Chapter VIII: Poisoning by Antimony (4)

The _cross-examination_ of this witness was mainly occupied by questions about his evidence on Palmer’s trial, and in trying to elicit from him that these canine experiments had been made for the purposes of the present case. The latter he denied, but admitted that he had made them after reading the examinations before the magistrate and the coroner, and that though he did not communicate them to the prisoner, he talked about them so frequently to his colleagues at the Grosvenor School, that he was not surprised at being interviewed by the prisoner’s solicitor and asked to give evidence for his client. As to his evidence on Palmer’s trial, he maintained that he did not endorse the theory that Cook died of _Angina pectoris_; that he did not negative the idea of strychnia, but at last admitted that he could not deny that he went there to support the theory of _Angina pectoris_.[176] In the cases of the dogs his analysis was not quantitative: he was content with the fact that the arsenic was present. He negatived the idea that the ¼ of a grain of copper in the pill would produce a burning sensation from the mouth to the anus, _but admitted that any irritant given for a long time would unquestionably produce that effect_. The form of dysentery to which a lady with such a liver as Miss Bankes’ would be subject, would be subacute, not that arising from poison, but which is prolonged over a very considerable time: not chronic, but something between chronic and acute, but too severe to be strictly chronic; that would not harden the coats of the stomach; would produce a great deal of mischief in the bowels; would not thicken them, but probably lead to a deposit of false membrane: it would not harden them, but a false membrane would; if there was great congestion, the wall would be thicker. He had not acted as an accoucheur since 1854, but was of opinion that sickness accompanied by dysenteric diarrhœa, in the early stage of pregnancy, might have been the cause of all the appearances exhibited in this case. Diarrhœa was sometimes an incident of and caused by pregnancy; the opposite effect, constipation, was not more usual.

On _re-examination_, the witness qualified his admission as to the effect of the copper pill to this extent, that, “in a patient suffering from violent irritation, arising either from a natural or mechanical cause, sulphate of copper would have a tendency to increase that irritation; and he justified his reliance on the experiments on animals on their forming the great bulk of scientific knowledge in Europe on the subject of poisons and their operation on the human frame, and by the fact that the materials for forming a judgment of the effects of slow antimonial poisoning on the human subject were very bare,” and concluded by saying, that, “after his cross-examination, and his attention having been called to all the points deemed important, he still adhered to his opinion that the deceased lady might have died from natural causes.”

_Dr. J. E. D. Rodgers_, Professor of Chemistry in Knowle College, but for seventeen years at the Grosvenor School, agreed with Dr. Richardson that chlorate of potass would have no effect in eliminating arsenic or antimony from the human system; that the absence of arsenic or antimony from the tissues, and especially from the liver, would cause him to doubt whether the allegation of poisoning was correct, and that he did not think it possible to find it in the blood and not in the liver, “as the blood in the heart must be regarded as a sample of the whole 28 lbs. circulating in the system, and, if you find the poison in one small portion, you must find it wherever the blood flows.” He confirmed the amount of arsenic said to be in bismuth, and had found antimony in grey powder: should expect to find, in a case of slow poisoning, the symptoms spoken to by Dr. Richardson, and, if he did not find any arsenic in a body from which an evacuation containing one-sixth of a grain came, it would lead him to doubt whether the experiment had been correct.

_Dr. J. L. W. Thudichum_, Lecturer on Chemistry at the Grosvenor School, and a pupil of Liebig’s, attributed the death to what he called _diphtheritic dysentery_, of which he had seen two cases, and, on opening the body in one case, found the false membrane from which the disease takes its name. The only medical work in which he had seen this form of dysentery described was _Rokitansky’s Morbid Anatomy_.[177] It was not, however, at all necessary to find the false membrane, as it might be broken up and discharged, and hearing that shreddy matters were found in the evacuations, would confirm his view. He quite concurred with the previous witnesses as to the symptoms they would expect to find in a case of slow arsenical or antimonial poisoning. He had analysed grey powder and bismuth. In the former he found caustic and carbonate of lime, mercury partly oxidised, silica, with phosphate of iron, arsenic and antimony—more arsenic than antimony; in the bismuth he found both arsenic and antimony—more than a trace—enough to answer the test two or three times—an appreciable quantity. “I dare say,” he said, “there was half a grain in 20 grains. It is almost necessary, from the mode of its preparation, that it should contain arsenic.”

On _cross-examination_, the witness admitted that he had not made any quantitative analysis, because they were so laborious; had used in his experiment about one-sixteenth of 2 ounces of the grey powder, which he dissolved; neither the grey powder nor the bismuth had anything to do with the death of Miss Bankes, but the fact of bismuth containing arsenic might account for the traces in the evacuation, and if antimony was taken in a medicine it might account for the analysis, but this would depend upon the quantity in the medicine.

