Chapter XI: Aconite: Aconitia or Aconitine (3)

[115] To the evidence for these statements, the Dean of Faculty
objected that, though the guard of the train from Stirling
was shown the photograph of L’Angelier, and identified him
by it, the photo. was not shown to Ross—that Ross only spoke
of him as a foreigner—that no one at the place where he had
refreshments at Coatbridge was called to identify him—that the
“foreigner” told Ross he had walked from Alloa (eight miles),
and not from the Bridge of Allan, and that on the Friday or
Saturday previous he had walked into Stirling to try and get
a cheque cashed, and yet no attempt was made to show that he
did so. The witnesses for the defence, on the contrary (Adams,
Kirk, Dickson, druggists), were clear (Adams) that at half-past
five on Sunday, the 22nd, a gentleman came to his shop for
25 drops of laudanum; Dickson, of Batherton, two miles from
Coatbridge, that one whom he recognised as extremely like the
photo. of L’Angelier came for a similar dose at 6.30 on a
Sunday at the end of March, suffering from a bowel complaint;
and Miss Kirk, of the Gallowgate, Glasgow, who remembered a
gentleman, “as like as anything I ever saw” to the photo. of
L’Angelier, came about 8 P.M. on a Sunday night at the end of
March for a medicine, and got a white powder. [But it must
be remarked that, weak as this evidence was, it was weakened
by the admission of Adams that his customer did not complain
of illness—by that of Dickson that it might have been in
April, and by the inability of Miss Kirk to fix any date for
the occurrence, or to state what the powder was, though she
identified the purse from which the party took the money for
the payment of it.]

[116] On the question whether this letter brought L’Angelier
to Glasgow, the Dean referred to an expression in one of his
letters to Thuau, that he did not know what “Mr. Mitchell
could want with him,” and inferred that it might be to hear
about this person that he hurried up to Glasgow and called on
M’Alister, who probably might have given some information on
this point had he been called. [If so, why was he not called
for the defence?]

[117] “I have already shown,” said the Dean, “how constantly
she repeated to him her warning that on no account he was
to make the slightest noise of any kind. Therefore, without
previous arrangement, it does not appear to me possible
for these parties to have met on the occasion on which the
prosecutor says they did. If I am right in reading that
letter, she expected him on Saturday evening, and she waited
and waited, as she had upon Thursday, but he did not come. On
the Sunday evening she did not expect him. Why should she?
When he did not come on Thursday evening, when he did not
come on Saturday evening, why should she expect him on the
following evening? Well, then, that is the state in which her
expectations were on that occasion, and her conduct precisely
squares with it. She is at home in the family. They are all at
prayers at nine o’clock. The servants come up to attend prayers
with the family. Mackenzie, the suitor of Haggart, remains
below while the family are at prayers. The servants afterwards
go down stairs to bed, as usual—one after the other. The family
then retire to rest, and the prisoner, with her youngest
sister, goes to her bedroom about half-past ten or eleven. They
both get into bed about the same time; and, so far as human
knowledge can go, that house is undisturbed and unapproached
till the prisoner is lying in the morning side by side with
her sister, as she had fallen asleep. The watchman was on his
beat—he knew L’Angelier well—and he saw nothing.”

[118] Regarding this third charge in the light of
probabilities, the Dean said:—“If you believe the evidence
of the Crown, he suspected the prisoner of having tried to
poison him. But my learned friend says his suspicions were
then lulled—she had become more kind to him before he left
town. I thought my learned friend said he was brooding over
it when in Edinburgh, and spoke of it in a serious tone to
the Towerses. That was on the 16th of March, after which date
he had nothing to change his mind in the shape of kindness
from the prisoner, and therefore if he did once entertain the
suspicion, however unfounded, there was nothing to remove it
from his mind anterior to the 22nd of March. A man, whose
suspicions are excited against a particular person, is not
very likely to take poison at that person’s hand; and yet,
what are we asked to believe that he took from her hand that
night? That he took from her hand a poisoned cup, in which
there lurked such a quantity of arsenic as was sufficient
to leave in his stomach after death 82 grains; such a dose
indicating the administration of at least double—aye, I think
Dr. Christison said the administration of at least half an
ounce (240 grains)—and that he took it that evening from the
hand of the prisoner, with all his previous suspicions that she
was practising on him. It is a dose which, as far as experience
goes, was never successfully administered by a murderer. There
is not a case on record in which it has ever been shown that
a person administering poison to another ever succeeded in
persuading him to swallow such a quantity.” [But note as to
confidence after suspicion, that of Cook in Palmer, after the
suspicious illness at Shrewsbury.—See Palmer’s Case, _ante_;
and as to quantity administered by murderers, note _ante_, p.
319, and Appendix B., p. 358.]

[119] _Christina Haggart_, if she was to be believed, appears
to contradict this assertion. On _re-examination_ she said that
between a month and two before her apprehension Miss Smith
asked her to leave the back gate into the lane open after ten
at night, and stay in the kitchen a little, as she was to see
her friend. When she did so she saw no one in the lane, but as
she went into the kitchen, which was in front of the house, she
met Miss Smith going towards the back door. She heard footsteps
coming through the gate—that she stayed in the kitchen till
she heard Miss Smith go to her own room. She stayed about half
an hour. “_Charlotte Maclean_, the cook, stayed in the kitchen
with me at my request.” In this she was confirmed by Maclean,
but she could not say she heard Miss Smith in the passage,
though she heard her afterwards go to her bedroom. Miss Smith’s
statement to Dr. Meau is true, if the meeting took place only
at the back gate. The Lord Justice Clerk, however, spoke of
this evidence as proving that L’Angelier was in the house in
Blythswood Square.

