Chapter VI

TRIALS FOR POISONING BY ARSENIC.

Notwithstanding the difficulties thrown in the way of the purchase of arsenic by the “Sale of Arsenic Regulation Act” of 1852, the cases of poisoning by the use of this drug have been so numerous, that it has been difficult to select examples without greatly extending the bulk of this volume. I have, therefore, limited the full reports in this chapter to two, namely:—(1). The case of Miss Madeline Smith for the imputed murder of her lover, Pierre Emile L’Angelier in Glasgow, tried before the “Lords of the Justiciary,” the chief criminal court of Scotland, in Edinburgh, on the 30th of June, 1857, a case full of interest and doubt, the mystery of which will probably never be disclosed; and (2) that of Ann Merritt for the murder of her husband, tried at the Old Bailey, March 8th, 1850, on the verdict in which arose a notable difference of opinion between leading medical and other experts, and the chief medical witness, as to the possibility of fixing, with any definiteness, the time at which the arsenic found in the body had been administered; resulting in the eventual commutation of the capital sentence by Sir George Grey, the Home Secretary. This was the case referred to by the Attorney-General in his cross-examination of Dr. Letheby in Palmer’s trial. For the trial of Madeline Smith I have relied on the Report reprinted with additions and corrections from “The Scotsman,” by far the most accurate that I have read. To my copy is an Appendix of the whole of the letters, including those suppressed in Court, published in New York at the Astor Press. Happily it is not necessary to dwell on their disgusting details.

TRIAL OF MADELINE SMITH.

Before the Lord Justice Clerk (the Hon. John Hope), Lord Ivory, and Lord Handyside, at Edinburgh, 30th June and following days, 1857.

For the Prosecution: The Lord Advocate (Jas. Moncrieffe), The Solicitor-General (E. F. Maitland), and Mr. Donald Mackenzie.

For the Defence: The Dean of Faculty, Mr. John Inglis (now Lord Justice General), Mr. G. Young (now Lord Young), and Mr. H. Moncrieff.

By the indictment the Prisoner was charged with administering or causing to be administered to Emile L’Angelier,[102] arsenic or some other poison, in coffee, cocoa, or some other food or drink, on the 19th or 20th of February, and on the 22nd or 23rd of February last, with intent to murder, and on the 22nd or 23rd of March, whereby he died on the day last named, and was thus murdered by the Prisoner. To which the Prisoner pleaded “Not Guilty.”

THE HISTORY OF THE CASE.

Pierre Emile L’Angelier, a Frenchman by birth, had been employed in Scotland since the year 1843, when he was with a firm of nurserymen at Dundee. How long he stayed with them was not proved, but according to his own statement he was one of the National Guard in the Revolution in Paris in 1848. He was always a poor man, and in 1851, when again in Scotland, was in such straits that he was living at a tavern in Edinburgh on the charity of its proprietor. When there he was at times in very low spirits, crying at night, and speaking of committing suicide, getting out of bed and walking about the room weeping, and on one occasion on the point apparently of throwing himself out of the window of his room had he not been prevented by his companion. Some love affairs—one with an English lady, another with a lady in Fife—were the causes he assigned for his melancholy and depression. In a letter, probably of this date, he wrote, “I never was so unhappy in my life. I wish I had the courage to blow my brains out.” In 1852 he was in the employ of another nurseryman at Dundee, still harping on his disappointment in love, complaining bitterly of the last lady’s intended marriage with another—gloomy, moody, dull, and threatening to stab himself. Vain of his person, he was always talking of his success with ladies, and of what he should do if he was again jilted. On one occasion, when speaking of the use of arsenic for improving the coats of horses, and asked if he was not afraid of poisoning them, he said, “Oh, no: so far from doing that, he had taken it himself, without any bad effects.” From this employment he went to that of Messrs. Huggins and Co., of Glasgow, where he was looked upon as a steady, industrious clerk, “a well-behaved, well-principled, religious man.” Whilst with this firm he pressed a young friend to introduce him to Miss Smith; and thus sprang up the attachment which led to the catastrophe.

Miss Madeline Smith, to whom L’Angelier was introduced towards the end of 1854, was the daughter of an architect of position in Glasgow, and had lately returned from an English boarding-school. She was attractive in person, and just of the age to fall violently in love with such a plausible, goodlooking man as L’Angelier. As her parents naturally had little liking for a merchant’s clerk as their daughter’s husband, the love affair that arose at once after the introduction was carried on clandestinely by a voluminous correspondence, in which more than 200 letters passed from her to the deceased in the brief period of their attachment, and such stolen interviews in or out of her father’s house as could be arranged with the connivance of one of his servants. According to the theory of the prosecution, L’Angelier was an accomplished and deliberate seducer, who at last gained his purpose on the 6th of May, from which date Miss Smith’s letters to her lover speak plainly of matters of which even married persons would be reticent, and are couched in language suitable only to married persons. She was clearly in L’Angelier’s power, who wished to marry her, and made more than one arrangement for an elopement. Towards the end of 1856, however, her affection for him began to cool, and with reason. She had accepted the attentions of a Mr. Minnoch, with the full consent of her parents, and shortly after actually fixed the day for her marriage with him. The danger of her situation pressed upon her. L’Angelier, when he knew of this, was not the man to sit tamely under such a slight, or to let another person marry one of whom he knew so much to her discredit. She wrote him to return her letters, begged and prayed him to do so, and let the engagement drop, to which she never could get the sanction of her parents. He refused. He had heard a rumour of the Minnoch engagement, and he threatened to send the letters to her father. Still it was not revenge that he wanted; he wanted his wife. Her letters at this time give the most painful proofs of the state of mind into which she had fallen. “On her bended knees,” she wrote, begging “him not to expose her, for her mother’s sake,” and “the dread of her father’s anger.” “As you hope for mercy at the judgment day, do not inform on me; do not make me a public shame. There is no one I love. My love was all given to you. My heart is empty, cold. I am unloved. I am despised. I told you I had ceased to love. It is true.” Such was her letter, presumably of the 11th of February, 1857. At this time she was engaged to Minnoch, and the day of the marriage, if not actually fixed, had been talked about. She begged for an interview. In the postscript to this sad letter, she added: “I will take you within the door; the area gate will be open. I shall see you from my window, twelve o’clock. I will wait till one o’clock.” The exact date of this letter could not be proved, as it had been delivered and not posted. It was dated only Tuesday evening, twelve o’clock; and however ingenious was the argument of the Lord Advocate, it failed to satisfy the court that it produced an interview on the 11th which led to another on the 19th—the day on which, according to the Crown, she first administered the poison to her lover, from which arose the first of his illnesses, as described by Mrs. Jenkins, his landlady.

