Chapter II (2)

_Witness._—“The lungs have nothing to do with the coronary arteries; ossification of them is supposed to cause sudden death. The blood in the lungs would not be prevented from returning the heart so as to gorge the lungs. I did not see any symptoms of the coronary arteries being ossified.”

“I examined the lungs carefully. The lungs have been found gorged in some persons who have died of prussic acid. I don’t think that what has been called congestion was always clearly so. In all cases of paralysis of the heart, the blood has not been returned to the heart, and remaining in it gorges the lungs. Death by prussic acid paralyses the heart. In death from prussic acid, death is often denoted by an involuntary scream. I cannot say that I have heard of a succession of screams in any case of the kind. When I first saw the body, my impression was that death had been caused by oxalic acid, and that impression continued until the tests were applied. Blackness of the stomach is a symptom. There was a dark spot on the surface of the stomach. I have not seen a case of poisoning by oxalic acid.”

_Re-examined by Mr. Prendergast._

“There was nothing in the stifled screams described by Mrs. Ashley yesterday at all inconsistent with poisoning by prussic acid; on the contrary, the catching of the breath is the last symptom. Less than one grain of prussic acid will kill a healthy person.”

_By the Court._—“I saw nothing on the brain to indicate death by apoplexy. If a sudden emotion had caused death I don’t think I could have told that by the brain.”

Mr. Pickering, who had been in practice as a surgeon for nine years, and was present when Mr. Champneys made the first incision through the integuments, said he then smelt the odour of prussic acid,[15] and confirmed the accounts of the previous witnesses of the experiments in Mr. Cooper’s laboratory. On _cross-examination_ he admitted that before they examined the body they were led to suppose that the death had been caused by poison, and that he had never seen a case of death from poisoning either by oxalic or prussic acid.

Previous visits of Tawell to Mrs. Hart, were proved by _Kesiah Harding_, a washerwoman at Slough, in December, 1844, and particularly on the Monday week before her death, when he told the deceased that he wished her to be alone when he next came, and that he would come on the Tuesday or Saturday week.

PURCHASE OF PRUSSIC ACID BY TAWELL.

This was proved by _Henry Thomas_, shopman to a Mr. Hughes, a chemist in Bishopsgate Street, who said,

“On the 1st of January, between twelve and two the prisoner came to the shop dressed in a great coat and usual quaker garb and asked for two drachms of Scheele’s Prussic Acid, bringing with him a ½oz. bottle with a regular label of Scheele’s Acid on it. As I could not get the stopper out, I gave it him in one of our own bottles. When about to put on a label, I believe the prisoner said “You need not,” but I would not swear it. He said he wanted it for an external application to varicose veins, paid 4_d._ for it, which was entered in the book now produced. Next day he came again between ten and two and asked for the same quantity, and, as he had broken our bottle, took it in the one he had originally brought. I had seen him frequently before and might have sold him prussic acid, but am not certain. He told me, three months before, that he had been a chemist and apothecary abroad. I do not remember his being in a hurry to catch the train and my being not able to get the stopper out. It is our practice to do it. We usually cover our bottles with leather. Attended at Aylesbury on the 13th of January, and recognised the prisoner the next morning in gaol.”

The _cross-examination_ of this witness, who was evidently favourable to the prisoner and in communication with his solicitor, was directed to three points—the suitability of prussic acid to the disease in the legs from which the prisoner suffered; the effect of porter on the odour of prussic acid when mixed with it; and the amount that can be produced from apple-pips.

“The prisoner,” said the witness, “told me he was suffering from varicose veins. I judged that he was, from the medicine I sold him. He rubbed his leg. The prescription now shown me would be a good external application for the ulceration produced by varicose veins.”

_Baron Parke._—“What is that?”

_Kelly._—“Scheele’s Acid.”