[120] In a letter with post-mark September 18, 1855, she
alludes to some such threat, “Beloved, you are young, you
ought to desire life.” In another with post-mark October 19,
1855, she writes, “‘Before long,’ you say, ‘I shall rid you
and all the world of my presence.’ God forbid that you should
do this.” “This,” said the Judge, “was a common enough mode of
influencing females; and if such was his design, he seemed to
have succeeded.”

[121] As to the evidence for the defence, that L’Angelier had
on one occasion threatened to throw himself out of the window
at the “Rainbow” Tavern, his lordship observed, “As the witness
was in bed at the time the deceased had ample opportunity to
have thrown himself over, if he had been so inclined, before
the witness could interfere; and the jury would consider
whether, when going about the room in that excited state, he
had only thrown open the window to get air. As to the other
stories that he would drown himself, if jilted, they did not
amount to much, as on one occasion he had been jilted, and
had not drowned himself. You will consider whether all this
is merely the vapouring of a loose, talkative man, fond of
awakening an interest in the minds of others about himself, or
whether it affords any indication that he was likely to commit
suicide. As to the evidence about giving arsenic to horses in
France, which would be useless unless given constantly, he did
not see its importance. If he was in the habit of taking it in
small quantities, he knew its qualities, and therefore this
did not aid the notion that he took an immense quantity on the
22nd to destroy himself. No doubt the prisoner was not bound to
prove that he poisoned himself, but it was a hazardous thing to
set up a defence that L’Angelier went out that night carrying
such a quantity of arsenic in his pocket, and that he swallowed
it, how, when, and where, no human being could conceive.”

[122] “It is very difficult,” said the learned Judge, “to
say what the exasperated feelings of a female placed in such
a situation as this woman was might not lead her to do. And
here it is that the correspondence becomes of the utmost
importance, as shewing what feelings she cherished about
that time, what state and disposition of mind she was in,
and whether there was any trace of moral sense or propriety
to be found in her letters, or whether they did not exhibit
such a degree of ill-regulated, disordered, distempered, and
licentious feelings, as shew that the writer was quite capable
of compassing any end by which she could avoid exposure and
disgrace, and of cherishing any feeling of revenge which such
treatment might excite in her mind, driven nearly to madness
by the thought of what might follow the revelation of this
correspondence. We have heard a good deal said by the Dean
of Faculty as to the character of this person: we have no
evidence on the subject, except what these letters exhibit,
and no witness to character is brought; and certainly these
letters exhibit as extraordinary a frame of mind and of passion
as perhaps ever appeared in a court of justice. Can you be
surprised, that after such letters as those of the 29th April
and 3rd May (inviting him in very plain terms to meet her for
that purpose at the garden gate of the country house), that
on the 6th May, three days afterwards, he got possession of
her person? On the 7th she again writes, and in that letter
is there the slightest appearance of grief, of repentance,
of remorse? It is the letter of a girl rejoicing in what had
passed, and alluding to it particularly in terms which I will
not read, for perhaps they were never previously committed to
paper, as having passed between man and woman. There could be
no doubt of the state of degraded and unholy feeling into which
she had sunk, probably not the less so if it was produced by
his undermining and corruption.”

[123] If this was the use for which the prisoner bought the
arsenic, it is at least curious that she did not buy it until
the 21st of February, 1857, when she was endeavouring to get
her letters back from L’Angelier. The article in _Blackwood_
was in December, 1853. _Johnston’s_ Book was published in 1855,
and of the papers in _Chambers_, the first was in December,
1851, the second in June, 1853, and the third in July, 1856.

[124] Without wishing to fight over again the case of _Eliza
Fenning_, I would refer any one at all curious on this point
to a letter to the _Times_, quoted in the “Annual Register”
for July 29, 1855, from the Rev. J. H. Gurney, the nephew of
the well-known shorthand writer, in which it is stated, on
the authority of an extract from his uncle’s note-book, that
_Eliza Fenning_ did confess the crime to the Rev. James Upton,
a Baptist minister, whose chapel she attended, though she
subsequently maintained her innocence to other visitors.

[125] The learned Judge had previously said, “If this had been
an appointment about business, and it had been shown that a
person came to town for the purpose of seeing another, and he
went out for that purpose, having no other object in coming
to Glasgow, they would probably scout the notion of a person
saying, ‘I never saw or heard of him that day that he came;’
but the inference they were asked to draw was this, that they
met on that night, when the fact of their meeting is the
foundation of the charge of murder. Therefore the jury must
feel that the grounds of drawing an inference in the ordinary
matters of civil business, or the actual appointment of mutual
friends is one thing, and the inference from the fact that he
came to Glasgow, that they did meet, and that, therefore, the
poison was administered to him by her at that time, is another,
and a most enormous jump in the category of inferences.”

[126] Evidence of _Samuel Peckeridge_, his fellow-workman;
_Thomas Denman_, who had seen him near the reservoir on
Stamford Hill, on the 24th, vomiting, and going to the
public-house for brandy; _James Ashby_, another turncock of the
East London Company’s; _Mrs. Gillett_, and _Mr. Toulmin_, of
Clapton.

[127] On Dr. Letheby’s evidence, see remarks in Chapter VII.,
p. 395.

[128] _A. Andrews_ also proved that she had only objected to
the _post-mortem_ because she knew the deceased objected to
it; that she said “Thank God, I am innocent. Poor dear soul, I
loved him too well to injure him;” and had told him that Annie
had eaten the rest of the gruel, and that Mrs. Gillett knew it.

[129] _James Urry_, the secretary of the benefit society,
proved that the deceased had been insured in it nearly two
years—these would not have been completed until February 2nd,
and that, in consequence, she would be entitled to only £7 10s.
instead of £10. When he saw the prisoner she seemed absorbed in
grief.

[130] See on this the remarks in Chapter VII. p. 395.