Previously to the trial, the following explanation of the connection with L’Angelier had been given by the prisoner, in her examination before the Sheriff Substitute of Lanarkshire on the 31st of March, “when,” he said, “she answered his questions without hesitation, and with great appearance of frankness and candour.”

DECLARATION OF THE PRISONER.

“I am a native of Glasgow, 21 years of age, and reside with my father at No. 7, Blythswood Square, Glasgow. For about two years I have been acquainted with P. Emile L’Angelier, who was in the employment of Huggins & Co., in Bothwell Street, and resided at 10, Franklin Place. He recently paid his addresses to me, and I have met him on a variety of occasions. I heard of his death on the afternoon of the 23rd of March from my mother. I had not seen him for about three weeks before his death, and the last time I saw him was on a night about half-past ten o’clock. On that occasion he tapped at my window, which is on the ground floor and fronts Main Street. I talked to him from the window, which is stanchioned outside, and I did not go out to him, nor did he come into me. This occasion, which, as already said, was the last, was about three weeks before his death, and was the last time I saw him. He was in the habit of writing notes to me, and I was in the habit of replying to them. The last note I wrote was on the Friday before his death, the 20th of March. (Identifies note and envelope.) In consequence of that note I expected him to visit me on Saturday the 21st, at my bedroom window, in the same way as before, but he did not come and sent no notice. There was no tapping at my window on the Saturday night, nor on the Sunday following. I went to bed on the Saturday night about eleven, and remained in bed until the usual time of getting up next morning, being eight or nine o’clock. In the course of my meetings with him, he and I had arranged to get married, and at one time we had proposed September last as the time and subsequently the present month of March. It was proposed we should reside in furnished lodgings, but we had not made any definite arrangement as to time or otherwise. He was very unwell, and had gone to the Bridge of Allan for his health, and he complained of sickness; but I have no idea what was the cause of it. I remember giving him some cocoa from my window one night, some time ago, but I cannot specify the time particularly. He took the cup in his hand and barely tasted it, and I gave him no bread with it. I was taking some cocoa myself at the time, and had prepared it myself. (Identifies note No. 2, which she wrote and sent to post.) As I had attributed his illness to want of food, I proposed, as stated in the note, to give him a loaf of bread, but I said that merely in a joke, and in point of fact I never gave him any bread.

I have bought arsenic on various occasions. The last I bought was a sixpenny-worth, in Currie’s, the apothecary’s shop in Sauchiehall Street. Prior to that I had bought other two quantities of arsenic for which I paid sixpence each—one of these in Currie’s, and the other in Murdoch’s, the apothecary’s shop in Sauchiehall Street. I used it all as a cosmetic, and applied it to my face, neck, and arms, diluted with water. The arsenic I got at Currie’s on Wednesday, 18th March, and used it all on one occasion, having put it all in the basin where I was to wash myself. I had been advised to this use of arsenic by a young lady of the name of Giubilei, the daughter of an actress, whom I had met at school at Clapton near London.[103] I had also seen it recommended in the newspapers. I did not wish any of my father’s family to know that I was using arsenic, and therefore never mentioned it to anyone, and I do not suppose that they or any of the servants noticed it in the basin. When I bought the arsenic at Murdoch’s, I am not sure whether I was asked or not what it was for; but I think I said for a gardener, to kill rats or destroy vermin about flowers, and I only said this because I did not wish them to know that I was going to use it as a cosmetic. I do not remember whether I was asked as to the use I was going to make of the arsenic on the other two occasions. I likely made the same statement about it as I had done at Murdoch’s; and on all three occasions, as required in the shops, I signed my name to a book in which the sales are entered. On the first occasion I was accompanied by Mary, a daughter of Dr. Buchanan, of Dumbarton. For several years past Mr. Minnoch, of the firm of W. Houldsworth & Co., has been coming a good deal about my father’s house; and about a month ago he made a proposal of marriage to me, and I gave him my hand in token of acceptance, but no time for the marriage has been fixed;[104] and my object in writing the note, No. 1, before mentioned, was to have a meeting with Mr. L’Angelier to tell him I was engaged to Mr. Minnoch.[105] (Identifies two notes and an envelope bearing the Glasgow post-mark of 23rd January, as written and sent by her to L’Angelier.) On the occasion that I gave L’Angelier the cocoa, I think that I used it must have been known to the servants and members of my father’s family, as the package containing the cocoa was lying on the mantelpiece in my room, but no one of the family used it, as they did not like it. The water that I used I got hot from the servants. On the night of the 18th, when I used the arsenic last, I was going to a dinner party at Mr. Minnoch’s house. I never administered, or caused to be administered, to Mr. L’Angelier arsenic or anything injurious. And this I declare to be truth.”