_Witness._—“That prescription is in the handwriting of Dr. Addison. I do not believe that Scheele’s Prussic Acid could be mixed with a drink and taken by a person and not smelt after death. _I do not think porter would disguise it._ I put about twenty drops of Scheele’s Prussic Acid down the throat of a parrot with a glass syringe. Three women were present, and the smell was so strong and suffocating, that it compelled them to leave the room. The bird was afterwards stuffed. _I mixed thirty drops of this acid with eleven ounces of porter, and found the odour slightly perceptible. I did not perceive the difference when the froth was on and when there was none._ It is the property of prussic acid to give out a smell when volatilising. _Apple-pips contain prussic acid. I have assisted at the extracting it from fifteen small apples. The process was a soft-water bath, diluted sulphuric acid, and sulphate of iron._ TWO GRAINS AND A QUARTER OF CYANIDE OF SILVER WERE PRODUCED. _I did this under the direction of Dr. Lievesley, a lecturer at the London Hospital. In this process two sweet almonds were used._”[16]

On _cross-examination_ by _Serjeant Byles_ the witness admitted that he made this experiment on the 9th of March at the request of the Prisoner’s solicitor, and that he had never made this experiment before; that he had been with Mr. Hughes only about a year and half, and was paid £80 a year, and that Dr. Lievesley provided the London Pharmacopœia acid, and the porter. On being shown a leather or paper covering of a small bottle that had been found in the ashes of the grate in Mrs. Hart’s house, the witness declared that it could not be the covering of the bottle that he had put on, as it was too small for leather.

HISTORY OF MRS. HART.

_Sarah Bateman_ said that she knew Mrs. Hart six years ago, when employed to nurse the Prisoner’s first wife, who soon after died. The witness at that time observed that Mrs. Hart—then known as Hadler—was with child, and the following statement was subsequently made by her when at tea with Tawell and the witness.

“I am in the family way, and will vindicate my master in it. He is going to be married to Sarah Catforth (the present wife), ‘and if it was to get abroad it would make a great difference to him.’ She seemed much excited, and Tawell begged her not to excite herself. ‘He was about to be admitted into the Society of Friends,’ he said, ‘and should not like these things to get abroad.’ She said, ‘He could marry Miss Catforth, and no one, not even her mother, should know what had become of her.’”

_Mary Ann Moss_, of Crawford Street, Bryanston Square, with whom Mrs. Hart came to lodge in 1841, when she was confined of a girl, remembered Tawell frequently visiting her, as Mrs. Hart said, “to bring her money from her husband.” From there she removed to a small house on Paddington Green for the sake of privacy, where Tawell paid regular visits, and eventually to Salt Hill, at Tawell’s desire. She represented to this witness that her husband was Tawell’s son, that Tawell disapproved of the marriage, and that the girl and a boy of whom she had been subsequently delivered were his. Mrs. Hart’s mother, Mrs. Hadler, also spoke to her having not heard of her for several years.

With the proof by a clerk of Barnet’s Bank that Tawell had drawn a cheque for £14 on the 1st of January, and the identification of certain letters being in his handwriting, the case for the prosecution was closed.

THE DEFENCE.

The nature of the defence opened by Mr. Fitzroy Kelly, in his long and eloquent address to the jury has already been indicated by his cross-examination of the medical witnesses, and was so fully commented on by the learned judge in his charge to the jury that it is needless to reprint it. On its conclusion residents at Berkhampstead who had known him for several years, testified to the good character which he had borne for kindness, charity, and benevolence, and a Mr. Richards, of Dover, and a Captain Dillon, who had both known him abroad—the latter for nearly thirty years—gave similar evidence of his kind, charitable, and hospitable disposition. On the conclusion of this evidence Baron Parke adjourned the Court to the next morning, when he gave the following exhaustive charge to the jury.

THE JUDGE’S CHARGE.

After the usual introductory caution to the _Jury_ to be strictly impartial, _Baron Parke_ said:—