_Dr. Cornelius Webb_, Lecturer on Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology at the Grosvenor School, and Physician to the Great Northern Hospital, said:—

“From all he had heard deposed to in court he was of opinion that the deceased died from natural causes that might be accounted for—that the fact of her being in an early state of pregnancy ought most decidedly to be taken into consideration; _though he did not know of a case, he was of opinion, founded on practical experience and general knowledge, that severe vomiting and severe diarrhœa which would not yield to ordinary treatment may arise from an early state of pregnancy—that Miss Bankes died from dysentery, made worse by the condition of early pregnancy, and that a burning sensation in the mouth is consequent upon dysentery, and the diarrhœa and vomiting of pregnancy. All the symptoms in her case might arise from the vomiting and diarrhœa of pregnancy_. The ulceration in the stomach, obliteration and partial destruction of the mucous membrane, the effusion of blood under it, and the dark patchy spots and ulcers and injection generally of the membrane might, as Dr. Wilkes said, arise from dysentery. If the deceased at one time had an affection of the womb, for which she used nitrate of silver (a pint bottle of this was found in her room), it would indicate ulceration of the neck of the womb; and if there had been such a condition of the womb an appreciable time before pregnancy, it might add to the irritation of pregnancy. Unless he found other symptoms, the vomiting, diarrhœa, sensation of the throat and the intestinal canal, accompanied by ulcerous appearances in parts of the body, would not, in his judgment, necessarily lead to the conclusion that she must be the subject of irritant poisoning—unless he found other symptoms, it would not enter his head. In a case of antimonial poisoning he should expect to find a clamminess and cold perspiration of the skin. In arsenical poisoning he should expect to find arsenic in the kidneys and the spleen, as well as the liver; should expect to find it in the liver first—it is the great criterion. And from the absence of these symptoms and appearances in this case, he was fortified in his opinion that she died from natural causes.”

The _cross-examination_ of this witness was mainly directed to his assertion that, “in such a case as this, had he been called in at its early stage, notwithstanding he was told that she was not pregnant, and that her courses were in order, he should have examined the patient for pregnancy, especially if he found that the remedies were useless in stopping the vomiting and diarrhœa.”

“Dysentery,” he said, “was a most common disease, and in such a state as Miss Bankes was, the quarter-of-a-grain copper pill might increase the irritation. Diphtheritic dysentery was a form of idiopathic dysentery, that is, occurring without any particular poison—the Eastern form; there is a dysentery that arises from natural poison, just the same as fever. If I had been acquainted with all the symptoms I have heard described in court, I should not have dreamt of poison.”

_Dr. G. F. Girdwood_, who had delivered upwards of 3,000 women, strongly supported the view of the death being due to the effects of dysentery, combined with pregnancy. “Idiopathic dysentery would be its proper name—a special disease originating in itself, one single malady, one single suffering. He had had several cases of dysentery at early stages of pregnancy, one of them very severe, in fact, contemporaneous with it—he should say symptomatic of pregnancy: this would be much aggravated by a bilious temperament, and any affection of the liver.”

On _cross-examination_ the witness explained that “in this country idiopathic dysentery assumed a less severe form than in warm climates—was what is called subacute or chronic, and that the state of the cæcum indicated a case of _subacute, not of severe dysentery, of prolonged dysentery_, and that it did not necessarily follow that such a case should commence with febrile symptoms.” On re-examination he stated, that “in early pregnancy the dysenteric motions have become bloody, the sign of dysentery which may come on immediately or not; in a day or two in acute dysentery, the result of neglected diarrhœa. _Subacute dysentery_ is frequently the result of neglected diarrhœa, or chronic dysentery—you have acute, subacute, and chronic.”

_Mr. James Edmunds_, Surgeon to the Royal Maternity Charity, cited a case in his own practice of a woman of about forty years of age, who had been married ten or twelve years, and who in her pregnancy suffered from vomiting, purging, and severe pain in her abdomen, and who, from the _post-mortem_ examination which he made, he was convinced died of dysentery, complicated by vomiting and irritability of the stomach attributable to pregnancy, and purging attributable to dysentery. “Purging,” he said, “was often a symptom at an early stage of pregnancy, and often of impending labour.”

On _cross-examination_, however, he admitted that when he first attended this woman, _when the symptoms first began, she had been pregnant five or six months_.