[131] Tidy (Handbook of Modern Chem., 1878, p. 397) states that
1,000 parts of boiling water, digested for twenty-four hours
with the powder, dissolve—of the opaque form, 5·4 parts; of the
transparent, 10; of the crystalline, 15.

[132] In this case, which was tried before the late Lord
Denman, at the Summer Assizes, 1848, very many of the guests
at a dinner given to celebrate the election of an Independent
minister were seriously affected, and the death of the chairman
(an invalid) hastened, by eating of a blancmange made in the
form of a cucumber, surrounded with leaves—all of the natural
green colour. In colouring this sweet, emerald green, in which,
on analysis, 47½ per cent. of arsenite of copper was found,
had been used to such an extent that the colour was in some
parts half an inch in depth. The pastrycook (Franklin) had
been previously warned, by the chemist who sold it to him, of
its poisonous qualities, and for a time had discontinued its
use for eatables; and the defence was, that in this case his
apprentice (Randall) had used it under the impression that the
sweet was only for ornament. They were both found guilty of
manslaughter, and sentenced to three months’ imprisonment with
hard labour.

[133] According to the _Apotheker Zeitung_, No. 14, April
3, 1879, out of 118 samples of children’s toys officially
examined in 1878, 53, or nearly one-half, were found adorned
with poisonous colours. In the cases of 46 the vendors were
punished. As to dresses, see Chem. News, v. 114.

[134] In the case of _Maria Gage_, tried at the Summer Assizes,
at Ipswich, on the 2nd of August, 1851, for the murder of her
husband, it was proved that she had got a neighbour to purchase
for her a pennyworth of stuff for rats and mice, which was
found to consist of linseed with arsenic enough to kill half a
dozen men.

[135] “Considerable sensation has been excited by the report
that arsenic had been detected in the paper collars, &c.,
manufactured by a Leipzig firm. On a careful examination,
conducted by six of the most eminent chemists, the accusation
was proved to be utterly unfounded.”—_Chemiker Zeitung_, No.
45, 1879.

[136] In this case, which was tried in April, 1835, before
Sir Charles Wetherell, as Recorder of Bristol, a widow lady
of the name of Mary Smith, who had lodged with the prisoner,
was poisoned by her, in October, 1833, for the sake of the
money and other property she had with her. The accused was
proved to have purchased yellow arsenic about six days before
Mrs. Smith’s death, and to have been seen putting some yellow
powder out of a paper from her pocket into a basin of gruel,
after taking which Mrs. Smith was seized with dreadful
convulsions, and died. In consequence of suspicions created
by the prisoner’s subsequent conduct and false statements, a
_post-mortem_ was held of the body, exhumed fourteen months
after death. The report of this examination was very striking.
“A thick, yellow coating, like paint, lay on the mucous
membrane of the stomach, particularly over the pyloric third,
but it extended more or less with some small interjections of
unstained membrane to within two or three inches of the great
cul-de-sac.” The accused was convicted and executed.

[137] Phosphates give _nothing_ with sulphuretted hydrogen, and
a _yellow_ with silver nitrate.

[138] “A curious toxicological case is reported from Hamburg.
The body of a man who died in 1867 was taken for examination.
It was thought necessary to determine arsenic, not merely in
the corpse in question, but in the soil of the churchyard at
different distances from the coffin, and also in the body
of another man who had been subsequently buried in the same
grave. This latter body was perfectly free from arsenic,
which, however, was found in the first corpse in ample fatal
quantity (3·6 grains), whilst in the lid of the coffin and in
the adjacent ground very minute quantities were traced. Hence
the conclusion was fairly drawn that the man in question had
been poisoned with arsenic, and that a portion of the poison
had been gradually transferred from his body to the wood of
the coffin and the adjacent soil.”—_Chemiker Zeitung_, No. 7,
February 13th, 1879.

[139] See also a case in the _Gaz. Médicale_, 1850.

[140] When we bear in mind how small a space even 200 grains
of arsenic would occupy—not more than that of an ordinary
seidlitz powder—the suggestion of L’Angelier carrying this
means of suicide about him, when keeping the supposed
appointment on the Sunday night, is by no means improbable.
And when his evident tendency to attempt self-destruction,
when irritated or depresssed, is remembered, it is within the
range of probability, that, if either the meeting took place
and ended with a quarrel, or he failed to obtain a meeting,
in the excited state of mind which either circumstance would
have created, he in desperation swallowed the drug very shortly
before he returned to his lodgings, only to die. This is a
far more probable suggestion than that set up by the defence,
that he had been dosing himself with arsenic on the road from
Stirling to Glasgow. The difficulty is that purchases of
arsenic by L’Angelier could not be proved. But, looking to the
careless way in which it was exposed in the shops of some of
the firms with which he had relations (evidence of _Fleming_
and _Townsend_), he might have got it from thence, without its
being known, or he might have purchased it in Edinburgh on
his visit there, where he could not be easily recognised. He
certainly had an unwholesome hankering after this drug.—G. L. B.

[141] To the medical profession, for whose use, as well as for
that of their legal brethren, this volume is intended, any but
a detailed report of the medical evidence in this disputed case
would be useless.

[142] For the report of this trial I have relied on that
published in Edinburgh by William Kay, 1865.

[143] Evidence of _James Struthers_. Registrar of Deaths for
the Blythswood district of Glasgow.

[144] According to _Mary Patterson_, Mrs. Taylor was in the
kitchen about 7 P.M., as well as usual, only appearing a little
peevish in consequence of her night-watching. _Mary McLeod_
met her going up stairs from the consulting-room about nine
o’clock, and in a short time her bell rang, and she found her
in her daughter’s bedroom asking for hot water to make her
vomit, when she desired her to go for the doctor.

[145] See evidence, _ante_, p. 414 (note), of _McLeod_ and
_Paterson_, as to her health and actions during the evening
before her seizure.