“He would next tell them what the case was, and how it was to be proved. It was to be proved by circumstantial evidence—the only sort of evidence that could be obtained in most cases of a similar nature. The most atrocious crimes were committed in secret, but Providence had so ordered it that some traces were frequently left which were sufficient to lead to the discovery of the perpetrators. The law, therefore, wisely provided that direct proof of crime was not absolutely necessary; but on the other hand it was equally necessary that by circumstantial evidence the case should be so fully made out as to leave no rational doubt of its committal. He should, therefore, advise them to lay down the rule, that they should first consider what had been proved to their satisfaction, and then whether all those facts were consistent with the guilt of the prisoner. If they thought that they were consistent with his guilt—and there was nothing inconsistent with it except the prisoner’s previous character—then they should consider whether they were inconsistent with his innocence, and they should remember that the existence of the crime was not inconsistent with the other parts of the case. Whilst on this part of the case, he should observe that the counsel for the prisoner had admitted all those facts, but had asserted that the law required not only that those facts should be proved, but that it should be shown directly that the deceased had died from poison, and that a sufficient quantity of poison to cause death had been found in her stomach. _That was not true of the law._ It was not necessary to give direct and positive evidence in every step of the case. There was no difference between direct and circumstantial evidence, if the evidence was sufficient to satisfy their minds that death had ensued from poison. It was not necessary to prove what quantity of that poison was necessary to produce death by the testimony of the person who had actually seen death produced by it; nor was it necessary to prove that such a quantity as would destroy life was actually found in the body. If they were satisfied that the prisoner administered poison to the deceased, and that she died of it, it was not necessary to prove what quantity had been administered to her. The only positive fact which the law required to be proved was the finding of the body, where such was possible. The body of the deceased having been found, it was to be considered whether the prisoner administered poison to her—whether it had been administered to her by the prisoner or by herself. The only allegation that she had done so was that of the prisoner himself, and if the jury thought the extraordinary story told by him was worthy of credit, it would agree with the latter mode of accounting for her death. But if they did not believe it, they had no other conclusion left than that he had committed the crime imputed to him.”

The learned judge then proceeded to comment on the evidence of Mrs. Ashley, and others, who deposed to the perfect health and good spirits of the deceased up to a few minutes of the discovery of her lifeless body, and to the medical evidence of the perfect state of her internal bodily organs, leaving no doubt that she had not died from natural causes. He then went to the evidence of Messrs. Champneys and Pickering, the surgeons, who, on opening the body of the deceased on the day following her death smelt the odour of the prussic acid.[17] “There, then,” he said, “was evidence at once of the presence of prussic acid in the stomach on the day following a sudden death accompanied by appearances, such as would be symptomatic of sudden death from that powerful poison. Mr. Cooper, the chemist, analysed the contents of the stomach subsequently and obtained a quantity of pure Prussian blue from it, and before he proceeded further with the evidence on this point, he would observe, that the jury should never lose sight of the conduct of the prisoner during the whole of the proceedings. He then proceeded to comment on the evidence of the presence of prussic acid in the stomach immediately after death, and the allegation of the Prisoner’s counsel, that it was producible from apples, and that it might have been produced from natural causes in the stomach, which contained a quantity of apple pulp. He pointed out that from all the medical evidence, it was proved that, that acid was contained not in the apple, but in the pip, and that pips were not found in the pulp in the deceased’s stomach. It was also proved that prussic acid had been obtained from the pips themselves only by a process of distillation, and was not produced by the mere natural process of digestion.[18] No one would die from eating apple pips, although a person might be killed by the prussic acid obtained from them by a chemist. Besides, the action of the acid was sudden and immediate, and the deceased had died in the manner she would have done after suddenly swallowing some.”

With respect to the evidence regarding the odour of the acid being perceptible under this or that circumstance, said the Judge:—

“All that could be inferred was, that though the perception of it was a positive proof of its presence, the non-perception was no proof of its not being present. As to the deceased having died from water having been poured down her throat, it was quite idle to attribute it to that. At that moment she was not living: death had already done its work. With regard to the quantity of prussic acid requisite to kill a human being, it had been proved that less than a grain would kill in some cases, as appeared by the melancholy cases so frequently referred to of the seven epileptic patients in Paris; and Mr. Cooper had proved that more than a grain existed in the stomach of the deceased. It was said that the experiments were not satisfactorily conducted—that was a question for the jury.