_Dr. Tyler Smith_, the last medical witness called for the defence, in practice for fifteen years as an accoucheur, said that

“He was acquainted with cases in which excessive vomiting in pregnancy had caused death—where it went on after pregnancy had commenced, sometimes during the whole period, but these were exceptional cases. It would require considerable skill to determine accurately the age of a fœtus, as you may have a case in which it may die and remain _in utero_ without development, though no decomposition takes place. He had known one case in which there was a great amount of vomiting and some amount of purging, in which the friends of the lady could not be brought to believe that her husband was not poisoning her. These symptoms might become so violent as to be mistaken for a case of poisoning; the expression on the face in such cases was that of death by starvation.”

On _cross-examination_, he admitted that though he had seen cases of death in pregnancy from vomiting conjoined with purging, he believed the vomiting to be the great cause of death, and that ordinarily, if dysentery is excessive, abortion is produced. On _re-examination_, he said “that in the case of a woman of from forty to forty-five years of age, doses of irritant poison were more likely to procure abortion than idiopathic disease.” To a question by a juryman, he said, “any irritating medicine would tend to keep up dysentery.”

With the evidence of a dentist (Pedley) who had attended the prisoner about the middle of February last, and recommended the use of chlorate of potass for foulness of breath, the evidence for the defence was closed.

THE JUDGE’S CHARGE.

_The Lord Chief Baron_, in his address to the jury, which occupied eight hours and a half, and of which, therefore, only the leading points can be given, said:—

“As to the marriage of the prisoner and the deceased—though in itself a breach of the law and a felony—the jury ought not to allow it to have any weight, excepting so far as it operated, with the other facts in the case, upon the question whether the prisoner was guilty or innocent of the more serious crime laid to his charge. It appeared to him that it was a most important subject for their consideration—the position of the deceased at the time the fatal event occurred, and also what she believed to be her position with the prisoner. In the letter she wrote to her sister she stated she was happy, and she also told her sister when she first saw her during her illness, that when she got well all would be right. What did she mean by that expression, and what would have become of the prisoner if she had got well, he having a wife living? In the will that had been made by the deceased, she appeared to have been studiously called ‘spinster,’ and she signed her name, ‘Isabella Bankes,’ and how she could have done this, knowing that she had gone through the ceremony of marriage with the prisoner, and might, therefore, naturally have supposed herself entitled to the name of ‘Smethurst,’ was certainly a very mysterious and extraordinary circumstance.[178] He could not help observing on the circumstances under which the will was made. The prisoner had certainly told Mr. Senior a falsehood, and he did not appear to scruple to degrade most seriously the unhappy lady for the purpose of having the will prepared in the form he required. If he had told the attorney the truth, he would never have drawn the will in the form in which it appeared. Again, at the very period when this unhappy woman was lying in agony on her death-bed, and according to the prisoner’s statement unable to bear the excitement of seeing her sister, he took into her room on the Sunday an entire stranger, and there a will prepared by himself was read to her, and executed by her under the circumstances of degradation to which he had alluded. Thus this poor dying woman, from whom all her relations had been excluded, had a stranger thrust into her presence, and was allowed to pass into the other world without one word of religious consolation, as if she had been a beggar and an unbeliever in a heathen land. Again, as to the pecuniary motive, on the supposed inadequacy of which counsel had commented because she would have been entitled to receive the interest of the £5000 (£150) only during her lifetime, it should not be forgotten that by her will he would be at once in the possession of a sum equal to twelve years’ purchase of that dividend.”

“The illness of the deceased appeared to have commenced very soon after the parties arrived at Richmond; the prisoner appeared to have described it as a bilious attack; he undoubtedly appeared desirous to have additional medical aid, and Dr. Julius was in consequence called in. In both the lodgings he appeared to have performed all the offices that were necessary in connection with the patient, although it was perfectly clear that he had ample means for providing the necessary attendance. The jury would consider what bearing this had on the case. Did he refuse to have a nurse because he did not wish to have a witness in that bedroom? He not only refused to have a nurse, but he wrote to the deceased’s sister to prevent her from visiting her sister. He said that he could not afford a nurse, yet at this very time the deceased had an income of at least £220 a year. It also appeared that no portion of any of the food given to the deceased was allowed to remain; it was always thrown away, so that no person ever had an opportunity of tasting it. This was one of the facts of the case, from which the jury would draw their own inference. It was a fact in favour of the prisoner that neither arsenic nor antimony was found at his lodgings or on his person. He had, however, ample opportunity between his discharge on the Monday and his re-arrest on the following day, of getting rid of any poison, and if the jury thought that the deceased really died of poison, the fact that none was found in the prisoner’s possession would not have much weight.

