  TRIALS FOR POISONING BY HYDROCYANIC OR PRUSSIC ACID. Two cases are reported under this head. The first that of John Tawell, for the murder of his mistress, Sarah Hart, at Salthill, near Windsor, tried at the Spring Assizes at Aylesbury, 1845, before the late Baron Parke (Lord Wensleydale). The second—a case of misadventure—the trial of George Ball, a surgeon, at Lewes, for the murder of his mother by the negligent administration of an overdose of this poison, medicinally, before the Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas (Coleridge) Summer Assizes, Lewes, 1860. TRIAL OF JOHN TAWELL FOR POISONING SARAH HART AT SALTHILL BY PRUSSIC ACID. March 12, 13, and 14, 1845, Spring Assizes, Aylesbury, before Baron Parke. HISTORY OF THE CASE. The trial of John Tawell, of Berkhampstead, Berks, for the murder of Sarah Hart, at Hall Place, Slough, attracted more than usual attention, from the cruelty of the act in poisoning the woman whom he had seduced, the position and popular character of the murderer as a benevolent and hospitable Quaker, noted for his charities, and the novelty of the mode by which his detection was mainly insured. The electric telegraph had only very lately been established on the line of the Great Western Railway, and though Tawell lost no time after committing the act, in getting into the train for Tawell’s life had been of a remarkable character. Originally a commercial traveller, he had exhibited a strange mixture of great shrewdness and money-making talent, combined with an outward show of religious observance. As a young man he had been indicted for forging a bill for £1000, and had he been tried on the counts for forging, or uttering, he would doubtless have been executed. By some influence, however, he was allowed to plead guilty to the count for having the bill in his possession (a nolle prosequi being entered on the others), and sentenced to transportation for life. “Accordingly,” says Mr. Justice Therry, who knew him well in Sydney, “he came out to the colony as a convict. Besides being a commercial traveller for some time, he had been in an apothecary’s shop in England, and on obtaining partial exemption from convict discipline, became the principal druggist in Sydney. After a prosperous career he sold his business for, it was said, £14,000, and judiciously invested this sum in buildings and other pursuits of profit. For nearly two years he occupied the house opposite to mine in Sydney, which gave me almost daily opportunity then of seeing him. He struck me as being a remarkably well-conducted person. He had once been a member of the Society of Friends; he wore a broad-brimmed hat, appeared always in a neat and carefully adjusted costume, and his whole appearance and manner impressed one with the notion of his being a very saintly personage. He always sought the society in public of persons of reputed piety. I have often met him in the street accompanied by a secretary or collector to a charitable institution, whom he assisted in obtaining contributions for benevolent objects. At one time he took up the cause of temperance in such an intemperate and silly spirit, that he ordered a puncheon of rum he had imported to be staved on the wharf at Sydney, and its contents poured into the sea, saying that, ‘he would not be instrumental to the guilt of disseminating such poison throughout John Tawell He conveyed no title, however, to the Society to secure them the tenure of the property. After his execution it was sold, I understood, with other portions of his property, for the benefit of the party entitled to it under his will, the Crown having waived its right to the forfeiture of the estate. “Tawell was himself a liberal contributor to charities, and the opinion of his character was so favourable, that the act for which he suffered created great astonishment in Sydney. A considerable part of his money had been realised by buying up all the whalebone that trading vessels, at an early period, imported into Sydney. This he sent to a London house, where it was manufactured into combs, handles for brushes, and various other articles of domestic use. He was the first person in the colony who converted whalebone into an article of profitable export. When he left the colony, he had a considerable property from rents and other sources which became much reduced by the general distress that prevailed in New South Wales in 1843.” Hence the anxiety expressed by him for his Sydney letters, referred to in the course of his trial. Still, however, a man of good means, occupying a respected position in his town, and noted, through a long and industrious life, for his benevolence and straightforward conduct in his relations with his neighbours, he might well say when first charged with the murder of his mistress, “My station in society places me beyond suspicion.” Such had been the remarkable career, and such was the ostensible character of the man to whom the most cold-blooded of murders was clearly brought home in the following trial.” At the trial