“In considering the conduct of the prisoner, the jury must couple it with all the other evidence, in order to judge how far it bore out or contradicted the inferences that might be derived from it. It appeared that on the day in question the prisoner had gone to the Paddington station of the Great Western Railway and taken his place for Slough. He had left his great coat at the Jerusalem coffee-house, and told the waiter that he was going to dine at the West End of town. That was untrue, and he must have made that false statement for some object or other. He went down to Slough at five o’clock, and between six and seven Mrs. Ashley went round to the deceased’s house, in consequence of the noise she heard of stifled screaming. She met the prisoner in the garden in a state of agitation—so great that he could not undo the latch of the gate. She opened it for him. As to the observation she made about fearing that her neighbour was ill, she could not say that the prisoner heard it, and therefore it went for nothing. Let that pass. However, after she got in at the door of the deceased’s house, she turned round and saw the prisoner looking at her, and such was the effect upon her that she felt alarmed, and closed and fastened the door. At seven o’clock the prisoner was seen by a postboy, and he was then making towards the station. At ten minutes after seven he was at the station. He was next seen getting into the Eton omnibus, and asking to be set down at Herschel House. What his intention was in going to Herschel House does not appear. He was traced back again to the station, and an alarm having been given, a signal was made by the electric telegraph, and he was seen to alight from the railway carriage at Paddington, and was then traced home. When he was taken up next morning, and told what he was taken for, his answer was, that he knew no one at Slough. It had been suggested by his counsel that this was strictly true, as the deceased did not live exactly at Slough, but a little distance from it. It had also been suggested that he wished to prevent his wife hearing of his improper connection. It would be for the jury to say what degree of weight should be given to these explanations.

“He had told several falsehoods when informed of the nature of the charge. On the Friday, about one o’clock, the prisoner had an interview with his legal adviser, and after that, but not until after that, did he make any attempt at explanation or give any account of what had taken place; and the account which he then gave was the extraordinary statement of her self-destruction. Here, then, the prisoner represented himself as present when the poison was administered, and as it was found in her stomach, it was for the jury to say whether the question did not amount to the simple one, of whether she had destroyed herself or the prisoner had administered it. If he thought she had been threatening to poison herself, he should at least have stayed to see what would be the effect upon her. The jury would next observe, keeping the prisoner’s story in mind, that no such vial as that described by him was found in the house. It had been proved by Mr. Thomas, who had sold him the poison in the morning, that the prisoner had prussic acid in his possession that day. He (the judge) did not give much weight to the observation that he would not have gone back the next day to the same shop for more if he were conscious of guilt, because in cases of murder, and especially of murder by poison, it was found that great precautions were not used. The perpetrators did not at all expect to be found out. As to the medicinal use alleged to have been made by the prisoner of the deadly poison, he might have had varicose veins; but at all events it had been shown that he had poison in his possession—he had the means of doing this act on the day it was committed.”

Coming then to the question of motive the Judge gave a brief history of the connection between the prisoner and the deceased, and, after detailing its commencement, commented on it as showing her extraordinary affection and devotion to the prisoner.

“With striking self-devotion,” said Baron Parke, “she had said, that, in order not to prevent the union of the prisoner with the lady to whom he was about to be married, she would go out of the world, and be dead to the world, even to her own mother, from that day forth; and the jury had heard from that very mother that from that time she had never heard of her unfortunate daughter until after her death. She kept her promise. She did go out of the world, and went from place to place till she went to reside at Slough. It appeared that there she received from the prisoner an allowance of £13 a quarter, and on the day in question it was seen that he was to have taken her her quarterly allowance. When taken into custody, the sum of £12 10_s._, besides silver, was found in his pocket; and it was proved that he had drawn a cheque for £14 that morning. From that fact it might be inferred that he had gone down with a sort of mixed feeling, either of paying her the money or, if he had the opportunity of accomplishing his purpose, of poisoning her. But as to motive for destroying her, it had been suggested that no man would commit such a dreadful crime for the sake of getting rid of expense. That, he should say, was not a matter to be easily judged of.”

His Lordship then touched upon all the evidence regarding his alleged pecuniary circumstances, and read the letter from his wife, in which allusion was made to his anxiety to have the papers from Sydney. “As to the feeling appeal made upon that affectionate letter by his counsel, it only proved that the prisoner had been very kind to and enjoyed the affection of his wife, which was not at all incompatible with the commission of the crime with which he stood charged towards another woman.”

