Chapter VIII: Poisoning by Antimony (3)

“In regard to the matter of motive, I would suggest to you that the motive that his pecuniary difficulties would be relieved by the death of Mrs. Taylor, does not seem to have been made out satisfactorily. You will consider the evidence, but I confess I do not think it worth while to set it before you again. Then, the question comes to be, was there a motive? What is there in the shape of a motive that may be supposed to account for the perpetration of two such horrid crimes? That is the way it was stated, and ably stated, by the prisoner’s counsel. But there are some considerations applicable to that part of the case which I am bound to suggest to you. The absence of motive, in the ordinary sense of the word, is not a very uncommon thing in the experiences of a criminal court. In truth, the existence of any adequate motive for the perpetration of a great crime is a thing impossible. Still there may be what is called an intelligent motive—the existence of some foul passion, or some immediate and strong excitement, which, in a moment of half frenzy, drives a man to the commission of murder. These are all very evident and intelligible incentives to crime. But when we find that, in the opinion of the prisoner’s counsel, there is no motive, it means no more than this, that the motive has not been discovered. There must have been a motive or incentive, and yet we may never discover what it was. You are never in a condition to say that there was no motive, but only that the motive was not discovered; and the motives of human action, we know from history and experience, are often inscrutable. Another motive or incentive has been suggested—the illicit relation between himself and Mary McLeod. This is a very important part of the case undoubtedly, and one to which you are bound to give due attention. The prosecution suggests that the existence of that intercourse was the reason or the desire that led him to get rid of his wife. If that was the incentive, I do not think there will be much difficulty in explaining the incentive to the commission of the other murder; because her presence in the course of the chronic poisoning of his wife would have been a great obstruction and interference with his plans.[167] But it is for you to say whether it is a sufficient motive. It is a fair question for your consideration, and I should desire you to turn your minds to it very seriously; keeping only in mind this view, that even supposing you find it impossible to assign an intelligible motive for the commission of one or both of these murders, the absence of evidence of motive is not sufficient reason for acquitting the prisoner, if you are satisfied from the other evidence in the case that he was guilty. Motive, after all, can but create a presumption one way or another. It is not evidence of the fact of murder, that a man has an obvious motive to commit it; and just as little can the absence of proof of the existence of a motive be a reason for finding the prisoner not guilty, if the evidence of the fact of the murder be satisfactory against him.”

Again, after having shown how no imputation could rest on the servants Lattimer and Patterson, the learned judge thus dealt with the imputation thrown out by the prisoner’s counsel against Mary McLeod:—

“He has said that there was another girl there who stands in a very different position, and that it appears, singularly enough, that whenever an article of food was to be carried to Mrs. Pritchard, Mary McLeod’s is the hand that bears it. In short, if I understand aright his theory, it is Mary McLeod who caused these murders, and he invites you to choose between her and the prisoner, and to pronounce upon a balance of probabilities which of the two it was. This is a very painful position for you to be placed in. If it be necessary that you should decide absolutely between the two it must be done. _At the same time the prisoner’s counsel did not seem sufficiently to advert, in considering the point, to the possibility that both might have been implicated, and, if that was so, I suppose we should have little doubt which was the master and which was the servant; and, although the one might be the active hand that administered the poison, if two were concerned, you would have very little doubt who was the actor, and who set on the other. And, in fact, if you should arrive at this conclusion, every article that the prisoner’s counsel alluded to for the purpose of throwing the guilt on Mary McLeod would be an article of evidence to implicate the prisoner at the bar._ But I do not desire you to take this theory. On the contrary, I think it quite right that you should consider on the balance of probabilities, as has been very well said, which of the two is the perpetrator of this crime; and in considering this, it is necessary for you to advert to this—that the poison was administered in doses—in doses any one of which was insufficient to kill, but which was quite sufficient, in the agony it produced, and by the gradual reduction of the strength of the patient, at length to lead to a fatal termination. Is it conceivable that a girl of fifteen or sixteen years of age, in the position of a servant maid, could of herself have conceived and executed such a design, within this house, under the eye and subject to the vigilance of the husband of her victim, himself a medical man? That is very hard to believe. On the other hand, if you can suppose that the prisoner was the person who conceived and executed this wicked design, it is not so difficult to believe that Mary McLeod may have been the perfectly unconscious instrument of carrying out his purpose—suspecting nothing, knowing nothing of what was being done, and seeing nothing but great kindness on the part of the prisoner to her mistress, and seeing them dying, not rapidly as in the case of Mrs. Pritchard, and though rapidly in that of Mrs. Taylor, still in a way the prisoner accounted for as a medical man. You may understand easily enough that a girl in the position of Mary McLeod might be made the unconscious means of carrying out these designs, and perfectly innocent on her part. But there is no difficulty in this question. If you are satisfied that murder was committed, somebody did it. Some of them are plainly innocent, and therefore the probability of guilt is reduced to two. Of these two, one or both of them are guilty of this deed.”

Then with a remark on the suggestion of the prisoner’s counsel, that Mrs. Taylor died of an overdose of opium in the Battley’s solution, the learned judge left the case to the jury, who, after about an hour’s deliberation, found the prisoner “Guilty,” and he was sentenced to death.