before Mr. Baron Parke, at Aylesbury, on the 12th, 13th, and 14th of March, 1845, Sergeant Byles and Mr. Prendergast appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. Fitzroy Kelly, Q.C., Mr. Gunning, and Mr. O’Malley, assisted by Messrs. Herapath, of Bristol, Professor Graham and Dr. Letheby, of London, the eminent chemists, for the defence. In consequence of the excitement in the county caused by the event, numerous objections were taken to jurymen by the prisoner’s counsel. At length, however, a jury was formed, and after a brief recapitulation of the leading facts of the proposed evidence by Sergeant Byles, Mary Ashley, a next door neighbour of the deceased, was called, who had seen Tawell go to Sarah Hart’s between 4 and 5 in the afternoon of the 1st of January, and between 6 and 7 the same evening, “hearing a sort of stifled scream,” had gone to her door with a candle and seen him leaving the cottage. The cottages stood in a row, with small gardens in front, with rails and gates, and contained four rooms, two on the ground floor, and the same number above. “The prisoner,” said the witness, “appeared to be agitated, and unable to open the gate. I opened it for him; it was fastened with a small button. When I went out of my house, I said, ‘I am afraid my neighbour is ill’—not speaking to any person in particular, but as the prisoner was then coming down the garden I should think that I spoke loud enough for him to hear me: I was about six yards from him. No reply was made by him. When I got to the gate I could hear Mrs. Hart still making the same description of noise: the prisoner made me no answer when I asked him if I should open the gate; he appeared very much agitated, and was trying in a hurried manner to open the gate; he came out of the gate before I went in; I saw his face; I held the candle over the gate to open it: I have no doubt that he is the same man, though I had never seen him before that afternoon. In the afternoon Mrs. Hart said to me, ‘I expect my old master, but perhaps he will not come till to-morrow.’ When I got to Mrs. Hart’s door it was shut, and upon my opening it I saw Mrs. Hart lying on the floor with her head not a great way from the door; her legs were towards the fire, her dress was quite in a disordered state, her petticoats nearly up to her knees, her left On cross-examination by Mr. Kelly, she said— “That she heard Mrs. Hart’s voice rather loud after Mr. Tawell went in—only a few words, but could not hear what she said. She did not think that they were quarrelling, but that perhaps Mrs. Hart was in hysterics, as money matters were always talked over when Tawell came. When Mr. Champneys came in, he said he must try to bleed her: he did so, and there was about as much blood as would cover a plate; she died immediately afterwards; indeed, I think she was dead when he bled her. About Christmas Mrs. Hart received a basket of apples as a present—about a peck, some of which were left in a box.” On re-examination, she said— “That it was not more than a minute after she left her own house that she entered Mrs. Hart’s, and that she saw about ten or a dozen apples in the box after her death.” Mrs. Barrett confirmed Mrs. Ashley’s account of the condition in which she found the deceased, but did not see It was then proved by the barmaid at the “Windmill,” on Salthill, and a gardener, that about half after six on that day the deceased came there for a bottle of Guinness’s stout, and that she was met between her house and the “Windmill” about the same time in high spirits running towards her cottage. The next witness spoke to the acts of the prisoner before he arrived at the cottage. At three o’clock in the afternoon he had been at the Jerusalem Coffee-house, inquiring at what hour they closed, saying he was going to the West End, and should not be back until half-past eight, and wishing to leave a greatcoat and a parcel, which, by arrangement with the waiter, he fetched away about half-past nine or a quarter to ten that night, leaving his umbrella there. Other witnesses proved his being seen running from Bath Place towards Slough, getting into the Eton omnibus and stopping opposite Sir John Herschel’s house, then returning towards the Slough station and leaving it for Paddington by the half-past eight train. William Williams said— “I am a sergeant of police on the Great Western Railway, at Paddington Station. On the 1st of January, in consequence of a telegraphic communication, I observed the prisoner get out of a carriage and get into a New Road omnibus. I put on a private coat, and acted as guard. He got out opposite Princes’ Street, near the Bank, about a quarter past nine. I opened the door on purpose to look at him; he went towards the Wellington Statue, and then crossed over to Birch’s, the pastrycooks: he stood a moment, as if he was considering; I watched him from behind the Wiggins, an inspector of the Metropolitan police, gave a graphic account of the arrest. “On Thursday, the 2nd of January, I went into the Jerusalem Coffee-house with the last witness, and asked the prisoner if his name was Tawell; he said, ‘Yes.’ I then asked him if he had been at Slough last night, and he said, ‘No, I did not leave town all day yesterday.’ I then opened my coat, showed my uniform, and said, ‘I want you concerning the woman you were with last night.’ He said, ‘I don’t know anyone there.’ I said, ‘There was a woman found dead there, and you are supposed to be the last person who was seen with her alive.’ He said, ‘Thee must be mistaken in the identity, my station in society places me beyond suspicion.’ I then took him down to Salt Hill, to the ‘Three Tuns,’ where the inquest was being held. I searched him, and found £12. 10s. in gold and £1. 1s. 6d. in silver, a gold watch, and a letter addressed to him, which he said he had received from his wife. On the second day of the inquest I saw him again. After consulting with his lawyer, he said to me, ‘I took thee for a gentleman in the railway carriage.’ I said, ‘I told you I was an officer.’ He replied, ‘Yes, but that was afterwards.’ The first day of the inquest he said, ‘Mind, I have disclosed nothing.’” In cross-examination, Mr. Kelly failed to get the witness to say that when asked about Slough the prisoner said he came from Berkhampstead, and only led the witness to reiterate that he stated “that he had not been at Slough that day.” To Perkins, the inspector of the Eton police, Tawell was dangerously communicative. “On the day after I had taken him into custody,” said this witness, “and brought him to my own house, after he had seen his lawyer, he said to me, ‘The unfortunate woman once lived in my service, about two years and a half, or nearly so.’ He asked me if I knew this. I told him I had heard so. Then Holmes, the other constable, came in, and he added, ‘She left my service about five years ago.’ I told him whatever he said I should communicate to the coroner to-morrow. He said, ‘he would have no objection to that,’ and then continued, ‘she had been in the habit of writing letters to him for money,’ and that he had been pestered with her; she was a very good servant when in his service, but a bad principled woman. She wrote to him that if he did not send her something she would make away with herself. He came down to her house and told her that he would not give her any more money. She then asked him if he would not give her some porter. I then sent for a bottle of stout, and she had a glass and I had a glass. She then took out a small phial, about the size of a thimble, and said, “I will, I will,” and poured some into her glass and drank a part of it—the remainder was thrown into the fire. She then done herself about and laid down on the hearth-rug; I then went out. I did not think she was in earnest, otherwise I would have called somebody.’ I asked him if he had got those letters, and he said, ‘No, I never keep such letters as those.’ I knew him by person, having seen him at Aylesbury.” The cross-examination was unimportant—mainly directed to the probable inaccuracy of his recollection and to the nature of the communication he made to the coroner. Holmes, in addition to confirming Perkins’ report of the prisoner’s statement, was present when Mrs. Tawell visited her husband, when, in reply to her question, “what he had been doing,” he replied, “Nothing. I hope you will forgive me.” MEDICAL EVIDENCE. H. Montague Champneys, surgeon at Salthill, sent for a few minutes before 7 P.M. on January 1st, said— “I ran, and when I got there saw deceased on the floor, felt her pulse, but am not certain whether I felt any pulsation. I put my hand under her clothes over her heart, and could not discover any pulsation; considered her dead, but still thought it best to open a In the very minute and detailed cross-examination to which this witness was subjected by Mr. Kelly, he made the following statements:— “I have no experience in detecting the odour of prussic acid in a human subject—should think it may be taken without detection; should expect to find the odour in the mouth and in the breath, but there may be exceptions. Neither Mr. Pickering nor Mr. Norblad smelt it when the body was opened. It was not a conjecture of mine; I was positive of it. The smell is very peculiar and strong, and easy to be detected by those acquainted with it. “This acid exists in a great number of substances, in apples for instance, and probably in many other substances in which it has never been discovered. I agree with Dr. ChristisÖn in his opinion (p. 756) in respect of the formation of this acid in various organic substances and other articles. It is made from the blood, bones, and horns of animals. It consists of 12 carbon, 14 nitrogen, and 1 hydrogen. Those are its elements. They exist and can be obtained in great quantities from various substances—cherry-stones, and stones of various fruits; they are found in the human saliva, but not in the form of prussic acid. It (the salt) is called sulphocyanide, and when taken is perceptible in the blood and breath, but most in the stomach. “During the experiments for oxalic acid and other poisons, Messrs. Cooper, Pickering, and Norblad failed to perceive any smell. One of them then came to the conclusion that there must be prussic acid.” Question.