[146] It was with reference to this visit that _Paterson_
afterwards expressed his opinion, that, but for the accident of
meeting Pritchard, he would not have been asked to visit his
wife. This was severely commented on by Mr. R. Clark as showing
the ill-feeling towards the prisoner which was imputed to the
witness.

[147] It was proved that he kept large quantities of antimony,
poisons, and other drugs in his consulting-room, though no
chlorodyne.—_Evidence of McCall, Dr. Penny, McHattie, Foulger,
and Kerr._

[148] In a letter to his father-in-law on the 3rd of March,
Pritchard wrote: “I am very much fatigued with being up
with dear Mary Jane, who was very much worse yesterday, and
passed a wretched night. Wednesday has been a periodic day
with her during this illness, and she always dreads it. Her
prostration is extreme, and her appetite quite failed. _Dr.
Paterson has recommended Dublin stout and some very simple
medicine._”—_Evidence of Mr. Taylor._ Second day.

[149] On Dr. Paterson’s evident feeling against the prisoner,
the Lord Justice Clerk made the following remarks: “It is
said that he exhibited a strong feeling against the prisoner;
no human being could feel otherwise if he had formed the
impression that Mrs. Pritchard was being poisoned in the hands
of her husband, her medical attendant. It is said that he
exhibited this feeling in a marked unpleasant manner in the
box. That is a matter of manner, and, if the feeling existed,
I do not know that he could have made his evidence really
more valuable if he had concealed the existence of it. It may
be an unpleasant thing to see what is called an _animus_ in
a witness exhibited in the witness-box. If he has a feeling
strong upon him, and that on good ground, he may come into
the box and entirely suppress all appearance of it, because
he has more command of his feeling, or a better manner of
concealing it. The fact remains, that if he takes up the
position I have described, he cannot, as a man of ordinary
feeling, feel otherwise than unfavourably prepossessed against
the prisoner.” Again, on his concealment of his suspicions,
the Judge said: “Now, he thought it consistent with his
professional duty—and I must also add with his duty as a
citizen of this country—to keep this opinion to himself. In
that I cannot say he did right. I should be very sorry to lead
you to think so. I care not for professional etiquette, or
professional rule. There is a rule of life and a consideration
far higher than these—the duty that every citizen of this
country, that every right-minded man owes to his neighbour—to
prevent the destruction of human life in this world, and in
that duty I cannot but say that Dr. Paterson has failed. Now
you will consider what effect that is to have, or whether it
is to have any effect on your minds. It is a very painful
subject—a subject which I would fain avoid, but the exigencies
of this case drive me to its consideration—and I am bound to
say that, because a man is so mistaken in regard to his duty to
his fellow-citizens, and his fellow-creatures, it by no means
follows that he is undeserving of credit as a witness. You may
con sider his evidence always in the light of that failing; if
you can see reason to modify anything that he says, because of
the existence of that failing, it is your bounden duty to do
that.”—_Charge of the Lord Justice Clerk._ Fifth day.

[150] From Western Branch of Glasgow Apothecaries’ Company,
September 19, 1864, 10 grains strychnia; November 4, ½ oz.
tincture conii (Hemlock); November 16, 1 oz. laudanum, 1 oz.
tartar emetic; November 24, 1 oz. tincture aconite; December 8,
1 oz. tincture (Fleming’s) aconite; December 9, 1 oz. tincture
conii. 1865: February 4, 1 oz. tincture conii; February 7, 1
oz. tartarised antimony, 1 oz. tincture of aconite; February
9, 1 oz. tincture of aconite; February 11, 1 oz. tincture
of digitalis; February 18, 2 oz. tincture conii (all sold
by the manager, _J. Campbell_); November 24, 1 oz. tincture
of aconite; December 9, 1 oz. tincture conii; February 4,
1865, 1 oz. tincture conii (sold by the assistant). Fleming’s
tincture of aconite is six times stronger than the ordinary
tincture.—_Evidence of J. Campbell._ From _John Currie_,
chemist in Glasgow:—1865: February 18, 2 oz. solution of
morphia and 1 oz. of Fleming’s tincture of aconite; March 8,
solution of atropine, 1 drachm, with 2 grains of atropia to a
drachm; March 13, ½ oz. of Fleming’s tincture of aconite; March
14, solution of atropine, 1 drachm, with 2 grains to a drachm;
March 16, solution of atropine, 1 drachm, with 5 grains to a
drachm.—_Evidence of John Currie._ Chloroform from July 13 to
December 9, 1864, 132 oz.—_J. Campbell._ This witness said that
2 oz. of tartarised antimony and about 1 to 2 ozs. of Fleming’s
tincture would cover the whole of their sales for a year, and
that the chloroform was also in excess of usual sale to one
person. For the defence it was proved that as much as 80 oz. of
Fleming’s tincture was sold by them within a year.—_Evidence
of John Simpson_, of Duncan, Flockhart & Co., of North Bridge,
Glasgow. And from 2 to 3 oz. of tartar emetic, besides larger
quantities to veterinary surgeons.—_Thomas Fairgreive_,
chemist, of Edinburgh.

[151] Evidence of _Alexander McCall_, superintendent of Glasgow
Police, and _John Murray_, an officer of the Sheriff—third day;
and reports of analyses by _Professor Frederick Penny_, same
day. Another specimen of tapioca, bought direct from Barton and
Henderson, had no antimony in it—Same witness.

[152] In reply to the Judge, the witness said that to take 7
grains of Fleming’s tincture Mrs. Taylor must have taken 100
drops of the poisoned Battley in a single dose, equal to a
teaspoonful; that 100 drops would not be an unusual amount to a
person accustomed to the use of it in moderation, and that many
opium eaters would not thank you for 100 drops. Aconite might
be given in divided doses, and not prove fatal, though the same
quantity was taken, the distressing effect of one dose going
off before the other was taken.

