Here,” said the learned Judge, “the proof stops. And, supposing you are quite satisfied that the letter brought him to Glasgow,[116] are you in a condition to say, with satisfaction to your own consciences, that, as an inevitable and just result of that, you can find it proved that they met that night?[117] That is the point in the case. That you may have the strongest moral suspicion that they met—that you may believe that he was able, after all their clandestine correspondence, to obtain the means of an interview, especially as she complained of his not coming on the Thursday, said she would wait again to-morrow night, same hour and place, and talked of wishing to clasp him to her bosom—that you may suppose it likely that, although he failed to keep his appointment on Saturday, she would be waiting on Sunday, which was by no means an uncommon evening for their appointment—_all that may be very true, and probably you will think so; but remember you are trying this case upon evidence that must be satisfactory, complete, and distinct._

“A jury may safely infer certain facts from the correspondence. They may even safely infer that meetings took place, when they find these meetings either mutually appointed or arranged for by the parties. But it is for you to say here whether it has been proved that L’Angelier was in the house that night. If you can hold that that link in the chain is supplied by just and satisfactory inference—remember, I say just and satisfactory—and it is for you to say whether the inference is just and satisfactory in order to complete the proof. If you really feel that in your own minds, you may have the strongest suspicion that he saw her; for really no one need hesitate to say that, as a matter of moral opinion, the whole probabilities of the case are in favour of it. But if that is all the amount that you can derive from it, the link still remains awanting—the catastrophe and the alleged cause of it are not found together. And therefore you must be satisfied that you can here stand and rely upon the firm foundation, I say, of a just and sound, and perhaps I may add, inevitable inference. That a jury is entitled often to draw such an inference there is no doubt; and it is just because you belong to that class of men to whom the Lord Advocate referred, namely, men of common sense, capable of exercising your judgment upon a matter which is laid before you to consider, it is on that very account that you are to put to yourselves the question, ‘Is this a satisfactory and a just inference?’ If you find it so, I cannot tell you that you are not at liberty to act upon it, because most of those matters occurring in life must depend upon circumstantial evidence, and upon the inference a jury may feel bound to draw. But it is an inference of a very serious character—it is an inference upon which the death of this party by the hand of the prisoner must depend.”[118]

CONDUCT AND STATEMENTS OF THE PRISONER AFTER L’ANGELIER’S DEATH.

In her declaration Miss Smith stated that she heard of L’Angelier’s death on the afternoon of Monday, the 23rd. On the Wednesday evening she was out at a party, and at eight o’clock the next morning she had left the house. In consequence Mr. Minnoch, and a brother of the prisoner, thinking apparently that she had gone to her father’s country house, took the rail to Greenock, and the steamer thence to Row, on board which they found her a little after two in the afternoon. She said she was going to Rowaleyn, and they went on with her, and from thence brought her to Glasgow in a carriage. “When we met her on the steamboat,” said Mr. Minnoch, “I asked her why she had left her house and her friends in such distress at her absence. She made no reply. I requested her not to do so among so many people. I renewed my inquiry afterwards at Rowaleyn. She said she felt distressed that her parents should be so much annoyed at what she had done.” The suggestion on the part of the prosecution was, that from conscious guilt she was fleeing from justice—on the part of the prisoner, that she was fleeing from the shame of an exposure of her love passages with L’Angelier. “But,” said the learned judge, “my opinion is, that having made a statement already about getting arsenic for the gardener to kill rats, and knowing that if it had been discovered that he got no arsenic for such a purpose, unpleasant consequences might follow, she wished to see him, in order to make an arrangement by which that statement might be borne out. The steamer in which she went only sailed from Helensburgh to Gairloch and back, and therefore escape by it was nearly impossible; and, in point of fact, he did not believe she had any intention of attempting it.”

Previously, however, to this unexplained flight from home, she had been visited by the French consul, a mutual friend of the lovers, to whose searching questions in the presence of her mother she gave most decided answers. As this witness’s evidence was greatly relied on by counsel for the prisoner, it is reported in full.

_M. Auguste Vauvert de Meau_, the French Consul at Glasgow, who had known L’Angelier for three years, was acquainted with the prisoner’s family, and aware from L’Angelier’s own statements of the correspondence between the lovers, gave the following evidence:—