—“Did Mr. Cooper then apply a process which would set free prussic acid from apple-pips and other substances?” Answer.—“I believe that is the process, but it was not carried “When I first saw the deceased I thought I felt a few beats of the pulse, but I imagine that I was mistaken. It might have been the pulse in my own finger. The analogy between animals and human beings dying of prussic acid is considered doubtful by the best authorities. The heart would continue to beat for a short time after the pulse had receded from the arms. The lungs might be considered slightly congested.” Mr. Kelly.—“Why then inform my learned friend that they were sound and healthy?” Witness.—“The lungs themselves were not diseased.” Mr. Kelly.—“Is it natural and healthy when the lungs are congested?” Witness.—“They contained rather more blood than usual.” Mr. Kelly.—“Is that a healthy state?” Witness.—“Not perfectly so.” Mr. Kelly.—“Is not congested lungs the cause of various modes of sudden death?” Witness.—“Yes.” “I then examined the pericardium, it was empty. The heart had a natural appearance. I do not recollect that I examined the arteries proceeding from the aorta. Any disease of the coronary arteries is likely to cause sudden death. I did not examine the spinal marrow. The valves of the heart were very clear. Death might suddenly result from the adhesion of the spinal marrow, if it had existed some time. A sudden termination also might take place where the disease is latent. I looked at the gall-bladder, the colour was natural. My experience teaches me that prussic acid would colour it blue. Mr. Kelly, reading from Watson’s “Lectures on Physic.”—“Do you agree to this—‘A blow, a fall, an electric shock, a teaspoonful of prussic acid, may cause death and leave no trace on the nervous system?’” Witness.—“Yes.” On his re-examination by Serjt. Byles, the witness said:— “In the case of the seven epileptic patients two medical men did not smell the acid, but two chemists did some time afterwards. It requires an extensive experience readily to detect the smell. Some may perceive it, some not. Several persons should smell, some not being so susceptible of the odour as others. I agree with a French chemist that ‘under a considerable number of circumstances there must be great practical knowledge to detect smell.’ If a person once knows the smell, I think he will know it again.” “I should think that before prussic acid could be obtained from horns, blood, and bones of animals, a heat of from 400 to 500 degrees would be necessary. All animals, whether human or not, die if they take prussic acid. There is no difference in its operation upon man and the inferior animals. There was no appearance of disease in the heart of the deceased. Had there been any rupture of the coronary arteries it would have been apparent. I never knew such a disease of the spinal marrow to cause sudden death. I know only of the two cases mentioned by Taylor of the gall bladder having a blue tint. The absence of it is no proof that the person did not die from prussic acid. The bottle into which I put the contents was perfectly clean and dry. The ends of the stomach were securely tied up with string when I moved the contents into the jug, which was also perfectly dry and clean. I have no doubt the deceased died from prussic acid.” After two constables (Hill and Larkin) had proved the finding of a phial in a cupboard and two others in a jug, one of SECOND DAY. Thursday, March 13. SUPPOSED PREVIOUS ATTEMPT TO POISON. Charlotte Howard, unmarried, a servant, said:— “I knew Mrs. Hart, and went to see her at Salthill on the 26th September, 1843. She had a child of mine in her care. I was there from three to four months, in which time I saw Mr. Tawell there twice. On the 30th of September he came, and in ten minutes after, Mrs. Hart sent me out for a bottle of stout, which I got and gave to her. She took it into the room where he was. Shortly after she came out and sent me for a sheet of paper, leaving Mr. Tawell in the room with the stout. When I came back she said to me ‘I am so ill, I shall be obliged to tell my master to go; I am so sick, my head is so bad.’ She was very sick, and I helped her upstairs to bed. After she got upstairs she was sick again. She was in very good health when Tawell came. She said she only drank one glass of porter and felt sick directly afterwards. I went down again and saw eighteen sovereigns on the table, which I put into a drawer. There was some porter in the glasses and in the bottle. That in the glasses I threw away, and drank that in the bottle, and it did not make me ill. Mrs. Hart complained of being very giddy, but did not say anything about her throat.” ANALYTICAL EVIDENCE. Mr. Cooper, the Analytical Chemist and Lecturer on Medical Jurisprudence, was then called and examined by Serjeant Byles. “On the 3rd of January,” said the witness, “Messrs. Champneys, Norblad, and Pickering called on me with a carpet bag. The bag contained a bottle (ordinary one, such as olives are usually sold in) full or nearly so with the contents of the stomach; a portion of porter in an ordinary beer-bottle, on which was a paper label signifying that it contained Guinness’s beer; a glass tumbler, about half full of what appeared to be a mixture of beer and water; a “By this time a small quantity of clear liquid from the contents of the basin had passed the filter; this was removed from the glass vessel employed to receive it into a test glass, and on the application of the tests for the detection of oxalic acid not the smallest trace was indicated. I then felt quite certain that oxalic acid had not been the cause of death. “I was then shown the stomach by Messrs. Champneys and Norblad, and on examining its interior surface it did not appear to have been acted on by any corrosive substance: nevertheless I thought it advisable to search for sulphuric acid, and accordingly applied to a small portion of the liquid, filtered from that which had been boiled, the test for that substance, but none could be detected. In like manner I did also apply the tests for the detection “A portion of the contents of the stomach was then taken from the bottle and put into a tubulated retort, to which was added a very small quantity of dilute sulphuric acid; the retort with its contents was placed on the sand bath, a receiver applied and a portion distilled off. When about two drachms of clear liquid had distilled over, it was removed from the receiver into a test glass, about a grain of green sulphate of iron was added, and when this was dissolved, a small quantity of solution of potassa. These were allowed to remain a short time together and stirred with a glass rod. Subsequently muriatic acid was added in sufficient quantity when instantly Prussian blue appeared, which could not have resulted unless cyanogen or hydrocyanic acid had been present. But it could not be recognised by the smell. Although I had no doubt in my own mind, from the gentle heat that had been employed in the above detailed process of distillation, that the prussic acid could not have resulted from any decomposition of the animal matters present in the contents of the stomach, yet I thought it prudent to conduct the process of distillation in such a manner as to preclude the possibility of such occurrence. “Another and much larger portion of the contents of the stomach was put into another retort, to which a little dilute sulphuric acid was added as before, and the retort with its contents placed in a water bath, to which some common salt was added. The salt-water bath was heated until it boiled; a receiver was put on to the retort, an adapter intervening so as to remove the receiver to a greater distance from the furnace, and the receiver was kept as cool as possible by folds of blotting paper kept constantly wet applied to its external surface. In this manner was the distillation slowly conducted, until about an ounce of clear liquid had distilled over.” On the removal of this liquid from the receiver it had the same smell as that contained in the bottle had before distillation, and neither myself, Mr. Norblad, Mr. Champneys, nor my son could detect the smell of prussic acid in the slightest degree. In fact the odour of beer and digesting food was so powerful as to cover or disguise the smell of the prussic acid in this weak state, but on applying the same tests as before Prussian blue was found in considerable quantity. “The few drops of liquid which were in the phial before mentioned were now examined: they had no action on litmus paper, “On the evening of the following day (Saturday) Mr. Pickering came to me to request I would on the Monday following examine, by the coroner’s desire, the contents of the glass tumbler, the beer bottle, and the remainder of the beer, to determine if prussic acid existed in any of them. On Sunday the 6th, being engaged at Derby on the Monday, Messrs. Norblad and Champneys came, bringing with them the whole of the things they took away with them on the Friday. The beer, the contents of the tumbler, and the remains of the plum bun we each subjected separately to distillation in the salt-water bath, and to the liquor obtained by distillation the same tests for detecting prussic acid were added, but not a trace could be found. “I may here observe that, on the intervening Saturday, I continued the distillation of the larger portion before spoken of for the purpose of obtaining more of the distilled liquid, and in fact to continue the distillation until the whole of the prussic acid had been separated. A part of the distilled liquor had its Prussian blue precipitated, which was given to Messrs. Norblad and Champneys on the Sunday, and to another part I added nitrate of silver for the purpose of separating the hydrocyanic acid, or rather the cyanogen it contained. I kept it