“After the first interview, the prisoner had taken every means in his power to prevent the deceased from seeing her sister, on the ground that the doctor forbade it[179]—which was not true. Why was not the sister informed on the 30th, when she was allowed to see the deceased again, that she had made a will, and what could be the object of the prisoner in wishing that the young woman who was to witness the will should be told it was a ‘Chancery paper’ and not a will? The fact of the sister having been sent away on the day before the death, was probably more in connection with the will, and from fear lest the deceased should, at the last moment, revoke it in favour of a beloved sister, than with the actual death—but it was a fact in the case. It was also a fact in the case, that after the prisoner ceased to attend on the deceased she ceased to vomit, and that the prisoner said that as the parties about the deceased had interfered, he should take no further responsibility, nor pay for anything, though at that time he had money of the deceased’s at his bankers.[180] It was another fact to be considered that the draft of the will was entirely in the prisoner’s handwriting, and that there was no evidence that it was drawn by a barrister as he represented.”

On the medical testimony, the _Chief Baron_ said:—

“The medical witnesses called for the defence thought the symptoms of this case inconsistent with slow poisoning, and that had arsenic or antimony been the cause of death, some portions of those substances would have been found in the body.[181] These statements were, however, the opinions of scientific men, the result of reading and study, and the jury would have to consider how far it weighed against the evidence of those scientific witnesses who had seen the patient when living, and had observed personally all the symptoms that manifested themselves. The medical men first called in found themselves baffled by the disease; the medicines not only did not alleviate the symptoms, but did not produce even their natural effects. They, therefore, came to the conclusion that something was being administered which counteracted their medicines. Dr. Todd, one of the most eminent physicians of the day, was called in, and came to the same conclusion. These gentlemen, and other competent witnesses, who had not seen the patient while living, were equally of opinion that the symptoms were not ascribable to any natural causes; but were those which would arise from the administration of an irritant poison. The counsel for the prisoner had laid much stress upon the mistake made by Dr. Taylor in one of his tests, and asked them to dismiss Dr. Taylor’s evidence from their consideration. He did not agree with this. The failure of Dr. Taylor’s analysis in one instance arose from a new and hitherto unknown fact in science, and did not in any way invalidate his testimony.[182] It appeared to him that no answer had been given to the main point urged by the prosecution—that no medicine whatever had the slightest effect upon the malady under which the deceased was suffering. _He did not agree with the prisoner’s counsel, that the real question for the jury was to consider which set of medical witnesses were entitled to credit. The medical evidence was important, but the jury must, in addition, look at all the other facts of the case, and particularly to the conduct of the prisoner and the motives for his crime._ They must, after all, be guided by those rules of common sense that would operate on the minds of reasonable men with regard to the more important actions of their lives; _and even supposing that there were no medical testimony at all in the case, they would still have, as it appeared to him, a very grave question to decide with reference to the guilt or innocence of the prisoner_.”

The jury, after deliberating for twenty minutes, returned a verdict of “Guilty.” When the prisoner, who appeared thunder-struck at the verdict, was called upon to say why sentence of death should not be passed on him, he speedily recovered his self-possession, and addressed the Court in a powerful, though rambling speech, in which he attempted to explain away some portions of his conduct, strongly asserted his innocence, and denounced Dr. Julius, against whom he appeared to entertain a bitter animosity. Again, when the usual sentence had been passed upon him, which he heard without emotion, he denounced Dr. Julius as his murderer, and declared that “he was innocent before God.”

No sooner was the verdict given than its correctness was questioned alike by the legal and the medical profession, each discussing it within its own domain, the doctors confining themselves too exclusively to the conflict of medical testimony, the lawyers confining their disputes too exclusively to the collateral facts of the case. Such, however, was the discussion between the two professions, that the Home Secretary (Sir G. Cornewall Lewis) deemed it advisable to reprieve the culprit until the case had undergone deliberate revision.

By the account given by Mr. Justice Stephen, based on the notes and papers of the late Lord Chief Baron, it would appear that, in addition to the numerous letters (some very foolish on both sides) sent to him, and transmitted by him to the Home Secretary, two communications, described as “somewhat hastily prepared,” were forwarded from _Dr. Baly_ and _Dr. Jenner_. These urged that “sufficient weight had not been given to the fact of the pregnancy and the ambiguous character of the symptoms,” and, some of the letters added, “their inconsistency and incompatibility with poison.” As the reasons on which these “somewhat hastily prepared communications” were based are not divulged, it is impossible to judge of their value. The learned Judge, on the contrary, called the Home Secretary’s attention to the statement in the memorial to the Prince Consort (already quoted, note, p. 474), to certain entries in Smethurst’s diary, not proved at the trial, and not now given, showing that he had wilfully misstated the symptoms of the patient, and to a statement in a letter of _Mr. Herapath_ in the _Times_ that the quantity of arsenic extracted from the chlorate of potass was larger than could have been released from the copper gauze. (See Chapter IX. p. 509.) On receiving this report the Home Secretary referred the whole of the documents, together with the copy of the evidence, to Sir B. Brodie. His reply, which, it is reported, dealt not only with the medical, but the moral evidence of Smethurst’s guilt,[183] concluded in these words: “Taking into consideration all that I have stated, I own that the impression on my mind is that there is not absolute and complete evidence of Smethurst’s guilt.” Thus on evidence not subjected to the searching cross-examination which it could have received if produced at the trial, and the opinion of a most eminent surgeon (not an analyst) merely on reading the papers submitted to him, the prisoner was pardoned. “The responsibility,” says Judge Stephen, “was thus shifted from those on whom it properly rested on to a man, who, however skilful and learned as a surgeon, was neither juryman nor judge.”[184]

THE LIVERPOOL POISONING CASE.