As to the alleged previous attempt to poison the deceased in September last, the Judge considered that there was no sufficient proof that he then administered prussic acid to her. It was, however, remarkable that after drinking porter with the prisoner on the 30th September, she should have been so ill, and that after drinking porter with him on the 1st of January she should have been taken ill and died. The strong facts against the prisoner, in his opinion, “were his presence at the woman’s house at the time she died; his declarations before and after his arrest, and the fact that prussic acid was found in her stomach.”

The Judge then read over the whole of the material evidence, and, with the usual caution, left the case in the hands of the jury. On Mr. Gunning reminding him of the evidence to the prisoner’s character which had been produced, Baron Parke said—“Such evidence was admissible in cases of this kind, because it went to show the general impression of the habits and feelings of a person. The prisoner was reputed to be a kind-hearted, benevolent man. It was admitted that he had been transported for some offence, the nature of which they had not been told, but it was said that it was not one to affect his character for kindness of disposition.” The Judge then read over the evidence to character, and left it to the jury to decide in reference to its value to the prisoner in his present position.

On the conclusion of the Judge’s charge, which lasted from eight in the morning until half-past eleven, the Jury retired, and in about half an hour returned a verdict of Guilty. In a few impressive sentences, in which he spoke of the hypocrisy that had characterised the prisoner’s life in the assumption of the garb of a virtuous, peaceful, benevolent, and religious body of persons, the Judge passed on him the dread sentence of the law, which he suffered on the 28th of March. Previously to his execution Tawell handed a written confession to the jail chaplain, that he committed the murder for fear that his wife should discover his connection with the deceased, and that the previous attempt was not made with prussic acid. He never imagined that Sarah Hart had spoken of him to her neighbours, to whom he believed that he was personally unknown, and so more likely to escape detection.

At the Easter Quarter Sessions of the County, held subsequently to the execution of Tawell, an ineffectual attempt was made by a section of the magistrates to compel the jail chaplain to deliver to the visiting justices this written confession, which the chaplain refused to hand over, on the ground of its having been received under the seal of confession, and on the promise that it should not be published. All that was known of it rested on the statement of the governor of the prison, and the general admission of the chaplain that it was a full confession of the prisoner’s guilt.

A difficult legal question arose, after Tawell’s death, with reference to his Australian land, which the Crown re-granted to his widow and family, after its forfeiture by his conviction; whether this re-grant should prevail over the claims of a previous purchaser, a retired auctioneer, who had houses on it, who alleged that he had purchased it for a _bonâ fide_ consideration, under a sufficient power of attorney, executed before Tawell’s conviction. “The affixing the seal of the colony to this grant by Sir W. Denison, created a serious difference between that governor and his chief minister, Mr. Cowper. The seal was affixed pursuant to the instructions of the Secretary of the Colonies, who only acted in the matter in accordance with the opinion of the Attorney and Solicitor-General of England. A part of the sworn duty of a colonial governor is to obey the instructions of the Secretary of State for the Colonies.”[19] The governor, therefore, sent his private secretary for the great seal of the colony and himself executed the new deed. On this being done the owners of the property found the ground cut from under their feet, and it never came before the law courts, but it is believed that some compromise was effected with the family of Tawell, and so the matter ended.

TRIAL OF GEORGE BALL FOR POISONING HIS MOTHER WITH PRUSSIC ACID.

_July, 1860_, HOME CIRCUIT, LEWES, _before_ COLERIDGE, CHIEF JUSTICE _of Common Pleas_. BARROW, _for the Prosecution_. SERJEANT BALLANTINE _for the Defence_.

This case, really of misadventure, is reported, briefly, as showing the carelessness with which dangerous medicines may, no doubt most unintentionally, be administered even by professional men, the culpable ignorance in some of those chemists who deal in such deadly preparations.