[153] _Dr. Gairdner_ stated that the only time he saw Mrs.
Pritchard was on the night of the 8th of February, and that
at that interview Pritchard told him Dr. Cowan had prescribed
stimulants, which he ordered to be discontinued, and no
medicine till he saw her again. Dr. Cowan said that he did
not see her until the 11th of February, “to the best of his
recollection, stopped all night, saw her again next day, and
left in the evening for Edinburgh.”

[154] _Dr. Paterson_ stated that he was called on the 24th of
February to see Mrs. Taylor, and then noticed the state in
which Mrs. Pritchard was, but not being asked did not prescribe
for her. He was called in to Mrs. Pritchard first on the 2nd
of March, when he prescribed powders containing camomile, blue
or gray powder, ipecacuanha, and aromatic powder, and he never
saw her again until five hours before her death. There is not
a word in his evidence of his having been previously consulted
about the use of Battley’s solution. The only interviews with
the prisoner, other than in the sick-room, were on the 1st of
March, when he met him in the street and he asked him to see
his wife, and on the 5th of March, when Pritchard called on
him, reported that the remedies had had a good effect, and Dr.
Paterson recommended their continuance.

[155] _Mary McLeod_ stated that she was in the bedroom from
the time Dr. Paterson left till Mrs. Pritchard died; that
she lay on the sofa, and that Pritchard told her to get the
mustard-plaster, and that it was applied to Mrs. Pritchard’s
stomach, and as it did not seem to do her good, she was sent
down again for another, and that when she and Mary Patterson
returned with it, Mrs. Pritchard was dead.

[156] From an account sent in to Mr. Taylor after his wife’s
death, the last purchases appeared to be:—18th January, 1865,
2 oz.; 29th January, 2 oz.; and 4th February, 2 oz. _James
Thomson_ stated that the last time he took the bottle to be
filled was on the night before Mrs. Taylor left for Glasgow,
and that for a year or so before her death he took the bottle
to be filled at first only once in every two or three months,
but latterly every two or three weeks.

[157] Evidence of _J. Foulger_ and _George Kerr_.

[158] This had previously been admitted by Dr. Penny.

[159] See remarks of the Lord Justice Clerk on the motive,
_post_, p. 445.

[160] See the argument of the Dean of Faculty imputing the
murder to McLeod, and the Judge’s charge on that point, _post_,
437-440.

[161] “Mr. Clark very properly said,” remarked the Judge
in this charge, “‘it is not his fault that he had abundant
opportunities. The relation existing between him and these
ladies is not his fault, and it was the existence of this
relation that gave him these opportunities.’ Quite true,
gentlemen—a very just observation; but remember, on the other
hand, that as the opportunities did in point of fact exist, he
cannot argue the case as if they did not.”

[162] “His possession of poisonous drugs,” said the Judge in
his charge, “to such an extent is not a suspicious circumstance
in the case of a medical man. They are in some degree
necessary; but the peculiar position of the matter in this
case—the nature of the drugs found in his consulting-room—is
certainly not to be lightly passed over, and still more the
nature of the purchases that he had been making from two
different apothecaries during the period to which our inquiries
particularly refer. In his consulting-room were found some
parcels of tartaric acid—not a very large quantity; some
phials, containing the remains of tincture of aconite and white
powder to the extent of three or four grains, containing a
somewhat strange and unexplained mixture of tartarised antimony
or tartar emetic and aconite. These things were found in his
consulting-room; but what had he been purchasing during the
period to which our inquiry refers? On the 16th of November
he purchased an ounce of tartar emetic, and upon the 7th
of February another ounce of the same poison—very unusual
quantities, as the apothecaries state. He also purchased
no less than 5½ ounces of tincture of aconite. That, the
apothecaries state, is a very unusual quantity for a medical
man to purchase: but I think it was a mistake in some respects
to push this statement to the extent to which the prosecutor
pressed it, because some of the other witnesses of the same
description said that for external application tincture of
aconite is sometimes used in considerable quantities, and if it
were used for that purpose we might account for such a large
quantity being used by the prisoner. But I do not think anybody
said, that two ounces of tartar emetic within a month or two
was a usual quantity for one medical man to use who was not in
the practice of mixing it at home, which the prisoner, in his
conversation with Dr. Paterson, says he was not. Besides, there
were other very strange purchases, which have no immediate
connection with this case—all of them strong poisons. He was,
therefore, undoubtedly possessed of a very large quantity of
different kinds of poisonous substances; but what is most
important is, that he was in possession of that very poison
to which the death of Mrs. Pritchard is undoubtedly to be
traced, and to which, in combination with others, the death of
Mrs. Taylor is to be traced—that is antimony. So that whether
we adopt to the full extent the suggestion of the Crown, it
appears beyond a doubt that some one had been practising a
system of poisoning, and that in the possession of the prisoner
were the agents necessary for carrying it on.”

[163] See, _post_, p. 446, the Judge’s remarks on this attempt
to throw the crime on McLeod.

[164] “It is said,” remarked the Lord Justice Clerk, “that
it would be very difficult that cheese could be poisoned by
antimony—very difficult to make a powder like tartar emetic
adhere to a piece of cheese in sufficient quantity to have any
effect, and that, if it did, it must have been visible to the
naked eye, because the cheese was yellow and the tartar emetic
was white. But we know from the evidence before us that tartar
emetic is easily dissolved, and the poisoned cheese could
easily have been poisoned by dipping it into a solution, quite
as easily as by dipping it into a powder.” _See Chapter IX._

[165] On this argument of the prisoner’s counsel the Lord
Justice Clerk said:—“It is difficult to offer an answer to
that. It is impossible to say what is the precise point to
which a poison of this kind will kill—what is the precise
amount that will at once destroy life as compared with
that which will only inflict suffering and torture. But
that Patterson did suffer these severe vomitings and pains
immediately after having tasted the egg-flip I suppose you
will not disbelieve, looking to the general character of the
evidence which she gave here as a witness.”