With this brief introduction, let us proceed to the details of his various illnesses, due, as the prosecution inferred, to arsenical poisoning.

THE SYMPTOMS.

Mrs. Jenkins, at whose house L’Angelier came to lodge in the July of 1856, and continued there till his death, spoke of her lodger as of civil habits, but wont to stay out at night, for which purpose he had the use of a latch-key. His health was usually good; but about the middle of February, 1857, he had a severe attack of illness, and another on the 23rd, of which she gave the following account:—

“One night he wished a pass key, as he thought he would be late out. I went to bed and did not hear him come in. I knocked at his door about eight the next morning and got no answer. I knocked again, and he said, ‘Come in, if you please.’ I went in. He said, ‘I have been very unwell; look what I have vomited.’ I said I thought it was bile. It was a greenish substance. There was a great deal of it. It was thick stuff, like gruel. I said, ‘Why did you not call me?’ He said that while on the road coming home, he was seized with a violent pain in his bowels and stomach, and when he was taking off his clothes, thought he should have died on the carpet, and no human eye would have seen him. ‘I was not able,’ he said, ‘to ring the bell.’ He asked me to make a little tea, and said he would not go out. I emptied what he had vomited, and advised him to go to a doctor, and he said he would. He took a little breakfast and then went to sleep for an hour, when I went back to him, and he said he was better, and would go out. Mr. Thuau, who lodges in my house, saw him. He went out between ten and eleven—his place of business is two streets off. He returned about three in the afternoon, said he had been to a doctor and brought a bottle of medicine with him. He took the medicine and complained about feeling very thirsty.

“His illness made a great change in his appearance. He looked yellow and dull, and before that his complexion was fresh. He became dark under the eyes, and the red of his cheeks seemed to be more broken. He complained of being very cold after he came in. He lay down on the sofa, and I laid a railway-rug over him. I did nothing for his feet. He never was the same after his illness. When asked how he felt, he was accustomed to say, ‘I never feel well.’ On a Monday morning, about four o’clock, he called me. He was vomiting. It was the same kind of stuff as before in colour and otherwise. There was not quite so much of it. He complained on this occasion likewise of pain in the bowels and stomach, and of thirst and cold. I did not know he was out the night before. He did not say anything about it. I put more blankets on him, jars of hot water to his feet, and made him some tea. I gave him also a great many drinks—toast and water, lemon and water, and such like—because he was thirsty. I called again about six in the morning. He did not rise until the forenoon. Dr. Thomson came to attend, fetched by Thuau, and left a prescription for powders, of which he took one or two. He said they were not doing him the good he expected; ‘the doctor always said he was getting better, but he did not feel well;’ ‘he did not feel getting better.’ He was eight days away from business at that time. Some time after he went to Edinburgh, and returned to Glasgow on the 17th of March, and stayed till the 19th, when he went away, as he said, to the Bridge of Allan.

“He went away about 10 A.M., and said he would not be home before Wednesday night or Thursday morning next week. A letter came for him on the 19th like those that used to come, and I gave it to Thuau. I don’t remember any coming on Friday, but one more, like a lady’s writing, on Saturday, which I also gave to Thuau. (Identifies envelope as like that of letter received on Saturday, but not another which was shown her.) L’Angelier was much disappointed at not getting a letter before he left, and said, ‘If I get a letter, perhaps I shall be home to-night.’

“I next saw L’Angelier on Sunday night, about eight. He said the letter sent had brought him home. I told him it had come on Saturday afternoon. He did not say where he had come from. I understood he had been at the Bridge of Allan. He looked much better, and said he was so. He went out about 9 P.M., and asked for a latch-key, as he might be late. I was to call him early. It was about half-past two next morning when I next saw him; he did not use the latch-key, but rang the bell violently. When I opened the door, he was standing with his arms on his stomach. He said, ‘I am very bad. I am going to have another vomiting of that bile.’ The first time I saw the vomitings, I said it was bile. He said he was never troubled with bile. He said he never thought he should have got home, he was so bad on the road. He did not say how he had been bad. The first thing he took was a little water. I filled up the tumbler, and he tried to vomit. He wished a little tea. I went into the room (with it?), and before he was half undressed he was vomiting severely. It was the same kind of matter as I had seen before. There was a light. The vomiting was attended with great pain. I asked him whether he had taken anything to disagree with his stomach. He said he had taken nothing since he was at the Bridge of Allan. He was chill and cold, and wished a jar of hot water to his feet, and another to his stomach. I got these for him, and two blankets and mats. He got a little easier. About four o’clock he was worse, and on my proposing to go for a doctor said he was a little better, and I need not. About five he was worse again, and his bowels became bad. He had been vomiting only up to this time. I went for Dr. Steven, who could not come so early, but told me to give him twenty-five drops of laudanum, and put a mustard blister on his stomach, and if he did not get better he would come. At L’Angelier’s request, I went again, and the doctor came, who immediately ordered him mustard. I said to him, ‘Look at what he has vomited.’ He said, ‘Take it away, it is making him faint.’ I got the mustard, and the doctor put it on, and I think gave him a little morphia. I said to L’Angelier, ‘This is the worst attack you have had.’ The doctor stayed about a quarter of an hour or twenty minutes. I took him into the dining-room, and asked him what was wrong; he asked me if he was a person that tippled. I said, ‘No,’ and that this was the second time this had occurred, and asked what was the reason. The doctor said this was matter for explanation. The first time I went back, L’Angelier asked what the doctor had said. I said he thought he would get over it, and L’Angelier replied, ‘I am far worse than he thinks.’ About nine, when I drew the curtains, he looked very ill, and I asked if there was no one he wished sent for. He asked to see Miss Perry, of Bamfield Street. I sent for her. He said he thought that if he could get five minutes’ sleep he should be better. These were the last words I heard him use. I went back into the room in about five minutes; he was then quite quiet, and I thought he was asleep. The doctor then returned, and I told him so. He went into the room, felt his pulse, lifted his head, and said he was dead.”