TRIAL OF THOMAS WINSLOW FOR THE WILFUL MURDER OF ANN JAMES.

_Before_ BARON MARTIN, NORTHERN CIRCUIT, LIVERPOOL, _August 20, 1860_.

* * * * *

_For the Prosecution_: The Attorney-General for the County Palatine (Mr. Bliss, Q.C.), Mr. Aspinall, _and_ Mr. Temple.

_For the Defence_: Mr. Digby Seymour, Q.C. for the County Palatine, Mr. Fenwick, _and_ Mr. Little.

HISTORY OF THE CASE.

The prisoner, who had been an ironworker, was charged with the murder of Ann James, by aggravating the disease of the _cæcum_, under which she was suffering, through the administration of minute doses of antimony. Mrs. James came to Liverpool from Devonshire, in 1854, whither she was soon followed by her sister Eliza, her sister’s husband a Mr. Townsend, an invalid, three nephews, and a niece, who was married to a japanner of the name of Cafferata. Commencing business as a grocer, she had subsequently kept an eating-house, which was eventually turned into a night refreshment and registered lodging-house, of which the prisoner, one of her lodgers, had taken the active management. Between him and the Townsends it was evident that no good feeling existed. They were jealous of his influence over their aunt, and suspicious of the intimate relations that existed between them. One of the nephews, Martin, who had caused her much trouble and expense from frequently enlisting in and having to be bought out of the army, acted as baker to the shop, but, with that exception, the Townsends had no share in the business. Previous to the last illness of their aunt, her sister, lately left a widow, and the other two nephews, died suddenly, as it was found afterwards, under very suspicious circumstances. No investigation, however, was made in their cases, until after the aunt’s death.

Mrs. James had prospered in her business: according to her own account, the prisoner had made it. Her stock-in-trade and the goodwill were worth between £200 and £300: she had four gas shares, valued at £200, and £130 in the savings bank, at the time of her death. An authority for the withdrawal of the money from the savings bank, the holograph of the prisoner, was found in a drawer, and during her last illness the prisoner had gone to the gas company to try and get the shares entered in his own name, and been told that it could not be done without a proper transfer, or by will. On this he got the solicitor of the gas company to see Mrs. James and draw her will. This the solicitor did, no one but himself and his clerk being present, and by it the business and stock-in-trade were left to the prisoner, and the rest of the property divided equally between Mrs. Cafferata and her child, and the nephew Martin, the prisoner being appointed sole executor. On the 5th of February, Mrs. James was so ill that the prisoner called in Dr. Cameron, Physician to the Liverpool Southern Hospital, who found her in bed, suffering from bowel complaint, and a tumour in the abdomen, which he believed to be cancer, and very weak and prostrate. He prescribed for her, and desired to be sent for again if she became worse. On the 26th of that month the prisoner wrote to Mrs. Cafferata at Manchester to come at once if she wished to see her aunt alive. She came and stayed with her for a fortnight, sleeping in the same bed, in the back parlour, of which the prisoner had the key at night. During Mrs. James’s illness her food was prepared by her servants, and brought to her room generally at night by the prisoner, who was very attentive, and showed great interest in her condition. On the 29th of March, Dr. Cameron was sent for again, and found her symptoms similar to those he had seen on his first visit. Again, on the 8th of May he saw her, when she was suffering under a violent attack of purging and vomiting, but, as regarded these effects, was convalescent by the 19th. On the 25th, however, he found her again very ill, and for the first time, from the symptoms, suspected that some foreign ingredient, some irritating substance, such as antimony, had been given to her. Mrs. Cafferata had again been sent for to attend on her aunt. Dr. Cameron prescribed tannin as an antidote, and on the 6th of June Mrs. James was again convalescent. Two days after, however, the same bad symptoms reappeared, and she became exceedingly prostrate. Some of her urine and excretions were obtained and handed to Dr. Edwards for analysis, and its results communicated to Dr. Cameron, who, in consequence, went to her house on the 10th of June with the police, took possession of all the medicine bottles and some cups that were in her room, and had Mrs. James taken to the Southern Hospital. More specimens of the excretions were obtained, and instructions given that for the future they should be, from time to time, preserved. On the evening of the 9th of June, if Mrs. Cafferata was to be believed, a most suspicious incident occurred. “On that evening,” she said, “I made my aunt a cup of sago from a parcel on the kitchen shelf, which she took, and at three o’clock the next morning took up to her a cup of tea and an egg, and, as she did not eat them, I placed them on a chair by the bedside, went into bed to her, and slept till nine o’clock, having locked the door, and placed the key under it. When I awoke I found my aunt awake, and appearing to want to go to sleep. I then saw two cups had been brought into the room in the night” (the prisoner admitted that he brought one) “and the cup gone from the bedside.”[185] In one of these cups was a little sago, in which antimony was detected by chemical analysis. For some days after her removal to the Hospital Mrs. James continued very ill, but ceased to have attacks of vomiting and purging after the first or second day. Afterwards, however, she improved in health until the 22nd of June, when dangerous symptoms occurred, and she died in two days.[186]