[166] With reference to the finding of the bottle of Battley’s
solution the Lord Justice Clerk made the following remarks:—“To
that scene I beg now to call your attention as given by Mary
Patterson. ‘When the bottle was found,’ she says, ‘he expressed
great surprise that she should have taken so much of its
contents in so short a time.’ Now he was quite aware, as you
will see by the evidence, that the old lady was in the habit
of taking a great quantity, and you will consider whether the
surprise was real or feigned. That is but a very small point,
however, in reference to this matter. His expression in regard
to it, seemed to me much more strong. He expressed surprise
at her having sent ‘a girl like that for it’—namely, McLeod.
I cannot see that there is anything so startling in that. Did
he mean to suggest that in sending such a messenger there
might be some mistake as to the contents of the bottle? Why,
what was it, ‘to send a girl like that?’ What was the harm of
sending a girl—an intelligent servant girl? What was wanted was
Battley’s solution, because it was what Mrs. Taylor wanted—was
accustomed to take. But still he thought that it was a very
serious matter—and further, that it was one of those things
that it would not do to have spoken of as having occurred in
his house—a man of his profession.”

[167] Had she survived the wife, would she not have been a most
important witness to aid in the conviction of the prisoner?

[168] For the report of this trial I have used that in the
Sessions Papers, Central Criminal Court, 1859, collated with
that given by Mr. Justice Stephen in his “History of the
Criminal Law of England,” vol. iii., p. 438, and that in the
Annual Register of 1859.

[169] According to her sister she had for some time suffered
from an affection of the uterus requiring the use of an
injection.

[170] The prisoner called on the solicitor on the Saturday
and asked him to come up the next day to draw the will, to
which he consented on the prisoner’s representation of the
state of the lady—but wished a medical man to be present. The
prisoner, however, assured him it was quite unnecessary, as
she was suffering only from diarrhœa, and was quite in her
right mind. “I went,” said the witness, “to the prisoner’s
lodging, and he informed me that they were not married, which
was another reason why he did not wish a medical man to be
present. I then went up to the bedroom of the deceased, and
the prisoner said to her, ‘My dear, this is the gentleman who
has come to make your will.’ She bowed, and handed me the
paper which I had seen on Saturday. I looked at it, and asked
her if that was what she wished, and read it to her, and she
said it was quite correct, except that she wished to leave a
brooch to a friend. I then drew up the will in accordance with
her instructions, in a lower room. The prisoner was with me,
and, when the will had been drawn up, said the daughter of the
landlady could be one of the witnesses, and he supposed I could
say it was some Chancery paper. I told him that would not do.
She must know it was a will, and he replied, ‘Oh, very well.’
Shortly afterwards the deceased executed the will, and I and
Miss Wheatley attested it, and I handed the document to the
prisoner, who paid me my fee. She appeared perfectly competent
to make a will.”—_Evidence of Mr. Senior._ The will was proved
by Smethurst, notwithstanding opposition, after his punishment
for bigamy.

[171] From the sudden and serious illness of one of the jurors,
however, the examination of the witnesses had to be suspended,
and the trial adjourned to the first day of the next Session.
Eventually he was put on his trial, before another jury, on
the 15th of August. As the statement of Serjeant Ballantine
was fully confirmed by the witnesses, the landladies of the
respective lodgings, and the sister, it will be necessary only
to report the medical evidence.

[172] It was apparently with reference to this case that the
name of a _Dr. Barker_, of _Bedford_, was repeatedly mentioned,
but he was not called to confirm or explain the supposed
instance of dysentery in early pregnancy.

[173] It must be borne in mind that there was no error in this
experiment, and that it was never suggested that the arsenic
in this case came from the copper, as it was not destroyed, as
when the bottle of chlorate of potash was afterwards tested
with copper gauze, which was destroyed by it, and the arsenic
in the gauze liberated. Serjeant Parry, of course, said that
the experiments in both cases were the same. So they were so
far as copper was used, but the presence of the chlorate of
potash in the other case made all the difference.—_See_ Chapter
IX.

[174] Had this discovery of arsenic not been erroneous, the
gap in the evidence, as to the possession of the poison by the
prisoner in a form most likely to be administered, would have
been filled up. It in no way, however, militated against the
discovery of arsenic in bottle 2. See _post_, Chap. IX., how
far Mr. Herapath was correct in asserting that more arsenic was
found than could have been released from the copper. In his
statement before the committing magistrates, on the 20th of
May, Serjeant Ballantine stated that bottle 21 had originally
been sent by Dr. Julius with a quinine mixture.

[175] On farther _cross-examination, Professor Brande_ said
that the copper he used in Reinsch’s test was generally rolled
down from a halfpenny, which he considered pure enough for the
purpose.

[176] But see his evidence, Palmer’s trial, p. 175, _ante_.

[177] _Handbuch der Pathologischen Anatomie_, by Baron Carl von
Rokitansky, Vienna, 1842-46, of which a translation by various
English medical men of eminence was published by the _Sydenham
Society_ in 4 vols. 8vo. 1849-54. It is still considered a
valuable book of reference.