“I remember L’Angelier coming to my office a few weeks before his death and speaking about Miss Smith. I said she was to be married to some gentleman, and when I mentioned the public rumour, he said it was not true, but, if it was, he had documents in his possession that would be sufficient to forbid the banns. I did not see her after that time. I thought that, having been received by Mr. Smith in his house, I was not at liberty to speak to him; but after L’Angelier’s death I thought it was my duty to mention the fact of the correspondence having been carried on between them, in order that he might take steps to exonerate his daughter in case of anything coming out. In the evening of the death of L’Angelier, I called on Mr. Smith and told him that L’Angelier had in his possession a great number of letters from his daughter, and that it was high time to let him know this, that they might not fall into the hands of strangers, numbers of people might go to his lodgings and read them. I went to Mr. Huggins’s office (L’Angelier’s employer). He was not in, but I saw two gentlemen, and told them what I had been told to ask (to get back the letters); but they said that they could not give them up without Mr. Huggins’s consent, and I then asked them to keep the letters sealed up till they were disposed of. I think this was on the Tuesday after L’Angelier’s death. Shortly after I saw Mr. Smith. In consequence of rumours I went to his house and saw Miss Smith in the presence of her mother. I apprised her of the death of L’Angelier. She asked me if it was of my own will that I came to tell her; I told her it was not so, but at the special request of her father. _I asked her if she had seen L’Angelier on the Sunday night; she told me that she did not see him._ I asked her to put me in a position to contradict the statements which were being made as to her relation with L’Angelier, and asked her again if she did not see him on Sunday evening or Sunday night, and she told me she did not. I observed to her that L’Angelier had come from the Bridge of Allan to Glasgow on a special appointment with her, by a letter written to him. _She told me she was not aware that he was at the Bridge of Allan before he came to Glasgow, and that she did not give him an appointment for Sunday evening, as she wrote him on Friday evening giving him an appointment for Saturday: she had expected him on the Saturday, but he did not come, and she had not seen him on Sunday._ I put the question to her five or six times in different ways. I told her that my conviction was that she must have seen him on Sunday, that he had come on purpose to Glasgow on a special invitation by her to see her; and I did not think it likely, admitting that he had committed suicide, that he had done so without knowing why she had asked him to come to Glasgow.”

_The Lord Justice Clerk._—“Did you know of this letter yourself?”

_Witness._—“I heard there was such a letter. I said to her that the best advice that a friend could give to her under the circumstances was to tell the truth about it, because the case was a very grave one, and would lead to an inquiry on the part of the authorities, and that if she did not say the truth in these circumstances, perhaps it would be ascertained by a servant, or a policeman, or somebody passing the house who had seen L’Angelier, that he had been in the house, and this would cause a strong suspicion as to the motive that had led her to conceal the truth. _Miss Smith then got up from her chair and said, ‘I swear to you, Mr. Meau, that I have not seen L’Angelier not on that Sunday only, but not for three weeks or six weeks,’ I am not sure which._”

_The Lord Justice Clerk._—“And the mother was present?”

_Witness._—“Yes. I repeated this question five or six times, but her answer was always the same. I asked her with regard to the letter inviting L’Angelier to come and see her, how it was that, being engaged to another gentleman, she could have carried on a clandestine correspondence with a former sweetheart? she said it was to get back her letters.”

_The Lord Advocate._—“Did you ask her whether she was in the habit of meeting L’Angelier?”

_Witness._—“Yes. I asked her if it was true that L’Angelier was in the habit of having appointments with her in her house; and _she told me that he had never entered that house, meaning the Blythswood Square house, as I understood_.[119] I asked her how, then, she had her appointments to meet him? She told me that he used to come to a street at the corner of the house (main street), that he had a signal by knocking with his stick, and that she used to talk to him.”

_The Lord Advocate._—“Did she speak about her former correspondence with him at all?”

_Witness._—“I asked her if it was true she had signed letters in his name, and she said she had done so.”

_The Lord Justice Clerk._—“Do you mean that she added his name to hers?”

_Witness._—“I meant whether she signed her letters with L’Angelier’s name, and she said ‘Yes.’ I did not ask her why.”

_Cross-examined by Mr. Young._—“I went to live at Helensburgh in 1845. M. L’Angelier visited me, and once he came on a Saturday to my lodgings there, and on Sunday we went on the Luss Road. I went up to my room, and L’Angelier not coming in for his dinner, I called for him out of temper. I then found that he was ill, and was vomiting down the staircase. He once complained to me of being bilious. This was a year ago. He complained of once having the cholera. Last year he came to my office and told me he had had a violent attack of cholera, but I don’t know whether that was a year or two years ago. I think it was a journey he was to have made that led him to speak of having had the cholera. I don’t recollect whether he was unwell at that time. I know that when he came to my house he always had a bottle of laudanum in his bag, but I don’t know if he used it. I once heard him speak of arsenic; it must have been in the winter of 1854. It was on a Sunday. I don’t recollect how the conversation arose, but it lasted half an hour. Its purport was how much arsenic a person could take without its injuring him. He maintained that it was possible to do it, by taking small quantities. I don’t know what led to the conversation, and should be afraid to make any statement as to the purpose for which it was to be taken. L’Angelier stated to me he had once been jilted by an English lady, a rich person, and that on account of the deception he was almost mad for a fortnight, and ran about, getting food from a farmer in the country. He was easily excited: when he had any cause of grief he was affected very much.”