Nothing of importance with reference to the symptoms of his attacks was elicited in cross-examination. His first illness, according to the witness, was a great deal worse than the second. It was in January that he first complained of ill health. He then first complained of his tongue; then a boil came out on his neck, and shortly after another. She did not think that he ate what suited him, and especially too many vegetables, to which he said he was accustomed in France. On the morning of his death he complained about his mouth being sore. The doctor gave him some water, and he said it was choking him, or that it was going into his chest. When in bed that morning he always had his arms out on the bed clothes. She did not remember his hands being clenched. His right hand was clenched when he died. The remainder of the cross-examination related to the dress he usually wore, and the search by the officers for his papers.[106]

MEDICAL EVIDENCE.

Dr. Thomson, a physician in Glasgow, who had known L’Angelier for two years, gave the following evidence as to his health up to about the 10th of March:—

“He consulted me professionally, the first time, fully a year ago, when he had a bowel complaint, of which he got better. Next time was on the 3rd February this year for a cold and cough, and boil on his neck, for which I prescribed. The next week after I saw him, when another boil had appeared. On the 23rd of February he came to me. He was very feverish, and his tongue was furred, and had a patchy appearance, from the fur being off in various places. He complained of nausea, and had been vomiting. He was prostrate, his pulse was quick, and he had general symptoms of fever. I prescribed for him (taking his complaint to be bilious derangement) an aperient draught. He had been ill, I think, for a day or two, but he had been taken worse the night before he called on me—during the night of the 22nd and the morning of the 23rd. He was confined to the house for two or three days. I visited him on the 24th, 25th, and 26th of February, and on the 1st of March met him. The aperient draught I prescribed contained magnesia and soda. On the 24th I prescribed powders containing rhubarb, soda, chalk of camomile, and ipecacuanha. On the 24th he was much in the same state. He had vomited the draught I had given him on the 23rd, and I observed that his skin was considerably jaundiced; and from the whole symptoms I called the disease a bilious fever. On the 25th he was rather better, and had risen from his bed to the sofa, but was not dressed. On the 26th he felt considerably better and cooler, and I did not think it necessary to repeat my visits till I happened to be in the neighbourhood. It did not occur to me that these symptoms arose from the action of any irritant poison. If I had known that he had taken an irritant poison, these were the symptoms I should expect to follow. I don’t think I asked him when he was seriously taken ill. I had not seen him for some little time before, and certainly he looked very dejected and ill; his colour was rather darker and jaundiced, and round the eye the colour was rather darker than usual. I saw him again eight or ten days after the 1st of March. He called on me, but I have no note of the day; he was much the same as on the 1st of March. He said he was thinking of going into the country, but did not say where. I did not prescribe for him then. On the 26th of February, I think I told him to give up smoking. I thought it was injurious to his stomach. I never saw him again in life.”

“On the morning of the 23rd of March, Mr. Stevenson and Mr. Thuau called on me, mentioned his death, and wished me to go and see his body, and see if I could give an opinion as to the cause of his death. They did not know that I had not seen him alive in his last illness. I went to the house. The body was laid out on a stretcher on the table. The skin had a slightly jaundiced hue. I said it was impossible to give a decided opinion, and requested Dr. Steven to be sent for, who had been in attendance. I examined the body with my hands externally, and over the region of the liver the sound was dull; and over the region of the heart the sound was natural. I saw what he had vomited, and made inquiry as to the symptoms before death. Dr. Steven, when he arrived, corroborated the statements of the landlady, as far as he was concerned. No resolution as to a post-mortem examination was come to that day, but in the afternoon I stated to Mr. Huggins and another gentleman, who called on me, that the symptoms were such as might have been produced by an irritant poison, and that it was such a case that, had it occurred in England, a coroner’s inquest would be held.”

On cross-examination, the witness said—

“At the time I attended L’Angelier, in February, there were no symptoms that I could definitely say were not due to a bilious attack, they were all the symptoms of such an attack. There was no appearance of jaundice. I have heard of that as a symptom of irritant poison. It is in Dr. Taylor’s work on poisons. The jaundice I saw was quite consistent that he was labouring under a bilious attack, and could easily be accounted for that way.”