After his conviction, in the hopes of exciting commiseration, Pritchard drew up a confession implicating Mary McLeod, but the transparent falsehood failing to gain for it any credence, he was induced to put forward a second, and, subsequently, a third and apparently full confession of his guilt. In this last he made the following statements: “I am guilty of the death of my mother-in-law, Mrs. Taylor, and of my wife. I can assign no motive for the conduct which actuated me, beyond a species of ‘terrible madness,’ and the use of ‘ardent spirits.’ I hereby freely and fully state that the confession made on the 11th of this month (implicating McLeod) was not true, and I confess that I alone, and not M. McLeod, poisoned my wife in the way brought out in the evidence at the trial. Mrs. Taylor’s death was caused according to the wording of the indictment and the main facts brought out at my trial. I hereby fully acknowledge and now plead wholly and solely _guilty thereto_, and may God have mercy on my soul.” He was executed on the 27th of July, at Glasgow, in the sight, it was reported at the time, of nearly one hundred thousand persons.

THE RICHMOND POISONING CASE.[168]

_Before_ THE LORD CHIEF BARON POLLOCK, _at the_ CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT, _July 7 and 8, and August 15 to 19, 1859_.

_For the Prosecution_: Mr. Serjeant Ballantine, Mr. Bodkin, Mr. Clerk, _and_ Mr. Mereweather.

_For the Defence_: Mr. Serjeant Parry _and_ Mr. Giffard.

FIRST TRIAL—_July 7 and 8._

Thomas Smethurst, æt. 48, surgeon, was indicted for the wilful murder of Isabella Bankes. The prisoner was a person of small stature and insignificant appearance, with reddish-brown moustaches, probably older than he stated, and, though appearing careworn, maintained great self-possession throughout the proceedings, and especially during the second trial.

HISTORY OF THE CASE.

Serjeant Ballantine, in stating the case to the jury, said it was alleged that the prisoner took away the life of a fellow creature by poison, and likewise contrived to throw around the means employed to destroy life some more than ordinary difficulties in the way of the detection of the crime; that in order to effect this purpose he had availed himself of the knowledge he possessed, and made use of a slow irritant poison, which he had administered with his own hands, until, by the accumulation of poison and irritation, she died.

The prisoner was represented to be a member of the medical profession: he had considerable knowledge of medicine, and was known as Dr. Smethurst. He was a married man, and had a wife considerably older than himself now living. At the time when he should first refer to Dr. Smethurst, he was living with his wife in a respectable lodging-house in Bayswater. While they were living there, in the autumn of 1858, Miss Isabella Bankes also came there to reside. She was a lady of delicate constitution,[169] and possessed of property under her own control of between £1,700 and £1,800, and a life interest in £5,000, which, at her death, went to other members of her family. The result was that an intimacy sprung up between the parties. In November of that year, the landlady, considering that there was too great intimacy between Miss Bankes and the doctor, spoke to her, and, in consequence, she left the house. On the 9th of December, Miss Bankes and the prisoner went through the form of marriage at Battersea Church, and, two days after, commenced to reside at Richmond. From a letter to his wife found on him when in custody, it was evident that the doctor did not intend this to be a permanent marriage. Until the 28th of January, 1859, nothing was heard of them; then Miss Bankes’s sister Louisa received a letter from her, but not dated from the place where they were living. On the 15th of February, the sister received another letter from her. At that time they were living in Old Palace Gardens, Richmond. Miss Bankes was then in good health, but, about the 28th of March, her illness commenced. On the 3rd of April, Dr. Smethurst determined to have medical advice. The landlady advised Dr. Julius, as he and his partner, Dr. Bird, were the most eminent practitioners in Richmond. They were accordingly called in. The former treated her for diarrhœa, in the usual way, the complaint from which he understood she was suffering, taking his account of her symptoms from Dr. Smethurst. Dr. Julius all through consulted with the prisoner, who took a most active part in the matter, and sometimes pressed upon him the use of various medicines. He, however, was only on two occasions allowed to be alone with his patient. On the 15th of April, on the landlady at Old Palace Gardens asking a few shillings more rent, they removed to Alma Villas—Miss Bankes so weak that she had to be taken in a cab and carried upstairs. Dr. Julius, when he found that his remedies had a contrary effect to what was intended, asked Dr. Bird to see her, but did not mention his own suspicions, though they were very strong. On the 18th of April Dr. Bird saw her, prescribed for her, but with the same result as his partner. At this time she was sinking, and becoming continually weaker. On that day the prisoner wrote a letter to her sister Louisa marked “private and confidential.” It stated that her sister was very ill, and wished to see her: she was to ask for Dr. and Mrs. Smethurst, and not to breathe a word of the contents of the note to anyone. The sister was not at this time aware of the marriage, and had her own views of her sister’s conduct. She went, however, and found her sister in a very feeble state. The deceased said to her, “Oh, don’t say anything about it; it will be all right when I get well, won’t it dear?” turning to Dr. Smethurst, who said, “Yes, it will be all right soon.” Dr. Smethurst showed every kindness and attention to the deceased during her illness, and to the time of her death she treated him with love and affection. Miss Louisa, however, was never allowed to be for a moment alone with her sister. Whilst she was there the prisoner gave the patient a saline draught, and she vomited immediately, and complained of its bad taste. Miss Louisa offered to make some tapioca, but the prisoner objected on the ground that there was not any milk. She then offered to make some arrowroot, but again he objected on the ground that the landlady might not like it. That evening the sister left, and next day wrote to the deceased, to which letter she received the following reply from the prisoner:—“After your departure, dear Bella had a very bad evening and night of it, purely from the excitement of seeing you, and the fatigue consequent thereon. Vomiting and purging set in at a fearful rate, which of course prostrated her greatly. The doctor at once forbade any visitors for the present, or he would not be responsible for the effects attendant thereon.” The prisoner had no doubt made such representations to Dr. Bird as induced him to say that she had better not receive visitors for the present. On subsequent days the sister received other letters from the prisoner postponing her intended visits from time to time; describing her sister’s condition, and mentioning that he had insisted on having a consultation with “Dr. Todd, the first physician of the day, and the two regular attendants who were the first doctors in the place.” One of these letters was dated April 30, but made no mention of his having on that day instructed an attorney in Richmond to draw up a will upon what he said was a draft by a barrister in London, but was really entirely in his own handwriting. On the following day (Sunday) he called on the attorney, and, representing that the case was urgent, induced him to come to the lodging, where the will was formally executed. By this will the whole of her property was left to the prisoner.[170] The consultation with Dr. Todd took place, and he agreed with other medical attendants that the patient was suffering from unfair treatment. The prisoner, however, on the 29th, wrote to the sister that Dr. Todd not only acquiesced in what was being done, but recommended a perseverance of the treatment, with some slight additions of his own. This was not the fact, but the prisoner was not made aware of the suspicions entertained by the medical attendants. They, however, caused the evacuations of the deceased to be tested, and the result was so confirmatory of their views, that they communicated with the police, and the prisoner was arrested. A number of bottles containing drugs and medicines were taken possession of, and on his person was found the following letter to his wife, sealed and stamped for post:—

