Chapter VIII · (continued 2)

The false statement in the certificate of death, Mr. Clark attributed to a desire of sparing the feelings of the husband. He did not justify the morality of the act, but, looking at the circumstances, asked the jury “if there was any degree of guilty knowledge when he asked Dr. Paterson to inform his father-in-law of the cause of death, and he was only forced to take that step by his refusal.” With Dr. Paterson’s manner in the witness-box he naturally dealt in the most severe language of reproof and censure.

“I do not believe,” he said, in concluding his remarks on this witness, “he saw any symptoms of poisoning, or he would have acted as any other medical man would have acted—unselfishly, nobly, and generously in this matter. And when you see that this is inconsistent with the whole conduct of the profession to which he belongs, I ask you to disbelieve many of the statements he makes. You cannot rely on these statements, given with a bias, for he tells you what is incredible, or only credible at the loss of his own honour, which I am sure he will strive studiously to guard. He has become a partisan in this matter altogether, and forgot what is due to his position and his profession. All that can be said of Dr. Paterson is this,—that he speaks about the prisoner, of his mother-in-law, and speaks further about what he said of her falling; yet even after all, this is merely an account of a circumstance given by him some months, or, if you like, a month after the case occurred. And because the prisoner made some statements not exactly consistent with the truth as now disclosed on the evidence, are you to believe, on Dr. Paterson’s statement, and upon his statement only, that these statements were made so as to show guilty knowledge. I can quite understand that after there is proof of administration you may support that proof by evidence of falsehoods which the prisoner may tell, if you have reliable evidence to prove that they were stated. But when you have no evidence of administration of poison, then the evidence is all the other way; then I think you cannot eke out the probabilities of the case by appealing to these probabilities, or to the falsehoods depending on evidence like that here, as showing conclusively, beyond a reasonable doubt, that this prisoner was the person who committed that foul crime upon the person of his mother-in-law.”

Having thus commented on the evidence given for the prosecution on all the leading points of the case, in masterly, if not convincing arguments, in conclusion the prisoner’s counsel dwelt on the admitted terms of affection in which he lived with his wife and children—on the impossibility of believing in his commission of such a cold-blooded murder, on the evidence adduced. “The whole evidence of the Crown,” he said, “hangs upon probability, and can never justify you in believing, in the first place, that he was capable of committing the crime; and, in the second, it is hardly conceivable that anything so unnatural should be committed by such a man.”

THE JUDGE’S CHARGE.

On the fifth day, the Lord Justice Clerk summed up the evidence in this protracted trial with great minuteness, in the course of his charge reading to the jury nearly the whole of the evidence, and meeting the various objections to its relevancy offered by the prisoner’s counsel. There were three points, he said, for their consideration. (1.) Did the two ladies, or either of them, die from poison? (2.) If aye, was that poison administered for the purpose of destroying life? (3.) Was it the prisoner who administered it?

On the first point, after calling their attention in detail to the medical and analytical evidence in the case of Mrs. Pritchard, that she died from slow antimonial poisoning, he said, did not appear to have been contested by the prisoner’s counsel, and, upon the evidence, he did not think it admitted of a doubt. As the evidence showed that it was not from a large dose of antimony taken lately before death that she had died, the idea of accident or mistake was excluded. That it might have arisen from unskilful treatment by the prisoner was negatived by his assertion that he had never administered antimony to her, except once externally in October last, which could have nothing to do with the state in which the intestines were found in March. The idea of suicide by slow poisoning, even if there had been any hint of a suicidal tendency on Mrs. Pritchard’s part, was equally inadmissible: she must, if killed by antimony, have had it administered to her for that purpose. In Mrs. Taylor’s case, into the details of which he fully entered, one was almost forced to the conclusion that her death was brought about by the combined action of aconite, antimony, and opium. As to the idea of accident in her case it was inconsistent with the fact that the Battley’s solution was pure when bought. “Was it then,” he added, “by accident that these two subtle poisons, aconite and antimony, found their way into her medicine-bottle: if not by accident, did she put them there herself, or had she any knowledge of such things as to enable her, if she were willing, so to poison herself by using her own medicine? There was no appearance of that, and the character and conduct of the old lady, her natural condition both of body and mind as you heard it described by the witnesses, is such as not to suggest the idea of suicide in her case as a possibility at all. Consider, then, with reference to both deaths, whether you can arrive at the conclusion, or whether you can resist the conclusion, that the poison by the means of which they were deprived of life was wilfully given to them for the very purpose of destroying life.”