Dr. Steven, physician of Glasgow, who was called in by Mrs. Jenkins on the 23rd of March, at the commencement of the fatal attack, carried on the case to the death of the deceased:—

“I was applied to,” said the Witness, “early in the morning of the 23rd of March last, by Mrs. Jenkins, to see her lodger, who she told me was suffering from a severe bilious attack. Being unwell myself I was unwilling to go, but advised her to give him hot water and drops of laudanum. She came to me again about seven. I went, thinking, as he was a Frenchman, he might not be understood. I found him in bed, very much depressed. His features were pinched, and his hands. He complained of coldness and pain over the region of the stomach. By pinched, I mean shrunk and cold, or inclined to become cold. He complained of general chilliness and his face and hands were cold to the touch. He was physically and mentally depressed. I spoke to him and observed nothing peculiar in his voice. I did not expect a strong voice, and it was not particularly weak. That was when I first entered the room. But his voice became weaker. He complained that his breathing was painful, but it did not seem hurried. I dissuaded him from speaking, had extra clothes put on his bed, gave him a little morphia (mustard?) to make him vomit, but he seemed to have vomited all he could. He had a weak pulse. I felt the action of the heart corresponding to it. That imported that the circulation was weaker at the extremities. The feet were not cold. Hot bottles were put to them, and also above his body for his hands. He was not urgently complaining of thirst. He seemed afraid of drinking large quantities for fear of making himself vomit. He asked particularly for cold water, and was unwilling to take whisky, which the landlady talked of giving him. He said he had been vomiting and purging. I saw a utensil filled with the matter vomited and purged. I ordered it to be removed and a clean one put in its place, that I might see what he had vomited. I did not see it. I believe it was kept for some time, but I said it might be thrown away: that was after his death. He said, ‘This is third attack I have had: the landlady says it is bile, but I never was subject to bile.’ He seemed to get worse while I was there. He several times said, ‘My poor mother,’ and how dull he felt at being so ill away from friends. I applied a mustard poultice to his stomach. I stayed I suppose half-an-hour. I called again about a quarter past eleven. The landlady met me and said he had been quite as bad as in the morning. I went into the room and found him dead. He was lying on his right side, with his back towards the light, his knees drawn a little up, one arm outside the bedclothes and the other in. They were not much—not unnaturally drawn up. He seemed in a comfortable position, as if sleeping. About mid-day I was sent for again; Dr. Thomson was there when I went in. I asked him if there was anything in his previous illness, with the symptoms I mentioned, which would account for the cause of death, but we were entirely at a loss to account for it. I declined giving a certificate unless I made an examination, and Dr. Thomson and I made one the next day. We subsequently made a second examination after the body was exhumed.”

The witness then described how the stomach and its contents were carefully preserved and sent to Professor Penny for analysis (see Appendix A., p. 355).

ANALYTICAL EVIDENCE.

Dr. Penny, the Professor of Chemistry in the Andersonian University, Glasgow, then read the following report of his analysis of the parts of the body handed to him by Dr. Thomson, made at the request of one of the procurators fiscal of the country.

(1.) Contents of Stomach.

“The liquid measured 8½ ounces. On being allowed to repose, it deposited a white powder, which was found on examination to possess the external characters and all the chemical properties peculiar to arsenious acid, that is, the common white arsenic of the shops. It consisted of hard, gritty, transparent, colourless crystalline particles; it was soluble in boiling water, and readily dissolved in a solution of caustic potash. It was unchanged by sulphide of ammonium, and volatised when heated on platina foil. Heated in a tube it gave a sparkling white sublimate, which, under the microscope, was found to consist of octahedral crystals. Its aqueous solution afforded, with ammonio-nitrate of silver, ammonio-sulphate of copper, sulphuretted hydrogen, and bichromate of potash, the highly characteristic results produced by arsenious acid. On heating a small portion of it in a small tube with black flux, a brilliant ring of metallic arsenic was obtained, with all its distinctive properties. Heated with dilute hydrochloric acid and a slip of copper foil, a steel-gray coating was deposited on the copper; and this coating, by further examination, was proved to be metallic arsenic.

“Another portion of the powder, on being heated with nitric acid, yielded a substance having the peculiar characters of arsenic acid. A small portion of the powder was also subjected to what is commonly known as ‘Marsh’s Proof,’ and metallic arsenic was thus obtained, with all its peculiar physical and chemical properties. These results show, unequivocally, that the said white powder was arsenious acid—that is the preparation of arsenic which is usually sold in commerce, and administered, or taken as a poison, under the name of arsenic or oxide of arsenic.

“I then examined the fluid contents of the stomach. After the usual preparatory operations, it was subjected to the following processes:—

“(1.) To a portion of the fluid Reinsch’s process was applied, and an abundant steel-like coating was obtained on copper foil. On heating the coated copper in a glass tube, the peculiar odour of arsenic was distinctly perceptible, and a white crystalline sublimate was produced, possessing the properties peculiar to arsenious acid.

“(2.) Another portion was distilled, and the distillate subjected to Marsh’s process. The gas produced by this process had an arsenical odour, burned with a bluish-white flame, and gave with nitrate of silver the characteristic reaction of arseniuretted hydrogen. On holding above the flame a slip of bibulous paper moistened with a solution of ammonio-nitrate of silver, a yellow colour was communicated to the paper. A white porcelain capsule depressed upon the flame was quickly covered with brilliant stains, which on being tested with the appropriate reagents, were found to be metallic arsenic. By a modification of Marsh’s apparatus, the gas was conducted through a heated tube, when a lustrous mirror-like deposit of arsenic in the metallic state was collected; and this deposit was afterwards converted into arsenious acid.