_Monday, May 2, 1859._

“MY DEAR MARY,—I have not been able to leave for town as I expected, in consequence of my medical aid being required in a case of illness. I shall, however, see you as soon as possible. Should anything unforeseen prevent my leaving for town before the 11th, I will send you a cheque for Smith’s money and extras. I will send £5. I am quite well, and hope you are the same, and that I shall find you so when I see you—which, I trust, will not be long first. Present my kind regards to the Smiths and old friends in the house. I heard from James the other day, who said he had called on you, but that you had gone out for a walk. With best love, believe me,

“Yours affectionately,
“THOMAS SMETHURST.”

The case not being, in the opinion of the Richmond magistrates, strong enough to justify his committal, the prisoner was discharged. On the following day, the 3rd of May, Miss Bankes died, a coroner’s inquest was held, and the result was the re-arrest of the prisoner, and his subsequent committal for wilful murder, for which he was put on his trial on the 7th of July.[171]

EVIDENCE OF MEDICAL ATTENDANTS.

_Dr. Julius_ said:—

“He was called in on the 3rd of April to the deceased, who was represented to be suffering from vomiting and diarrhœa. The prisoner said he believed that her liver was overloaded with bile. The witness prescribed accordingly, but without any abatement of the symptoms. There was no appearance of bile in the evacuations after the third or fourth day that he saw her, yet the symptoms of diarrhœa and vomiting continued, with a burning sensation in the bowels and soreness of the mouth. She complained of a parching throat and a burning thirst. He could not account for any of these appearances from any natural disease, and began to entertain an opinion that something of an irritant character was being administered, and in consequence desired that his partner, Dr. Bird, should see her. Did not communicate his suspicions to Dr. Bird, who, taking the prisoner’s account of the symptoms, and knowing the witness’s prescriptions, adopted his mode of treatment, but with the same want of success. The medicines were varied, but the symptoms continued the same. On this the witness communicated his fears to Dr. Bird, and he on further observation agreed that the patient was suffering from some irritant, of the administration of which they knew nothing. During this period the prisoner always saw the medical attendants, and was always present in the room when they were with the patient, and recommended or dissuaded the use of various medicines. He displayed a considerable knowledge of medicine. On the 28th of April the patient was very ill, and she repeatedly said to Dr. Bird in the prisoner’s presence that she should like some one else to be called in. On the same day the prisoner (who had always expressed a desire that the best medical advice should be obtained) suggested that Dr. Todd should be called in. On Dr. Todd’s arrival, witness gave him an outline of the case and treatment, but did not say anything of the suspicions that had arisen in his mind. Subsequent to Dr. Todd’s attendance witness procured some of the evacuations, and in consequence of the examination of them, thought it his duty to communicate with the magistrates, and the prisoner was arrested, but released on his own recognizances. Witness was unable to ascribe the symptoms to any natural cause, but if small doses of some irritant poison were administered from time to time, it would have accounted for all the appearances that had exhibited themselves. Antimony and arsenic would be the character of poisons likely to produce such results. _There was neither antimony nor arsenic in any of the medicines he prescribed for her._ The prisoner told him that she was not in the family way. Dr. Todd had prescribed a pill containing a quarter of a grain of sulphate of copper and a quarter of a grain of opium, to which the prisoner objected, as the copper often produced symptoms of poisoning. On the Saturday the prisoner said this medicine had produced intense burning in the mouth and throat, constant vomiting, and fifteen bloody motions—that the burning was from the “mouth to the anus.” In my judgment it could not have produced these effects. The evacuation which I obtained was previous to her taking any of these pills, as they did not arrive until afterwards. When in prison Dr. Smethurst wrote to me three letters for the particulars of the medicines that had been given, which I answered. In the first he also wished to know what solutions of arsenic were kept in our surgery, _and in the third letter ashed for the date of the prescription for antimony, which had never been prescribed_. He also told me that she had been ill just a week—that previously she had been in very good health, able to take long walks, in fact out a good deal.”