MEDICAL AND ANALYTICAL EVIDENCE.

_Dr. Cameron_, who attended the _post-mortem_ examination of the body of the deceased, gave the following description of the appearances presented.

“The body was greatly emaciated. The membrane of the gullet presented a yellow appearance. At the entrance of the stomach there were two patches of false membrane, but I could form no opinion how they were caused. The stomach was distended, and contained sixteen ounces of fluid. There were two small ulcers communicating with the cancerous tumour, which might have been caused by the administration of antimony or by disease. The bowels had been perforated and their contents discharged into the cavity of the abdomen, which was the immediate cause of death. My opinion is, that antimony was administered within a very short time of her admission into the hospital—sometime between the 9th and 10th of June. I do not think antimony was given to her after her admission into the hospital. The vomiting was not of the kind ulcers would produce, but of a kind which might be produced by an irritating substance such as antimony.”

On _cross-examination_ by _Mr. Digby Seymour_, he said:—

“Hot food in a case like that of Mrs. James might produce vomiting, and always occasioned more or less pain with ulceration of the stomach. There was no redness of the small intestines. Vomiting was one of the principal symptoms of ulceration of the stomach, as by tending to starve and weaken the patient it produced emaciation and prostration. Purging was not a usual symptom of an ulcerated stomach, but occurred with cancer in the bowels. Witness agreed with Dr. Richards as to there being no case in which slow antimonial poisoning was accompanied with dysenteric evacuations. The alternation of constipation and purging was one of the known symptoms of antimonial poisoning. The intermitting condition of the patient was one of the reasons which led him to the conclusion that she was the subject of poison. Witness agreed with the opinion that in malignant diseases of the stomach the symptoms remitted in a remarkable way so as to excite a hope that recovery would take place; but the truce was not very long; frightful disorganization was at length produced and inevitable death at last. Softening of the brain had been noticed in some cases of antimonial poisoning, but it was not a frequent or even an ordinary indication. Antimonial poisoning sometimes produced enlargement of the liver, but it did not in this case. Aphthous ulcerations in the glands of the small intestines are also symptoms of the presence of antimony—_there were none in this case_. Eminent writers on _Materia Medica_ and pathology assert that some persons can tolerate the presence of poison in their bodies without it having any effect upon them. It is also an accepted truth among eminent scientific writers, that there are conditions and circumstances of the human frame in which antimony may not possess poisonous results.”

On _re-examination_, the _witness_ said:—

“This toleration of poison is common in certain cases of inflammation, but it is my opinion that, in this case, the opposite to toleration has been established. Aphthous ulcerations are not often observed in cases of poisoning by antimony. The absence of these symptoms, combined with the state of the liver and brain, in no way affect my opinion as to the poisoning in this case. There were peculiar symptoms in the vomiting of Mrs. James which induce me to believe that it was not caused by the ulcer. Antimony would aggravate the ulcerous disease and enfeeble the bodily powers, as well as affect the appetite. One of the effects of slow poisoning by repeated doses is that the stomach is prevented from receiving fresh nourishment.”

_To the Judge._—“I have never attended a human patient poisoned by antimony. Persons suffering from sickness after food are relieved by vomiting; but in the case of Mrs. James there was considerable retching after the food was thrown off the stomach.”