[178] Subsequent to the verdict, in a memorial to the Prince
Consort, it was stated that “a lady friend of the deceased
was a witness,” to Miss Bankes’ knowledge, of the fact that
he was married already, and that she wished the ceremony to
be gone through. This lady, the memorial stated, was to have
been called, but Mr. Parry deemed it unnecessary. Upon this,
the Lord Chief Baron, in his report to the Home Secretary,
observed—“I do not believe Mr. Serjeant Parry gave any such
advice; but if it be true that any such evidence was ready,
why is not the lady friend named, and why is not her statement
or declaration now offered and laid before you? Such evidence
would, in my opinion, much alter the complexion of the
case.”—_Judge Stephen’s Hist. of Crim, Law_, iii., 461. [What
need was there of this evidence, when it had been proved that
for weeks together Miss Bankes had been lodging and associating
in the same house with Smethurst and his wife?]

[179] Not quite correct; on the prisoners representations of
the effect of the sister’s prior visit, Dr. Bird had advised
that she should not see her—at any rate at present.—_See his
evidence, ante_, p. 450.

[180] When _Dr. Julius_ was recalled, and stated that at the
first examination before the magistrates the prisoner urged
that it was necessary for him to go back to his wife; that
her death might be occasioned by his absence; and that it was
imperative that he should go; Serjeant Parry asked the witness
“whether the magistrates at that time did not direct or require
him not to interfere further with the patient?” To this he
replied—“I do not think it was addressed to him, but it was
addressed generally—it was in his presence. It might have been
a general direction, but he might have heard it.”

[181] “And not only in the evacuations, where small portions of
both were found?” They also laid great stress on the absence of
certain symptoms generally present in slow poisoning by arsenic
or antimony, or both.

[182] Or he might have added, the results of his experiments on
the evacuations, the correctness of which were proved by the
subsequent 76 tests by Reinsch’s method.

[183] “There were,” says Judge Stephen, “_fourteen_ reasons in
all assigned by Sir B. Brodie, _six_ in favour of the prisoner,
and _eight_ against him, of which only _two_ of the first and
_four_ of the second proceeded on medical or chemical grounds.
Until these are published it is impossible to judge fairly of
Brodie’s opinion.”

[184] _Stephen’s Hist. Crim. Law of Eng._, iii., 465.

[185] _Margaret Higgins_, a servant of Mrs. James, told a very
different story when put into the box for _cross-examination_, her
evidence not being taken for the prosecution. “On the morning of
the 10th I went into Mrs. James’s bedroom, about half-past eight,
and found two or three spoonsful of _warm_sago in a tea-cup by the
bedside, and two cups on the table. I took the cup from the chair by
the bedside down stairs, and ate the sago, which did me no harm.”[As
the prisoner said he took it in about 5 a.m., the sago, being in an
open cup, could not have been _warm_ at 8·30. It was also clear, from
other parts of her evidence, that she was in favour of the prisoner,
and anxious to throw the crime on the Cafferatas.

[186] Evidence of _Mrs. Cafferata_, _Dr. Cameron_, _Mr.
Clarence Pemberton_ (surgeon), _Mr. Tennyson Lloyd_
(solicitor), Inspector _Horne_, and detective _Kehoe_, who
proved the seizure of the medicine bottles, &c., and their safe
delivery to _Dr. Edwards_.

[187] “Free antimony” is what has not been taken up into the
system. “Eliminated,” which has been taken up into the system.

[188] For these acids I have used the systematic nomenclature
corresponding to the phosphates, as in Bernay’s “Notes for
Students,” in preference to Fremy’s original titles.

[189] Sulphuric acid may be freed from arsenic or antimony by
treating it with a few small fragments of charcoal and a little
rock salt, and boiling till the hydrochloric and sulphurous
acids have been expelled.

[190] Solutions of bismuth give with water white precipitates,
which are _not re-dissolved_ by tartaric acid.

[191] But it must be borne in mind that it was late in the
evening when the cheese was taken up to the bedroom, where the
light was not likely to have been strong; probably, on the
contrary, was carefully shaded, so as not to annoy the invalid.

[192] This bottle, according to Serjeant Ballantine’s
statement, had been sent by Dr. Julius to the deceased
containing a quinine mixture.

[193] Arsenic is tasteless. See evidence of _Professor
Christison_, in Madeline Smith’s case, _ante_, p. 322.

[194] This must be an error of the reporter, and must mean
McIntyre, who, with Dr. Bird, took possession of the bottles in
the bedroom. Dr. Bird delivered only bottles 1, 2, 3.

[195] In his evidence at the trial _Dr. Taylor_ said that he
found less than half a grain of arsenic, equal to 2¼ per cent.
in the copper dissolved—an impossibility.

[196] “An attempt,” says Mr. Justice Stephen, “was made to
account for the presence of antimony and arsenic alleged to be
discovered by Dr. Taylor, by the suggestion that it might have
been contained in the medicines administered to Miss Bankes
during her life. Arsenic is generally found in bismuth, and
for three or four days doses of bismuth, containing five or
six grains, were administered to Miss Bankes. Dr. Richardson
put the proportion of arsenic in bismuth at half a grain to
an ounce, and as an ounce contains 480 grains, each dose
would have contained about 1/140 of a grain of arsenic. If,
therefore, Miss Bankes took twelve doses of bismuth, she would
have taken between one-eleventh and one-twelfth of a grain
of arsenic in four days. This seems (for it is not perfectly
clear), from Dr. Bird’s evidence, to have been more than a week
before the day on which he obtained the evacuation analysed by
Dr. Taylor, and in 4 oz. of which he said he found nearly a
quarter of a grain.”—_History of Criminal Law of England_, Vol.
III., 459.

[197] The authorities relied on for this report are—(1) The
Central Criminal Court Sessions Paper, 5th session of 1882;
(2) the report in the _Standard_, in which the evidence is
in many points given more fully and clearly, including the
charge of the learned judge, in which he has kindly made some
corrections; (3) the Summary of Affidavits in support of the
petition to the Home Secretary, and the affidavits themselves,
70 in number, relating to his conduct and state of mind from
his youth to his conviction.

[198] _Dublin Medical Journal_, vol. xix., p. 403.