On his _cross-examination, Dr. Julius_

“Admitted that Smethurst’s communications to him of the symptoms were made in the clearest and plainest manner, and tallied with his own observations—that twice he believed he saw the patient without the prisoner being present; that previous to the 15th of April the prisoner had suggested to the witness that Drs. Hills or Hassell should be called in, and a different treatment—one of a very sedative character, which the witness considered as too powerful, and, therefore, gave in a more diluted form; that witness had not, whilst in attendance on Miss Bankes, the slightest suspicion of her pregnancy, but that, if he had known of it, he should not have made any difference in his treatment, and now that he did know of it, it made no difference in his opinion as to the cause of her death. Whilst admitting that the delivery of a woman who had a first child at the age of forty-three would be very critical, he stated decidedly, as the result of his experience, that the period of pregnancy would be far less critical than in a younger woman. Vomiting was well-known to be an early—the earliest—sign of pregnancy, but diarrhœa was not; and though he had heard of a case in which it was accompanied with diarrhœa, he had not heard of one in which the diarrhœa would not yield to any ordinary treatment, and the life of the mother was only saved by the destruction of the fœtus.”[172]

On _re-examination Dr. Julius_ stated that “vomiting in early pregnancy had nothing to do with the burning sensation in the mouth and throat; _that the sickness of Miss Bankes was decidedly not of the same character as that of pregnancy, nor was the diarrhœa such as pregnant women sometimes suffer from_.” Dr. Bird, and not the witness, prescribed bismuth, acetate of lead, and nitrate of silver.

_Dr. Bird_, who from service in the Crimea in 1855 had had great experience and opportunity of studying bowel complaints, confirmed the evidence of his partner.

“None of the symptoms were in his opinion reconcileable with any known disease, but were such as could be accounted for from the administration of small doses of antimony or arsenic. The prisoner, he said, told him, on one occasion, that the deceased had seen her sister, and that it had very much excited her, and in consequence witness told him that it would be better if she did not come again. On the 30th he told the prisoner that he wished to take away a portion of one of her evacuations, that it might be examined under the microscope to see if any purulent matter was in it, that we might judge if there was any ulceration of the bowels—that the prisoner poured out a portion into a tumbler, which he tied over with an old newspaper, and that the witness took it to his surgery, marked it No. 2, sealed it with his own seal, and preserved it intact until delivered to Dr. Taylor with the bottle No. 1 which Dr. Julius had obtained. A third portion of an evacuation was shown to him by the prisoner, which he put into a white jam-pot, and marked No. 3. He was downstairs at the moment Miss Bankes died, but saw her every minute or two before that. He gave an ample quantity of every ingredient used in his prescriptions so as to afford a sufficient opportunity for analyzation.”

On _cross-examination_, he described the various remedies he prescribed, none of which would account for the symptoms, and stated that he formed his opinion that it was a case of slow poisoning by an irritant, not only from what Dr. Julius and the prisoner told him, but from the vomitings, the motions, and the lady’s own account of her symptoms.

_Mr. Caudle_, the assistant of Messrs. Julius and Bird, described the medicines he compounded, and _Dr. Buzzard_ detailed the transmission of the bottles of evacuations to Dr. Taylor.

_POST-MORTEM_ EXAMINATION.

_Mr. Barwell_, Assistant-Surgeon of the Charing Cross Hospital, who, with Mr. Palmer, of Mortlake, made a _post-mortem_ examination of the body on the 4th of May, said:—