The accused, a medical man, but not in regular practice, had for some time attended his mother, a very ailing old lady, and been in the habit of giving her small doses of prussic acid, as a remedy for violent attacks of vomiting to which she was subject. On the 11th of July in consequence, he purchased of a Mr. Moswell, a chemist in Lewes, a drachm of Scheele’s prussic acid, equal to 60 “minims,” and gave her a dose of 4 “minims.” The result was favourable, and the old lady went for a walk. On her return, however, she again complained, and the accused administered another dose of prussic acid, evidently from its effects, a deadly quantity, as she hardly got to her bedroom before she became insensible, and died almost instantaneously. The accused believed he had given her only seven drops, the proper quantity to be given. That he gave her seven drops was not doubted, but that the size of drops differ under circumstances as much as the strength of Scheele’s preparation of the acid, will be seen from the following evidence.

_Mr. Scrate_, a surgeon at Lewes (who was sent for by the accused, found the lady dead and the accused apparently in a very distressed state of mind), said:—

“I asked what was the matter; and the accused said he had given her seven drops of prussic acid, and witness replied he must have given her more.”

_Chief Justice._—“Would seven drops be sufficient to cause death?”

_Witness._—“Not according to my experience; it was the proper quantity to be given. The smallest quantity of prussic acid on record having caused death was of nine-tenths of a grain.”

_Chief Justice._—“How many ‘minims’ would a ‘drop’ contain?”

_Witness._—“That would depend upon how the drops were obtained from the bottle. If the cork was partly in, the drop would be larger than if it was carefully poured from the open neck of the bottle. Some medical men made use of one method and some of the other, but it was his practice not to rely on ‘drops,’ but to measure ‘minims.’”

_To Mr. Barrow._—“With such a deadly poison as prussic acid I should say that it was not prudent for any medical man to rely on ‘drops,’ but to measure ‘minims.’ The proper doses, as marked on all bottles of Scheele’s strength, to be administered were _one_, _two_, or the largest _three_ ‘minims.’ Scheele’s acid was not uniform in strength: sometimes it contained _four_, sometimes _five_, and sometimes as much as _six_ per cent.”

_Chief Justice._—“Would not that amount to almost the difference between life and death?”

_Witness._—“It would make a very great difference certainly. Taylor and other eminent medical men have recommended that Scheele’s prussic acid should not be used, on account of the very great variation of strength. I myself always use that of the Pharmacopœia. But notwithstanding what has been written upon the subject by many eminent men, Scheele’s acid is generally used in the profession.”

_Chief Justice._—“Supposing the acid to be of the highest strength you have mentioned, do you consider seven drops would have been sufficient to cause death?”

_Witness._—“I don’t believe they would.”

_To Mr. Barrow._—“Six per cent. is an exceptional strength, but I should think that it would take seventeen minims of that strength to cause death.”

_Chief Justice._—“What do you say is the difference between a ‘drop’ and a ‘minim’?”

_Witness._—“That would depend on the sort of ‘drop.’ The prisoner afterwards gave me a bottle which contained prussic acid. He told me he had given his mother _four_ minims, and 2·5 minims remained. I did not test the strength of what remained, but had no doubt the deceased died from the effects of prussic acid.”

_To Serjeant Ballantine._—“There was a broken cork in the bottle when the accused gave it to me. In his opinion ‘seventeen minims’ was the smallest dose that would destroy life. It was very easy to destroy life when dropping the liquid from a bottle. When accused told him he had given seven drops, he understood that he had given three and a half minims. He had never heard of any instance in which the strength of Scheele’s acid had exceeded six per cent.”

_Mr. C. H. Moswell_ (chemist in Lewes).—“On the 11th of July accused came to his shop and asked for some prussic acid. Gave him a drachm, which would contain sixty minims. Did not measure it, but gave what he considered a quarter of the bottle.”

_Cross-examined by Serjeant Ballantine._—“As you say you really did not measure it, can you tell us how much prussic acid you really did give?”

_Witness._—“I cannot say to a drop. I am sure he had fifty drops. I consider a ‘drop’ and a ‘minim’ synonymous. I gave him about the quantity, but when prussic acid is dispensed by a medical man, he is, of course, careful as to the quantity he uses.”

_Chief Justice._—“We have been told that a ‘drop’ contains two ‘minims,’ and this witness says he looks upon them as synonymous.”

_Serjeant Ballantine._—“If you were told to give a patient so many ‘minims,’ should you give him so many ‘drops’?”

