Note 636 — Chapter XIII · OF POISONING WITH ARSENIC. (continued 2)
Reading edition
These facts are important, because they will enable the medical jurist in some circumstances to decide a question which may be started as to the possibility of arsenic having been the cause of death when it is very rapid. I have dwelt on them more particularly than may appear necessary, because some loose statements on the subject were made in a controversy on the occasion of a trial of some note, that of Hannah Russell and Daniel Leny, at Lewes Summer Assizes 1826, for the murder of the husband of the former. Arsenic was decidedly detected in the stomach, and it was proved that the deceased did not live above three hours after the only meal at which the prisoners could have administered the poison. Now during the controversy which arose after the execution of one of the prisoners, it was alleged by one of the parties, among other reasons for believing arsenic not to have been the cause of death, that this poison never proves fatal so soon as in three hours,—that Sir Astley Cooper and Mr. Stanley of London had never known a case prove fatal in less than seven hours—and that Dr. Male’s case mentioned above is the shortest on record. The instances quoted above overthrow this whole line of statement. It was mentioned by Mr. Evans, the chief crown witness, but I know not on what authority, that, on the trial of Samuel Smith for poisoning, held at Warwick Summer Assizes 1826, the deceased was proved to have expired in two hours after taking a quarter of an ounce of arsenic. I have examined with some care the documents in the Lewes case, which were obligingly communicated to me by Mr. Evans; and I have been quite unable to discover any reason for questioning the reality of poisoning, or for the ferment which it seems the subsequent controversy excited. The case seems to have been satisfactorily made out by Mr. Evans in the first instance; and no sound medical jurist would for a moment suffer a shadow of doubt to be thrown over his mind by the criticisms of Mr. Evans’s antagonist.