_John Baker Edwards_, Analytical Chemist, said:—

“He analysed a bottle of urine which he received from Dr. Cameron on the 6th of June, and informed him that he found in it slight traces of antimony. On Saturday, June 9, he received two bottles from Dr. Cameron, one of which contained fæces, analysed it and found slight traces of antimony. The other bottle was marked ‘vomit.’ Analysed that, and found in it two considerable deposits of antimony. Subsequently confirmed this analysis by other chemical tests. He sublimed it by the application of heat, and obtained a white sublimate, which, when examined under the microscope, had the appearance of oxide of antimony. Afterwards dissolved this in tartaric acid, passed sulphuretted hydrogen gas through it, and obtained an orange precipitate—sulphuret of antimony. He could not scientifically distinguish whether it was ‘free’ or ‘eliminated’ antimony.[187] On Wednesday, the 13th of June, he received three bottles labelled ‘Mrs. James, Tuesday,’ one of which was labelled ‘vomit.’ It had scarcely a trace of antimony. The other two bottles contained fæces and urine, in each of which was a trace of antimony. On the same day he also received two cups, one of them containing about a tablespoonful of sago. This he analysed and found in it two considerable deposits of antimony on copper, which he sublimed and recognised under the microscope as oxide of antimony. On Thursday the 14th he received three bottles, one of them of vomit, containing no antimony; the other two containing fæces and urine, in which was no antimony. On the 15th he again received a bottle of vomit and also one of fæces, and in the former he found two antimonial deposits, which under the microscope he recognised as oxide of antimony, and in the latter a trace of antimony. On the following day he found traces of antimony in two bottles of urine. The day after he received two bottles, one of urine, and found a trace of antimony in each. He also examined some uncooked sago which contained no antimony. Subsequently (after Mrs. James had been removed to the hospital) he received bottles labelled ‘Mrs. James.’ The vomit contained no antimony, but there were still distinct traces of it in the fæces and urine. He subsequently received four jars containing brain, lungs, heart, spleen, kidneys, intestines, stomach, and blood, labelled ‘Mrs. James,’ and four bottles containing fluids. He analysed portions of these separately. From one half of the stomach he obtained five deposits of antimony. He also obtained five deposits of antimony from the intestines, four deposits of it from one of the kidneys, and three deposits of it from one half of the liver. He found no trace in the brain. In four ounces of blood he found a distinct deposit of antimony, and also from the fluid of the stomach. He also analysed six bottles of medicine and two of urine, and found no antimony. On the 26th of July he took a portion of the spleen and lungs of Mrs. James to London, and examined them there in conjunction with Dr. Miller and Dr. Taylor, and also the deposits of the viscera. He examined and tested them and found by the most approved tests applied that they contained antimony.”

On _cross-examination_, the _witness_ admitted:—

“That the first satisfactory result which he obtained was on the 9th of June—that he had no doubt that the trace he found on the 7th was antimony, but it was not a satisfactory result—that he had examined the body of a dog which died from antimony, and which had been exhumed, and had not found a trace, and, that if the animal had vomited after taking it he should not have expected to find any.”

_Dr. A. S. Taylor_ said:—

“That he received some jars at Guy’s Hospital from Inspector Horne, containing portions of the stomach, cæcum, liver, one kidney, and the heart, and afterwards from Dr. Edwards a portion of the spleen and lungs. He divided them and gave a part to Mr. Miller. Dr. Edwards showed him some sublimate on glass, and deposits on copper. He examined them. The deposits on copper were metallic antimony, and those on the glass were oxide of antimony. He was of opinion that antimony had entered the body during life. Assuming the deceased to have been labouring under the disease of the cæcum, and to have had two ulcers in her stomach, the administration to her of antimony, by depressing the bodily powers, would tend to accelerate death. Antimony had a powerful depressing influence and lowered the pulse in strength, produced great exhaustion of the system, and in a serious disease affecting the body was likely to aggravate its effects. A person might be able to bear a dose of antimony in health, who in a serious disease would be destroyed by it. His opinion, in this case, was that antimony had been administered at intervals in small doses. Antimony could be found in the tissues three weeks after it was taken. It might during that time be found, day by day and at intervals, in the secretions. The tests which he had applied were the most approved known in science.”

On _cross-examination_, the _witness_ said:—

“The disease which has been described as affecting the deceased must have terminated fatally. The death had been caused by inflammation arising from the passage of the contents of the diseased bowel into the cavity of the abdomen. It was very difficult to draw the line where a patient had rallied from the effects of poison, and where she sank under disease. The medical man in attendance on the deceased person would be the best judge of the influence of poison in accelerating death. Small doses frequently repeated would have the effect of irritating the mucous membrane of the bowels. In two most marked cases of poisoning with which he bad been connected there had been no change in the condition of the liver. _All the indications in Mrs. James’s case were referable to natural causes._ If antimony were found in the fæces, he should conclude that the purging was occasioned by antimony. In vomiting caused by ulcers in the stomach, it was confined to the relief of the stomach from its contents, and then ceased. Antimony produced prostration of the nervous power.”

_Dr. Miller_, Professor of Chemistry at King’s College, confirmed the opinion of Dr. Taylor so far as it related to the chemical analysis, but gave no medical opinion.