Passing then to the third question, “Was the poison of which these ladies died administered to them by the prisoner?” the Lord Justice Clerk went with great minuteness through the painful details of Mrs. Pritchard’s long and lingering illness, the symptoms which it exhibited, the prisoner’s misrepresentation of it as gastric fever, when the medical men proved that there was no fever in the case, but clear signs of antimonial poisoning, and the various acts of the prisoner during it which were put forward as showing that he had, and that he used, the opportunities his position offered, for the purpose of administering the poison. The interest of this portion of the charge, as well as of that relating to the symptoms and death of Mrs. Taylor, and the prisoner’s conduct in relation to it, depends so entirely on the judge’s method of marshalling the evidence, already reported, that it could not be satisfactorily given except verbatim. Many of the remarks of the learned judge, on these points of the evidence, have already been reported in the notes. It will therefore be sufficient to give, here, his remarks on the question of motive, and on the suggestion of the prisoner’s counsel with regard to Mary McLeod.

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

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

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

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

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

THE RICHMOND POISONING CASE.[168]

Before The Lord Chief Baron Pollock, at the Central Criminal Court, July 7 and 8, and August 15 to 19, 1859.

For the Prosecution: Mr. Serjeant Ballantine, Mr. Bodkin, Mr. Clerk, and Mr. Mereweather.

For the Defence: Mr. Serjeant Parry and Mr. Giffard.

FIRST TRIAL—July 7 and 8.

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

HISTORY OF THE CASE.

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

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

Monday, May 2, 1859.

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

“Yours affectionately,

“Thomas Smethurst.”

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

EVIDENCE OF MEDICAL ATTENDANTS.

Dr. Julius said:—

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

On his cross-examination, Dr. Julius

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Caudle, the assistant of Messrs. Julius and Bird, described the medicines he compounded, and Dr. Buzzard detailed the transmission of the bottles of evacuations to Dr. Taylor.

POST-MORTEM EXAMINATION.

Mr. Barwell, Assistant-Surgeon of the Charing Cross Hospital, who, with Mr. Palmer, of Mortlake, made a post-mortem examination of the body on the 4th of May, said:—

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

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

Witness.—“That the symptoms and appearances together have resulted from some irritant, administered frequently during life.”

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

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

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

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

Witness.—“No.”

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

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

MEDICAL EXPERTS FOR THE PROSECUTION.

Dr. Todd, Physician to King’s College Hospital, was then called.

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

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

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

On cross-examination, Dr. Todd said:—

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

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

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

ANALYTICAL EVIDENCE.

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

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

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

Dr. Taylor then continued:—

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

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

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

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

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

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

MEDICAL AND ANALYTICAL EVIDENCE FOR THE DEFENCE.

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

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

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

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

Witness.—“No; it was done to prove whether the chlorate would eliminate the arsenic as fast as it was given.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On cross-examination, however, he admitted that when he first attended this woman, when the symptoms first began, she had been pregnant five or six months.

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

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

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

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

THE JUDGE’S CHARGE.

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

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

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

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

On the medical testimony, the Chief Baron said:—

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

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

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

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

THE LIVERPOOL POISONING CASE.

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

Before Baron Martin, Northern Circuit, Liverpool, August 20, 1860.

For the Prosecution: The Attorney-General for the County Palatine (Mr. Bliss, Q.C.), Mr. Aspinall, and Mr. Temple.

For the Defence: Mr. Digby Seymour, Q.C. for the County Palatine, Mr. Fenwick, and Mr. Little.

HISTORY OF THE CASE.

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

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

MEDICAL AND ANALYTICAL EVIDENCE.

Dr. Cameron, who attended the post-mortem examination of the body of the deceased, gave the following description of the appearances presented.

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

On cross-examination by Mr. Digby Seymour, he said:—

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

On re-examination, the witness said:—

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

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

John Baker Edwards, Analytical Chemist, said:—

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