“(3.) Through another portion of the fluid a stream of sulphuretted hydrogen was transmitted, when a bright yellow precipitate separated, having the chemical properties of trisulphide of arsenic. It dissolved readily in ammonia; it remained unchanged in hydrochloric acid; and it gave, on being heated with black flux, a brilliant ring of metallic arsenic.

“(4.) A fourth portion, being properly acidified with hydrochloric acid was distilled, and the distillate subjected to ‘Fleitmann’s’ process. For this purpose it was boiled with zinc and a strong solution of caustic potash. Arseniuretted hydrogen was disengaged and was recognised by its odour, and its characteristic action on nitrate of silver.”

(2.) Stomach.

“I examined, in the next place, the stomach itself. It was cut into small pieces, and boiled for some time in water containing hydrochloric acid, and the solution, after being filtered, was subjected to the same processes as those applied to the contents of the stomach. The results in every case were precisely similar, and the presence of a considerable quantity of arsenic was unequivocally detected.”

(3.) Quantity of Arsenic.

“I made, in the last place, a careful determination of the quantity of arsenic contained in the stomach and its contents. A stream of sulphuretted hydrogen gas was transmitted through a known quantity of the prepared fluid from the said matters, until the whole of the arsenic was precipitated in the form of trisulphide of arsenic. This sulphide, after being carefully purified, was collected, dried, and weighed, and the weight corresponded to a quantity of arsenious acid (common white arsenic) in the entire stomach and its contents equal to 82 grains and seven-tenths of a grain, or nearly one-fifth of an ounce. The accuracy of this result was confirmed by converting the sulphide of arsenic into arseniate of ammonia and magnesia, and weighing the product. The quantity here stated is exclusive of the white powder first examined. The purity of the various materials and reagents employed in this investigation was most scrupulously ascertained.”

Conclusions.

“Having considered the results of this investigation, I am clearly of opinion that they are conclusive in showing (1), That the matters subjected to examination and analysis contained arsenic, and (2), That the quantity of arsenic found was considerably more than sufficient to destroy life.

“All this is true, on soul and conscience.

“Frederick Penny,

“Professor of Chemistry.”

April 6, 1857.

Examination resumed.—“It is not easy to give a precise answer to the question ‘How much arsenic would destroy life?’ Cases are on record in which life was destroyed by two and four grains; four or six grains are generally sufficient to destroy life, and the amount I determined as existing in the stomach was 82 grains. On the 31st of March I attended the exhumation of M. L’Angelier’s body. I saw the coffin opened, and the portions of the body removed, which were carefully preserved, in jars of which I never lost sight, and I analysed the contents, and prepared the following

Report.

“On Tuesday, 31st March last, I was present at a post-mortem examination of the body of P. E. L’Angelier, made by Drs. Corbet, Thomson, and Steven, in a vault in the Ramshorn Church, Glasgow.

“At my request, portions of the following organs were removed from the body, and properly preserved for chemical analysis and examination: (1.) Small intestine and contents; (2.) Large intestine; (3.) Liver; (4.) Heart; (5.) Lung; (6.) Brain. These articles were taken direct to the Laboratory of the Andersonian Institution, and were there delivered to me by the parties named. I have since made a careful analysis and chemical examination of all the said matters, with the following results:—

(1.) Small Intestine and Contents.

“The portion of the small intestine contained a turbid and reddish-coloured fluid, measuring four ounces. On standing for several hours in a glass vessel, this liquid deposited numerous and well-defined octahedral crystals, which, being subjected to the usual chemical processes for the detection of arsenic, were found to be arsenious acid. Arsenic was also detected in the small intestine.

(2.) Large Intestine.

“This organ yielded arsenic, but in less proportion than in the small intestine.

(3.) Liver, Brain, and Heart.

“Arsenic was separated from the liver, brain, and heart, but in much less proportion than from the small and large intestines.

(4.) Lung.

“The lung gave only a slight indication of the presence of arsenic.

Conclusions.

“(1.) That the body of the deceased contained arsenic.

“(2.) That the arsenic must have been taken by or administered to him while living.”

The witness then spoke of the examinations he had made into the arsenic sold by the two chemists, Murdoch and Currie, at whose shops the prisoner had stated she had purchased it, for the purposes of a cosmetic. In that sold at Murdoch’s, 91·1 per cent. was pure white arsenic, and in that from Currie’s, 94·4 per cent., and the remainder inorganic matter; in Murdoch’s carbonaceous, in Currie’s indigo and carbonaceous matter. The quantity of indigo in this arsenic was extremely small, and capable of being removed by peculiar and dexterous manipulation, so that the arsenic would appear white to the unassisted eye. If of this an amount sufficient to cause death had been given, and prior to death great vomiting had taken place, the witness would not expect to find any portion of the indigo: the quantity was so small, that it would not colour wine of any sort. In the case of Murdoch’s arsenic, however, as it was mixed with carbonaceous particles, if that had been given and settled down from the contents of the stomach as in this case, he should have expected to find such particles—not, however, if it had been given a month before. Of the twelve bottles and two packages of medicines, and the cake of chocolate found at L’Angelier’s lodging, and submitted to him for analysis, none, except a weak solution of aconite were poisonous, and that was so weak, that had the whole two ounces in the phial been swallowed, it would not have destroyed life. Of the use of prussic acid or arsenic as a cosmetic he had never heard, and believed that both would be dangerous, and the latter might produce constitutional symptoms of poisoning. He had heard of its use as a depilatory, but then mixed with other matters, as lime, and it was not arsenious acid, but usually the yellow sulphide, that was used for this purpose.