_Dr. Clarence Pemberton_, House Surgeon at the Southern Hospital in Liverpool, deposed that he attended Mrs. James and paid attention to her symptoms. He made the _post-mortem_ examination. “Taking the symptoms observed during lifetime, and the appearances shown by the _post-mortem_ examination, and assuming the judgment of Dr. Edwards to be correct, the cause of death, in his judgment, was the diseased ‘cæcum,’ but the administration of antimony would undoubtedly accelerate her death.”

On _cross-examination_, he admitted that, _judging from what he saw in the hospital, all the symptoms might be attributed to natural causes_, and, in answer to the Judge, said that _on the post-mortem examination he could find no traces or symptoms which he exclusively attributed to the administration of antimony_.

_Dr. Francis Ayrton_ said he saw the viscera and the other portions of the deceased sent for analysation. He observed some redness at the commencement of the small intestines, and some spots on the large ones, and he formed his opinion from these spots that an irritant had passed through the bowels. Antimony was an irritant, and would produce such appearances. He had heard the evidence given, and his opinion was that the deceased’s death was accelerated by antimony. He also admitted, on cross-examination, that _what he observed in the viscera might be attributable to other causes than antimonial poison_.

THE PRISONER’S STATEMENTS.

According to the evidence of Mrs. Cafferata, and the inspector of police, the prisoner openly accused the Cafferatas of having poisoned their aunt. He objected to their interference, and ordered them to leave the house, calling Cafferata a second Palmer, because he carried white powders about in his pocket, and saying, when the wife showed him the soda powders in question, “You are not likely to show me the right stuff.” When Mrs. Cafferata wanted to go to the hospital to see her aunt, he threatened to put her under arrest. That the prisoner had a great deal of drink when he spoke in this way was admitted by the witness, but when he made the same accusation of the Cafferatas to the inspector such apparently was not his condition. On the other hand, a Mrs. Higgins, on cross-examination, spoke to a threat of Mrs. Cafferata’s that “she would hang the orange dog (the prisoner), and that after her evidence they would want no more.”

PURCHASE OF POISON BY THE PRISONER.

The proof of the purchase of antimony by the prisoner was most unsatisfactory. A woman (Ann Foley) who used to work for Mrs. James, remembered that during the previous summer, on one occasion, when Mrs. James was sitting behind the counter and the prisoner was present, she said to him, “Here is Mrs. Foley; she will go for it;” that they then gave her twopence and told her to go and get antimony for the dog, and that when she went to a chemist of the name of Miller for it he would not let her have it, but told her to tell them to bring the dog over to him. This chemist’s assistant (E. P. Rees) remembered a woman coming for antimony some nine or ten months before, a second person coming also for it on the same day, and a third about four months after for the same drug, to poison a dog with. The third person, he believed, but could not swear, was the prisoner. Another witness (Eliza Brennan) told a strange story about the prisoner. She had been in Mrs. James’s service, some two years ago, and spoke to him about leaving and going to Dublin in the first week of her service. On this the prisoner, she said, advised her to stay, but added that, “if she would go, if she would buy him half-a-crown’s worth of antimony in Dublin, and send it to him by the boat, he would give her £5.” Lastly, a newspaper boy (Thomas Maguire), who slept at Mrs. James’s house, swore that

“The prisoner once sent him for a pennyworth of something for the dog, he did not know its name, but what he got was a white powder, which when given to the animal in water purged it violently—that within half an hour the prisoner sent him again for the same, and now told him its name was antimony. He got it, said the witness, from a young man, name Coopland, at Miller’s the chemist. He declared it was taken from a bottle six or seven from the window, and professed to point out the bottle to the Inspector of police. He knew that the letters ANT. on it stood for antimony. He had also several times since January last seen the prisoner when making bread and butter for the mistress take from his pocket a white powder in a paper and throw some of it on the bread before he buttered it; when he asked him once what it was, the prisoner had said it was salt. When the witness said ‘there was salt enough in the house without that,’ the prisoner made no reply.”

To Inspector Home the prisoner admitted that “he knew the use of antimony, and had given it to cattle, but had not had any in his possession for many years.”

In his charge to the jury, _Baron Martin_ told them that, if they believed that the prisoner administered the antimony with the intention of killing, and that her death from a natural disease was thus accelerated, that was murder—citing the dictum of Lord Hale “that if a man be sick of some disease which might possibly end his life, and another gave him a wound, which would hasten his death, this was murder by the party giving the wound”—they were to guard against prejudice because of the nature of the crime, and not to convict unless the evidence affirmatively satisfied their minds of his guilt.

The jury almost immediately returned a verdict of “Not Guilty.”