“I found the back part of the body externally of a dark purple, being full of blood from the position in which the body lay: I gathered from that that the blood was more fluid, I should say, than usual. The arms were perfectly flexible; legs very rigid; feet bent downwards and turned in, and the muscles at their bottoms very rigid, indicating cramp or spasm in the lower extremities; the abdomen drawn in and the muscles tense and hard; the tongue rough, and the _papillæ_ more elevated than usual. There were no signs of what I could call aphthœ; the face was much emaciated and of a dull earthy colour; lower lip drawn in under the upper teeth; front of the body generally of this dull earthy colour; brain perfectly healthy; nothing wrong about the lungs—they were healthy. I saw that the liver was firm, full-sized, rather large, but did not then cut into it. I examined the uterus, and found the common signs of pregnancy and a fœtus of somewhere between the fifth and seventh week; the heart and great vessels connected with it were perfectly healthy. _I examined the liver subsequently; it was slightly fatty, rather fatty; the remainder hard. The liver when it becomes fatty is usually soft, but in this instance it was hard, and it was coloured in the usual manner—speckled._ Gullet healthy, no signs of inflammation on it. The outside of the stomach, the smaller end, that nearer the intestine, was red; the larger end, that where the gullet enters, was of a dark colour; in the centre it was pale. On examining the inside of the stomach, the narrow part or small end was also red; at the larger end was a black patch of effused blood; near the small end the mucous membrane was congested, that is the other end from the black spot and near where the red was. The contents of the stomach were a brown mucus mixed with blood and some bile, I should say. There were no ulcers in the stomach, nor appearance of acute inflammation. On the outside of the intestine I noticed on the 4th of May (the first examination) that its commencement was very red, the small intestines generally were inflated and minutely injected with blood, and in certain spots they were roughened by lymph, the result of inflammation, and glued together at certain turns where this lymph or glutinous inflammation was effused; they were coherent together from that cause; that did not apply to the entire length of the intestines, only to a few parts, and chiefly quite the lower parts. Those are the external symptoms. Internally, the first part of the intestine (the _duodenum_) was inflamed for about three inches from its commencement, but the mucous membrane was quite firm, and there was no ulceration. From that point the rest of the mucous membrane was only slightly injected, not inflamed. In the next intestine, the _jejunum_, the mucous membrane was still firm; in places the vessels were injected with its own blood, but this only in spots. In the _ilium_, or lower intestine, there was much the same appearance at the commencement as in the last, _except that approaching the lower part the injections increased very much, and at last, about 3 feet from its end, the mucous membrane was greatly altered; there was a deposit of lymph therein, and a thickening of the membrane; an ill-organized granular lymph; the membrane at the same time was roughened, and the glands, which are in the intestine there, were less visible than usual_. This deposit of lymph did not begin in the glands, but went over the whole surface of the intestine, and concealed the glands instead of rendering them more prominent—instead of being deposited in the glands, was rather around them at first. _This brings me to the_ cæcum. _On its mucous membrane were many very large spots. The appearances within the_ cæcum _indicated very serious disease indeed—inflammation, sloughing, ulceration, and suppuration._ Those appearances diminished as I went lower down the intestines. _When I reached the termination, the_ colon, _there was still ulceration, but in a minor degree. In the_ rectum _there were three ulcerations. I should also say that in the_ cæcum _were black spots of effused blood, which were also found along the rest and in the_ rectum. I have heard the evidence given of the symptoms exhibited during life, and the treatment adopted. Taking those into consideration, and the _post-mortem_ appearances, they are not reconcileable with any natural disease with which I am acquainted.”

_By the Court._—“What is the conclusion you have formed?”

_Witness._—“_That the symptoms and appearances together have resulted from some irritant, administered frequently during life._”

In his _cross-examination_, the earlier portion of which was occupied with questions to test the accuracy of the notes of his report, the witness explained that the hardness of the liver, which he observed, was not a stage of _Cirrhosis_, as he had at first written in his memoranda, “but a normal hardness, nothing extraordinary;” that the use of the term “hard” did not imply that the liver was diseased, but that the term “fatty” does.

_Sergeant Ballantine._—“I think I understood you to convey that there were no signs of disease about the liver, except this fattiness?”

_Witness._—“No signs at all except that. That is not a disease of a nature to affect the _cæcum_ and the intestines in any way.”

_By the Court._—“Is it in any way connected with diarrhœa and vomiting?”

_Witness._—“No.”

_Dr. Samuel Wilks_, who had subsequently examined the intestines with _Mr. Barwell_, confirmed his statements as to their condition and that of the liver, and “should think Miss Bankes’ death was most probably to be attributed to an irritant.”

On _cross-examination_, he allowed that “severe dysentery produces great inflammation of the intestines, particularly of the larger; that inflammation, if continued, results in ulceration and destruction of the tissues; that the _cæcum_ and _rectum_ would be affected in that way by dysentery, and that dark spots of effused blood are also a consequence of severe dysentery.” His admission, however, rested on his reading, and not from his experience of cases of acute dysentery, as he had seen only “two cases, which they were obliged to call by that name, not being able to arrive at any other conclusion as to the cause of death.”

MEDICAL EXPERTS FOR THE PROSECUTION.

_Dr. Todd_, Physician to King’s College Hospital, was then called.

“Dr. Julius,” he said, “told him the nature of the case before he saw the deceased, but not his suspicions. When he saw her he noticed a peculiar expression of countenance—an expression of terror, as though she were under the influence of some one, and that was not in accordance with the appearance of a patient suffering under an ordinary disease. The abdomen was very hard—an indication of extensive inflammation in the stomach—and he was at once under the impression that she was suffering from some irritant poison. By witness’s desire an evacuation was obtained, and he directed Dr. Julius to make up the sulphate of copper and opium pills to allay irritation. He had never known any bad effect produced by these medicines, and did not think it could produce a burning sensation in the throat and stomach. If the disease had been diarrhœa, the medicines administered by Dr. Julius were the proper ones.”