On cross-examination by the Dean of Faculty, the witness said:—

“In the entire stomach and its contents there was arsenic equal to 82, 7-10th grains, exclusive of the white powder first examined, which, after being dried, weighed 5, 2-10th grains, and was arsenious acid. I did not determine the quantity of arsenic in the liver, heart, or brain, and can give no notion of the quantity that might be in those organs. In the small intestine it must have been considerable, because when its contents were allowed to repose arsenious acid crystallised out of that liquid and deposited abundantly on the sides of the vessel,—which indicated that the liquid had as much arsenic as it could hold in solution at that temperature. I can’t give any idea of the quantity in the small intestine. It was decidedly appreciable. It would be a mere matter of guess, and I should not like to guess in so serious a matter. If the deceased, when attacked by symptoms of arsenical poisoning, vomited often, and in large quantities, it would depend on the mode of administration whether a quantity would be carried off. If given in solid food, and in a solid state, a large portion of the arsenic would be ejected from the stomach if all the food were vomited; but if the arsenic were stirred up with the liquid, and thereby thrown into a state of mechanical suspension, I should not expect that so considerable a portion would be ejected by vomiting. By solid food I mean bread and the like. In the case of the arsenic being taken in a fluid, I could not say what proportion might be ejected. I should not be surprised to find that as much had been ejected as retained. Judging from what I found in the body, the dose must have been of a very unusual size. There are cases on record in which large quantities of arsenic have been found in the stomach and intestines—larger than in the present. I think there is a case where two drachms—120 grains—were found. In the cases I refer to the arsenic was taken voluntarily, with the intention to commit suicide. It would be very difficult to give a large dose in a liquid. By a large dose you exclude many vehicles in which arsenic might be administered. Nothing which I found indicated the time when the arsenic must have been taken. The ordinary period between the administration of the poison and the symptoms being manifested is eight to ten hours in the cases on record: that is the extreme time. There are some cases in which they show themselves in half an hour. We have cases in which death resulted in a few hours, and cases in which death has been delayed two days. As to the arsenic bought at Currie’s shop, the greater part of the colouring matter might be removed. If you were to throw water on the arsenic, and agitate the two together, and after the arsenic has subsided you throw off the liquor, a portion of the colouring matter is thrown off, and if you keep the vessel shaken in a particular way you may coax the greater part of the colouring matter away. Murdoch’s arsenic was coloured with carbonaceous matter—it had the colour of coal soot. I cannot tell from examination whether the arsenic found was given in one dose or in several. It would be very dangerous to use arsenic externally in any way. There are cases in which it has been rubbed on the whole skin, and the symptoms of poisoning produced—vomiting, pain, but not death. My impression is, from general reading, that it produces eruption on the sound skin.[107] If cold water were used, I should not like to wash in it. I cannot give any other answer.”

To the Lord Justice Clerk.—“There are cases in which inflammation of the intestines has been produced by the external application of arsenic.”

To the Dean.—“Arsenic is an irritant poison; it is absorbed into the blood, I presume, with great rapidity, and through the blood it reaches all the organs in which we find it.”

To the Lord Advocate.—“In administering large doses of arsenic many vehicles are excluded. Cocoa or chocolate is a vehicle in which a large dose might be given. There is a great difference between giving rise to suspicion and actual detection. I have found by actual experiment, that when 30 to 40 grains of arsenic are put into a cup of warm chocolate, a large portion of the arsenic settles down in the bottom of the cup, and I think a person drinking such poisonous chocolate would suspect something when the gritty particles came into his mouth; but when the same and even a larger quantity were boiled with the chocolate, instead of being stirred or mixed, none of it settles down.[108] I could not separate the soot from Murdoch’s arsenic, but a very large quantity of it might be separated. Supposing a person subjected to repeated doses of arsenic, I have no evidence on which to form an opinion whether the last dose would be more rapidly fatal.”

To the Dean.—“In the case of chocolate being boiled with arsenic in it, a larger portion dissolves and does not subside. That is what I find by actual experiment. Coffee or tea could not be made the vehicle of so large a dose of arsenic.”

To the Lord Justice Clerk.—“The period in which the arsenic produces its effect varies in different individuals, and according to the mode of administration. Pain in the stomach is one of the first symptoms, and vomiting usually accompanies the pain, but it may be very severe before the vomiting actually begins. Ten, fifteen, or twenty grains might be given in coffee.”

Professor Penny, subsequently (on the fourth day), gave the following account of experiments made by him with arsenic purchased from Murdoch’s and Currie’s shops:—

“Some of the arsenic I purchased from Murdoch’s, which was mixed with soot, I gave to a dog, and I had no difficulty in detecting the soot in the stomach of that dog after death. I administered arsenic, coloured by myself with indigo, to another dog, and had no difficulty in detecting the indigo in that case by chemical tests. To another dog I administered arsenic purchased at Currie’s, which it will be remembered was mixed with indigo. After death I detected black particles in the stomach of that dog, but I could not undertake to identify the arsenic found with the arsenic given: I mean I found carbonaceous particles, but that I could not undertake to say that these particles were of themselves sufficient to identify any of the particular poison administered. But as I administered it myself, it must have been the same—at least, I know of no other source. I could detect no arsenic in the brains of the dogs. I found solid arsenic in the stomach, as well as in the texture of the stomach.”