_Witness._—“Certainly not.”

_Serjeant Ballantine._—“Can you tell us the strength of the prussic acid you sold?”

_Witness._—“I don’t know what the strength was—I should suppose about _four_ per cent.”

Case for the prosecution closed.

The _Chief Justice_ called the attention of the Jury to the evidence and observed, that the fact of the cork being broken in the bottle and defective was certainly an important matter for their consideration, as it admitted the possibility that the prussic acid might have escaped from the bottle accidentally, and then there was an absence of evidence that an excessive dose had been administered by the accused.

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

If the estimate of the witness Scrate is taken for the difference between a drop and a minim, and the second witness, Moswell, is correct in saying that he gave the accused at least 50 drops, equal to 25 minims, as only 2·5 minims were left in the bottle, equal to 4¼ drops; in the two doses the accused must have administered more than 45 drops, equal to 22½ minims. If the cork was not broken in the bottle when the first dose was administered, the probability is that the dose then given did not exceed seven drops of the size that would make them equal to 3½ minims, thus leaving 19 minims for the second dose. It is to be regretted that the strength of the prussic acid was not tested.

* * * * *

NOTE ON TAWELL’S CASE.

In a case of the poisoning at Egglesham, near Glasgow, by prussic acid, of a young woman, of the name of Agnes Montgomery, by Peter Walker, a tailor, the symptoms were thus described by one of the witnesses, as well as the effect of prussic acid on herself:—

“After we learnt that the moaning came from Aggie’s room, we came up, got Clarkson’s key, and went in. (As in Tawell’s case, the prisoner had left the girl’s room only a few minutes before.) Aggie was sitting on a chair (in which it was probable from other evidence that she had been placed by her murderer), with her head leaning on the table. The body was quite still. There was a little froth coming out of the _wicks_ of her mouth. It was a little coloured with blood; and we afterwards found she had bit her tongue and her lips. She threw back at different times, as if in distress. Her right hand was very firmly closed. I loosed the boot of the left foot, and found it was swelled and quite stiff. About ten minutes after that was another groan: the breathing was slow, and with great oppression. She sighed six times before she died. Her skin was getting quite cold after we got her. I thought there was a little sweat on her face. We got hot water to bathe her arms. The eyes were large and staring. She died about three quarters of an hour after we got her. When we went into her room, I found a sickening smell. I felt in my nostrils a kind of nipping, and my throat was dry. I felt it off Aggie the moment I came forward. I know the smell of almonds, but can’t say it was exactly like that. On the 5th of November I saw the superintendent of police, and others, and saw something (it was prussic acid) put into beer. I smelt the beer; and after some of it was poured on the floor, I recognised it as the same smell. It affected me in the same way as before in the nostrils and throat.”—_Evidence of Mrs. M’Donald._

* * * * *

In this case, on a _post-mortem_ examination of the exhumed body, the presence of prussic acid was clearly detected; and it was proved on the trial that the prisoner had employed a carrier to get some prussic acid for him, and that the bottle containing it had been given to him on the day of the murder; and the fragments of a glass phial were subsequently discovered, with the key of the girl’s room, at the root of a tree, at which the prisoner had been seen stopping, as he returned from going for a doctor. In this case the poison had been most probably given in beer, as in Tawell’s, a tumbler in which beer had been being found on the girl’s table.

The fellow, two months afterwards, tried to poison a Mr. Mason and his wife, with whom he had gone to lodge in Glasgow, with prussic acid, but happily failed in his attempt.

He confessed his guilt; and at first gave as his motive his desire to possess himself of the girl’s money, but subsequently said he could not tell what possessed him to do it. “Following so closely on the case of Madeleine Smith, the probability is that her case had had on him the same effect as Palmer’s on Dove—exciting a morbid desire to tamper with deadly drugs, and that the death of his victim, and the danger of the others, was as much due to this feeling as the desire for plunder.” He was discovered to have been transported for robbery, and to have been guilty of other crimes. He now confessed that he had murdered a lad, by pushing him into a quarry hole. He was executed at Paisley, Jan. 14, 1858.—_Annual Register for 1858._