_Sergeant Ballantine._—“From all you have heard of this case, what in your opinion was the cause of this lady’s death?”

_Dr. Todd._—“_I believe that her death was caused by the administration of some irritant poison, such as arsenic, antimony, or corrosive sublimate. The only natural disease that would account for the symptoms is what would be called acute dysentery._”

On _cross-examination, Dr. Todd_ said:—

“I have never known any case or cases of early pregnancy of a woman of about forty to forty-five years of age in which there has been violent vomiting, violent diarrhœa, and severe dysentery, which no ordinary medicines would stop, and in which the life of the mother has only been saved by the abortion of the fœtus. No such cases have come under my cognizance. I think it possible that excessive vomiting and great diarrhœa may be caused by the early stage of pregnancy, and symptoms somewhat allied to those under which this lady died; _but I think it quite impossible that pregnancy alone, in an early stage, or in any stage, could, produce extensive ulceration of the bowels_. _I think, where it is a doubtful case, it is conclusive evidence against the theory that the symptoms were caused by early pregnancy that you found such extensive ulceration as existed in this case._”

_Dr. Buzzard_, who had been a staff-surgeon in the Crimea, _Dr. Copland_, and _Dr. Bowerbank_, who had had great experience of acute dysentery in tropical climates, gave it as their opinion that the symptoms were not reconcileable with that disease, but were those of the presence of irritant poison. _Dr. Babington_, Physician to Queen Charlotte’s Lying-in Hospital, who had attended more than 2,000 women in their confinement, did not consider that the death was in any way attributable to the fact of her being in an incipient state of pregnancy. On _cross-examination_, whilst admitting that cases of violent vomiting and diarrhœa in early pregnancy are recorded, said that he did not remember any one of so severe a character as to endanger life; that he did not think that the lady’s advanced stage of life had anything to do with it; that it was a complication generally at a later period of pregnancy; and that a first pregnancy between 40 and 45 years of age was not more critical in the early stage. On _re-examination_, with reference to six cases of dysentery, in 1841, in which he had made _post-mortem_ examinations, he said:—

“There was not the same amount of sloughing of the _cæcum_ as in this case, nor destruction of the mucous membrane. The glands were in a different condition. In the dysentery cases, the glands were quite destroyed, and in three of the cases there was perforation of the intestine. The symptoms in all six were different to those in this case; there was no burning sensation of the throat.”

ANALYTICAL EVIDENCE.

_Dr. Alfred Swaine Taylor._—“On the 1st of May,” said the witness, “Mr. Buzzard called on me, and brought me two bottles, which he said contained matters he wished me to examine. I took about two drachms from one of these bottles (No. 2), and having first examined the test and the vessel to be employed, and ascertained that they were pure, I then made the test, and discovered a metallic deposit on the copper wire, which, in my opinion, indicated the presence of arsenic or antimony; but I could not speak to the exact metal. I did not proceed further at that time, as I desired to have the authority of a magistrate. Bottle No. 2 was then resealed in my presence by Mr. Buzzard, and taken away by him with bottle No. 1. After he left, as I was told that it was necessary to do something to save the life of a living person, though it was Sunday, I proceeded with my experiment by boiling copper gauze in the remainder of the liquid in the tube, and on examining it with a microscope, saw appearances closely resembling metallic arsenic; and I then heated a portion of the gauze covered with metal in a tube, and obtained crystals of arsenic (wire gauze with the crystals on it produced). If you take the tube out, under the microscope the crystals are perfectly clear; in this little sediment, if you put it against a dark cloth, you will see a little ring of crystals—it is quite plain in the sun light. I subsequently applied the test of nitrate of silver and nitric acid to crystals obtained in the same way, and the result convinced me that they were composed of arsenic. Next day Dr. Buzzard brought back the bottles with the magistrate’s order. I then proceeded with the examination of both bottles, and the result perfectly satisfied me that I was correct in discovering arsenic in bottle 2. My calculation was that there must have been at least a quarter of a grain mixed with the four ounces of matter in bottle 2.[173] There was no trace of mercury, bismuth, or antimony, but I did discover the presence of copper by a subsequent test; but only such a trace of it as might be accounted for from the copper pill taken on the 29th. I examined the evacuation, and came to the conclusion that it was such as would pass from a person who had taken arsenic, and I immediately advised that the antidote for arsenic, hydrate of magnesia, should be administered. I subsequently examined the other bottle, and found that it did not contain any poison or any metallic matter whatever.