By the Court.—“Is it the fact that there is less arsenic found in the brains of animals than of human beings?”

Witness.—“I am not aware. In the one case I detected blue colouring matter of indigo, in the other carbonaceous particles.”[109]

By the Dean.—“Did you make yourself acquainted with the nature of the colouring matter of Currie’s arsenic before administering it to the dog?”

Witness.—“I did.”

The Dean.—“Did the black particles you found correspond to the constituents of the colouring matter?”

Witness.—“They have a close resemblance to them, both in physical appearance and in chemical properties.”

The Dean.—“Were they not in physical appearance and chemical properties, identical?”

Witness.—“They were.”

Professor Christison, to whom, on the 11th of May, Dr. Penny had delivered similar portions of the body to those on which he had experimented, together with portions of the deposits from the stomach and intestines, made a chemical analysis of the white powder, and the fluids obtained from the stomach, and the small intestine, and of a portion of the liver. As from these he obtained unequivocal proofs of the presence of arsenic, he did not, at that time, proceed further. Subsequently, however, on the 28th of May, he analysed a portion of the great intestine, and was satisfied of the presence of arsenic; and in a portion of the brain he found “traces of arsenic, but not satisfactory evidence, which might be owing to the small quantity of material he had to analyse.”

“The fluid from the stomach,” he said, “appeared to indicate a considerable quantity in the system—more than sufficient to destroy life. The symptoms of arsenic poisoning are variable. Sometimes they pass off quickly, sometimes continue for weeks or months. When they continue, they are indigestion, loss of strength, emaciation, sometimes diarrhœa, lassitude of the limbs. If there appeared erosions with elevated edges in the intestines, I should have been led to suspect the existence of some affection of the intestines previous to the final attack. The appearances exhibited by the post-mortem examination were such as the witness would expect from arsenic.”

By the Lord Advocate.—“If you had been consulted in a case of this kind,—that on the 18th or 19th of February a person having gone out in good health returns, is attacked during the night with great pain in the bowels, severe vomiting of a green viscous fluid, accompanied by intense thirst and purging, and after the lapse of two or three days and partial recovery the patient is again seized with the same symptoms, though in a somewhat modified form, and that after the second attack he had continued affected with great lassitude, change of colour, low pulse, and that after going from home for ten or fourteen days, had again returned and been attacked the same night with those symptoms in an aggravated form, and had died within eight or ten hours of his return, and that on a post-mortem examination the results were found of which you are aware in this case:—I wish you to give me your opinion, as a man of science and skill, what conclusion you would draw as to the cause of the previous illness and death?”

Witness.—“I could have no doubt that the cause of death was poisoning by arsenic, and such being the case, I should have entertained a strong suspicion in regard to his previous illness, because his death would have prevented me from taking the means of satisfying my mind on the subject by a careful examination of all the circumstances.”

The Lord Advocate.—“Are the symptoms consistent with what you would expect if continuous poisoning was taking place?”

Witness.—“They are those which have occurred in parallel cases of the administration of doses singly insufficient to cause death.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Dean.—“Or anything approaching to it?”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By the Court.—“Has arsenic any taste?”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Robert Telfer Corbett, physician in Glasgow, and senior surgeon in the infirmary, who had assisted at the post-mortem examination and joined in the report, was called on the fourth day, and gave the following evidence.

“So far as he could judge without analysis the deceased had died from the effect of poison. The morbid appearances presented were of two kinds—one showing the result of recent action, the other of action at a period antecedent to it. The last of these appearances consisted of several ulcers, each about the ¹/_16th of an inch in diameter, with elevated edge, on the upper part of the duodenum. They might have been characteristic of the effect of irritant poison at the distance of a month, but it is impossible to fix any date. I think they were such as irritant poison, administered a month before, would have produced. They were of longer standing than immediately antecedent to death. In the duodenum and intestines the body had in colour and otherwise the appearances characteristic of arsenical poisoning. Inflammation and ulceration are the effect of inflammation; jaundice, I mean the yellow tinge of the skin, is an occasional, but not a necessary symptom of death by arsenic, but not a common one. Extreme thirst is one of the symptoms, and shows itself very early. It is not characteristic of British cholera in its earlier stages. The exact time a dose of arsenic takes to exhibit its symptoms is from a half to one hour—that is the average time. Longer periods have been known but are very unusual. They depend more on the mode in which the poison is given, and the state of the stomach, than on the quantity administered. If a person had been the subject of repeated doses, the irritability of the stomach would make it more likely to operate quickly. I have read of cases of murder where large quantities of arsenic have been found in the stomach. I can refer to cases in which details were not given, but the quantity was said to be large.”

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

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

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

MEDICAL EVIDENCE FOR THE DEFENCE.

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

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

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

On the second point this witness said:—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Witness.—“Certainly.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Witness.—“Oh, certainly.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

Witness.—“Generally the vomiting is severe.”

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

Witness.—“Certainly not.”

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

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

Lord Advocate.—“Is it so in cholera?”

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

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

EVIDENCE OF THE OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF POISON.

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

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

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

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

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

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