[199] On the death of Herbert John, in 1879, the prisoner had
received £479 India Stock and £269 Consols as his wife’s share
of that child’s property.—_Evidence of Mr. Chapman, and of Mr.
Ormond, the trustee._

[200] At Blenheim House he had two wheel-chairs—one on the
basement floor, and one on the bedroom floor. From the evidence
of _Mrs. Jolliffe_, at whose house the Chapmans lodged at
Shanklin, in August, 1880, he was then able to get himself up
and down stairs, but with great difficulty—crawling up on his
hands and knees. The spinal-curvature was gradually increasing.

[201] It will be seen later that he went through the form
of going to Wimbledon that evening with Mr. Tulloch, and
pretending to him that he had been to the school.—_See evidence
of John Law Tulloch, post._

[202] It is incorrectly stated, in the Summary of Affidavits,
that symptoms of poisoning did not begin till about
three-quarters of an hour after Lamson had left (p. 5).

[203] According to _Banbury_, a pupil, the boy had gone over
some examination papers with him after tea, and was in good
health and spirits. _Ball_, another pupil, gave the same
account of the boy’s health.

[204] The following is a list of the various articles delivered
to Dr. Stevenson for analysis:—“I received a number of bottles
and things from Mr. Bond. There was a bottle, duly secured
and sealed, and labelled ‘liver, spleen, and kidneys.’ That
was labelled with the letter A. I received a bottle labelled
‘B,’ containing parts of small intestines, cæcum and colon,
and other parts of the intestines handed to Dr. Bond on
December 7. A third bottle was received, containing part of the
stomach. The fourth was a bottle secured, sealed, and labelled
‘stomach,’ handed to Dr. Dupré by Mr. Bond on December 7th,
‘D.’ The fifth was a bottle, sealed and secured as before,
‘urine,’ handed to Dr. Dupré by Mr. Bond on December 7, ‘E.’
The sixth was a bottle, sealed and labelled ‘vomit;’ and on
another label, handed to Dr. Bond by Dr. Berry, December
6, ‘F.’ With this was a broken bottle, unlabelled, and a
gutta-percha wrapper, with two seals upon it, as Mr. Griffin
said. The next, ‘7,’ was a pill-box. It was secured and sealed,
and marked on the tape which secured it ‘C.B.’ That is the
pill-box (identified), and it is sealed in the same manner as
the wrapper of the broken bottle. ‘8’ was a newspaper parcel
sealed; ‘9’ was a brown paper parcel sealed; ‘10’ was a paper
parcel sealed. That was the whole of what I received from Mr.
Bond. ‘11’ I received from Inspector Butcher. That was opened
in the presence of Mr. Bond. It contained a box—(this is the
box)—with capsules in it. These capsules in the bottle were
some of the 107 capsules. There was a paper with some sugar in
it; some loose sugar, sweetmeat sugar. It contained a box of
quinine powders—(box identified)—labelled ‘quinine powders’
in writing, and had the name ‘J. W. Littlefield, Ventnor,’ in
print. There were four pills loose, one large comfit from a
Dundee cake, and one of the capsules contained what appeared to
be a pill, but which was really a similar comfit.”

“I don’t think you said what was in the newspaper parcel?”

“Eight packets.”

“What did the next parcel contain?”

“Nine packets. Packet 11 I received from Inspector Butcher on
December 12, marked ‘1 W. D.’ Inside that there were two little
tinfoil packages. Twelve was received from Butcher on December
14. It was a parcel labelled ‘The remainder of the sugar from
Dr. Bedbrook’s.’ Sherry from the decanter used by Lamson was
handed to me by Butcher on the 14th.”

“Did you later on receive this box and wafers?”

“Yes. It is marked 14.”

[205] See _post_, Chapter XI.

[206] See _post_, Chapter XI.

[207] The only evidence offered of his being at Shanklin on the
29th was an entry, in the “luggage and cloak office” book of
the Shanklin railway station, of a ticket having been issued
for luggage on the 29th August, in the name of “Lamson,” which
Mr. Poland proposed the porter (John Durrant) should use to
refresh his memory. As the witness could not identify the
prisoner as the party; without saying that it was strictly
inadmissible, Mr. Justice Hawkins considered it would have
little effect, and it was not pressed. Neither _Mr. Chapman_
nor _Mrs. Jolliffe_ saw him there on that day.

[208] Evidence of _William Tulloch_, and the pawnbroker,
_Robinson_, of Mortimer Street, Regent Street.

[209] There is some error in the report, as it was on the 1st
December that the prisoner wrote to the deceased that it was
too late to come that day; and Mr. Montagu Williams admitted,
in his speech, that the prisoner visited Wimbledon, and said
he went to the school on the 2nd. It must have been on the 2nd
that the witness went with him, the first time, to Wimbledon.
In his affidavit in support of the plea of insanity J. L.
Tulloch says, that “he saw Dr. Lamson at his brother’s (W.
Tulloch) for a few minutes on the 1st, and next day proceeded
with him to Wimbledon.”

[210] He had previously, on the 15th November, tried to change
a cheque for £15 at the American Exchange, in the Strand, where
a parcel had been sent for him.—_Evidence of Sidney Harbord,
the cashier._

[211] In the _cross-examination_ of _Mrs. Bowles_, the
school-matron, Mr. Williams endeavoured to get from her an
admission that the chemicals kept in the house for the purposes
of the scientific lectures were unsecurely kept, and within
the reach of the boy. _Mr. Bedbrook_, however, proved that
the button of the cupboard in which they were kept was 6 feet
6 inches from the floor It was also proved by the chemical
lecturer that the chemicals were only those acids commonly used
in the production of gases—acetate of lead, hydrochloric and
sulphuric acids.—_Evidence of Eastick and Whalley._