“On the 5th and 7th of May Inspector McIntyre brought me a portion of the viscera of a human being, which I subsequently submitted to chemical examination. The officer also gave me a number of bottles, and several pill boxes which I numbered, and subsequently some more. There were altogether twenty-eight; and on the 14th of May others which I also numbered. In none of the twenty-eight, omitting Nos. 5 and 21, did I discover anything at all necessary you should be acquainted with. I examined them for arsenic. I then examined the bottles containing the viscera:—first, the _uterus_, which I did not analyse, but agree with Mr. Barwell as to its impregnation; then the _œsophagus_, or gullet, in which there were indications of some cause of irritation, but no arsenic or antimony; _then the_ stomach, _containing yellowish fluid with blood, and found antimony in two distinct places in the small intestines; the middle portion of the small intestines contained the largest quantity, the other part was above and below; some was found above and below that and some in the_ cæcum; _altogether the amount found in the stomach was very small. In one kidney and in the blood of the heart there were traces of antimony, and in the blood in the jar_. I was assisted by Dr. Odling, and we came to the conclusion that the quantity did not exceed from a quarter to half a grain. I found the appearance of the stomach and _cæcum_ such as Mr. Barwell has described. I then examined the medicines prescribed by Dr. Julius, and found them to contain the ingredients of which they were represented to be composed. I then examined bottle No. 5, and found it to contain 355 grains of chlorate of potash, and free from anything else. That bottle has been accidentally broken in half. I then examined another bottle, No. 21, which appeared to contain a clear watery liquid of a saline taste, and I tested a portion of the contents by Reintsch’s test, and upon first trying the copper it was entirely consumed.[174] I made a further examination which led me to conclude that there was arsenic in the solution, but it turned out that I was mistaken, and that it did not contain either arsenic or antimony, and that the arsenical appearances originally produced came from the copper gauze. By the destruction of the gauze the arsenic in it was set free, and this destroyed the effect of the experiment. _The quantity of arsenic that I discovered, I should say, was less than half a grain._ In the experiment I made with this bottle, the arsenic was deposited by myself. Dr. Odling also came to the same conclusion—that the bottle contained arsenic, and we both stated that fact in our examination before the magistrates and the coroner, but we were, of course, mistaken. We believed, no doubt, at the time, that the arsenic we found was in the bottle which contained chlorate of potash—a cooling mixture. I have used the same description of gauze for many years, and have never before found arsenic in it. I shall certainly continue to use it, but shall take care not to do so with chlorate of potass.”

_Serjeant Parry_ here called for the deposition of Dr. Taylor made before the magistrates, a portion of which was read. It stated that he had discovered arsenic in bottle No. 21, in which there was chlorate of potass; that the latter was a harmless saline mixture acting upon the kidneys, and that if poison had been given in it, its effect would probably be to carry off the noxious ingredient from the body very quickly, but that by repetition constantly of such a proceeding chronic inflammation would be created which would yield to no treatment, and would end in the death of the patient from exhaustion.

_Dr. Taylor_ then continued:—

“At the time I gave this evidence I firmly believed that arsenic was contained in the mixture and that it had not come from my test, but had been placed there by some one. When before the coroner I expressed my opinion that the death was referable to antimony and arsenic. _The finding of the arsenic in the bottle did not have any effect upon the opinion I subsequently formed with reference to the case._ The moment I discovered the mistake I had made I informed Serjeant Ballantine. No arsenic was found in the body of deceased. I did not form my theory to account for the absence of arsenic from the tissues of the body, that it had been carried off by the chlorate of potass. It did not enter into my consideration beyond this, that it acts generally as a diuretic. After Dr. Odling and myself had given our evidence relative to finding the arsenic in the bottle of chlorate of potass, we thought it was possible there might be some mistake, and we made other experiments to satisfy ourselves. We made seventy-seven experiments with the same kind of gauze, and in seventy-six no arsenic was discovered: and the only instance in which it was found was in the evacuation in bottle 2.” The witness also said that he could not, after hearing the symptoms and the treatment of the deceased, attribute the death to any other cause than the administration of some irritant poison.

This witness was also cross-examined at considerable length as to the symptoms of slow poisoning by arsenic and by antimony, in which he agreed with the previous witnesses, adding to their evidence the fact of its operation in causing enlargement of the liver, and the deposit of fat in it. Hence the use of sulphide of antimony to fatten the geese used in Strasburg, in the manufacture of Perigord Pies. On the subject of dysentery he could not speak, having ceased to practise as a medical man, and confined his attention to analyses.

On _re-examination, Dr. Taylor_ said that “the half grain of copper, given in the pill during life, would not by any action of any acid in the stomach account for the quantity of arsenic found in the evacuation; that he had examined and found no arsenic in the copper pills; and that though arsenic was found in the sulphate of copper taken from the surgery, there was not a quantity to be seen; there was no arsenic in the bismuth, and no antimony in the medicines. Arsenic is sometimes found in bismuth.”

_Dr. Odling_, Professor of Practical Chemistry at Guy’s Hospital, who had assisted Dr. Taylor in his experiments, 2ì”confirmed Dr. Taylor’s account in every respect, and expressed himself satisfied that there was antimony in the body of the deceased. He agreed also in attributing the death to the administration of some irritant poison, and did not know any natural disease that would account for the symptoms spoken of.”

_William Thomas Brande_, formerly Professor of Chemistry to the Royal Institution, and for fifty years engaged in the practice of chemistry, “had examined a portion of the liquid (the chlorate of potass), and come to the conclusion that it did not contain arsenic. Reinsch’s test for arsenic was reliable where chlorate of potass was not present.” “Our first object,” said the witness, on cross-examination, “was to get rid of the chlorate of potass, or to decompose it so as to render it inert, which we did; and we then examined the liquid in question, and found no arsenic in it.”

_To the Court._—“I was not aware that Reinsch’s test would be inapplicable to such a compound, and if I had applied it, and the result appeared as it did to Drs. Taylor and Odling, I should have come to the same conclusion, that there was arsenic in the substance. _The matter that has appeared since is to a certain extent new to the chemical world. We have always been aware of the presence of very minute quantities of arsenic in copper, but we have never considered it as interfering in any way until this particular case._”[175]

MEDICAL AND ANALYTICAL EVIDENCE FOR THE DEFENCE.

It will be convenient, as in the previous trials, to report at this period the medical and analytical evidence offered on the part of the prisoner, subsequent to the address of Serjeant Parry. This was devoted to the following points: (1), the absence of some of the well-known symptoms in slow poisoning by arsenic or antimony, or by both; (2), the similarity of the symptoms in this case to those exhibited in cases of acute dysentery; (3), the occurrence of severe diarrhœa, with vomiting in the _early_ stages of pregnancy; (4), that the non-discovery of either arsenic or antimony in the tissues of the body could not be due to its being given in, or with chlorate of potass; (5), the probability that both the arsenic and the antimony found in the evacuations and intestines might be due to the presence of arsenic in the bismuth, and of antimony in the grey powders administered as medicines. In support of these opinions four doctors and analysts, all belonging to what was known as the Grosvenor School of Medicine, were examined, two of whom (Dr. Richardson and Mr. Rodgers) had given evidence for Palmer at his trial, Dr. Richardson then suggesting that Cook’s symptoms were reconcileable with an attack of _Angina pectoris_, and Mr. Rodgers supporting the view that if strychnia had been given to Cook, it must have been discovered in his body by chemical analysis.

_Dr. Richardson_, after generally asserting that the symptoms in Miss Bankes’ case were not in the main reconcileable with either slow arsenical or antimonial poisoning, or both, enumerated the following as absent if it was a case of slow antimonial and arsenical poisoning:—

“1st, the inflammation of the conjunctival membrane of the eye; 2nd, soreness of the inner surface of the nostril; 3rd, a skin disease peculiar to arsenical poisoning; 4th, excoriation, amounting to absolute destruction, possibly, of the surface at the orifice of the mucous tracts, the mouth, the anus, the lips, and the vagina—and, lastly, and, in his opinion, the most important, the absence of the peculiar nervous symptoms which he should expect to find which characterise arsenical poisoning—frequent convulsions of a violent kind, in many cases; or in others, where the symptoms may be prolonged, tremor of the whole limbs, a suppressed convulsion in fact. _Although he should not expect to find all these symptoms in a case of arsenical poisoning, he believed it to be quite impossible that a case of arsenical poisoning could exist from which they would all be absent._—The results of the _post-mortem_” he said, “were inconsistent with arsenical poisoning, because the inflammation that would establish it was most demonstrated in the part ordinarily most free in such poisoning—that, had it been a case of arsenical poisoning, arsenic must have been found in the tissues, and, had it been given in chlorate of potass, the whole of it would not have been eliminated. He based this opinion on an experiment he had lately made on a large dog, to which in sixteen days he had given 18 grains of arsenic and 365 of chlorate of potass, in small doses, two or three times a day, and then killed and examined and chemically analysed in conjunction with Dr. Thudichum and Dr. Webb, two of the witnesses for the defence. In this animal he found arsenic in the liver, lungs, and heart, a trace in the spleen and in the kidneys, but the greater part in the liver. He could venture to say that he found half a grain.”

_The Judge._—“_Give me leave to say, that the value of this experiment is nothing if you give a dog arsenic day by day for sixteen days, and then it is killed, and some arsenic is found left in it; is that all it proves?_”

_Witness._—“_No; it was done to prove whether the chlorate would eliminate the arsenic as fast as it was given._”

_The Judge._—“_All that the experiment proves is, that chlorate of potass does not eliminate the whole of the arsenic, because it eliminated all but half a grain._”

The witness then went on to show, by experiments on two other dogs, that the administration of chlorate made no difference either as regards symptoms, pathology, or the chemical result. Speaking again of the sweating as one of the symptoms in antimonial poisoning absent in Miss Bankes’ case, _he admitted that he had seen it only in one case, and that, where it had been given in excess, for a long time, and in large doses medicinally, and that in two other cases of acute poisoning by antimony there was no particular eruption, because, as he said, the attack was not long enough_. Such was all the experience he had had in cases of slow poisoning. As to the effects of antimony on the liver, he could only speak from some experiments on animals in 1856-7, and that, in reality, he had no experience at all in slow poisoning, except from experiments on animals. Of dysentery, too, he knew very little; had seen two or three cases, _but had never met with it in the early stage of pregnancy; he had met with one between the third and fourth month, but not between the fifth and seventh week_. He had analysed the bismuth usually administered in medicine, and had found nearly half a grain of arsenic in an ounce, and, in a case in which 90 grains of that drug had been given at the rate of 5 grains three times a day—for dyspepsia—with Drs. Thudichum and Webb he found about the fiftieth of a grain of arsenic in the urine.