safe from decomposition or change during my absence, and for the purpose of further experiments on my return, and at my leisure. “Accordingly, shortly after my return, I put the cyanide of silver obtained by the above process, together with some very dilute muriatic acid, into a small retort, to which a receiver was attached. The retort was placed over a lamp in order to be heated, and the receiver was surrounded by cold water. The distillation proceeded until about a drachm and a half had distilled over. This liquor possessed the odour of prussic acid, distinctly recognised by myself, and also by two of my sons. “It occurred to me that as Messrs. Norblad, Champneys, and myself had distinctly seen among the contents of the stomach some undigested apples, that the seeds or pips of the apple might give rise to the formation of prussic acid by distillation. I therefore determined on making an experiment to see if any and what quantity of prussic acid they were capable of producing. Accordingly the seeds from fifteen apples were bruised and put into a retort with some distilled water, and about an ounce of liquor was distilled off. On the application of the tests before spoken of, Prussian blue, in exceeding small quantity, was produced. On testing the last product of distillation, no Prussian blue was found. I have the whole of the Prussian blue thus produced. “About ten days ago I was applied to and requested to make more experiments for the purpose (if possible) of discovering the whole amount of prussic acid originally contained in the contents of the stomach, or at least of that portion brought to me. I stated that I had not the means in my possession of doing so, and that Mr. Norblad or Mr. Champneys possessed almost everything relating to the matter; but I thought it possible, if I had the remainder of the contents of the stomach, and that if it were contained in the same bottle in which it was originally brought, I might be able to do so—having a distinct recollection of about the height at which the matter stood in the neck of the bottle. Mr. Champneys, on Saturday, the 8th of February, delivered, with other matters, into my charge, the remainder of the contents of the stomach which had not before been subjected to any operation or experiment, and which, when I gave it him back, after my former experiments, I requested him to keep in a cool dark place for further investigation, should it be deemed requisite. The bottle was tightly corked and securely tied over with a piece of bladder. Before uncorking it, I made a mark with a file outside the bottle coincident with the surface of the contents in the interior. I then emptied the contents into a glass alembic, washed the bottle out with a little distilled water, and added this to the matter in the alembic. The head of the alembic was then put on, a condensing apparatus attached, the alembic placed as before on a salt-water bath, the bath brought to the boiling point, and distillation conducted until the whole of the prussic acid was expelled. A solution of nitrate of silver was put into the recipient for the purpose of seizing hold of the hydrocyanic acid the moment it reached that vessel. By this process I succeeded in obtaining 1·455 grains of dry cyanide of silver, very slightly contaminated with chloride of silver. The latter did not amount to a quantity “I may also remark that the contents of the stomach, after distillation, was still strongly acid, occasioned most probably by the acid in the beer, and also by the acid which is invariably produced during the process of digestion.” During his examination, Mr. Cooper produced the bottles containing the Prussian blue produced from the stomach and from the apple-pips—the former dark blue in colour, the latter hardly more than tinged with it. When placed side by side on the front of the witness-box the marked contrast caused much excitement in Court. The cross-examination of this witness by Mr. Kelly was so important, that though very lengthy it is necessary to give it in considerable detail. “Until this case,” said the witness, “I had never examined the contents of a human stomach where a person had been killed by prussic acid, or a human stomach containing prussic acid. Respecting the effect of prussic acid on the stomach and tissues of the body, my knowledge is only theoretical. Prussic acid, which I have smelt from its most concentrated to its weakest state, has a peculiar smell; it affects different persons differently. When I smell it, it affects spasmodically the back of the throat. But it loses its smell in combinations. I am not aware what quantity of prussic acid destroys life. I have no practical knowledge on the subject. The case I am most familiar with is that of the seven epileptics. “I began my investigation with the view of seeing if oxalic acid was present. I recognised the odour of beer more strongly in the contents of the stomach than anything else. I did not trace the smell of prussic acid in them, nor feel any spasmodic affection in the throat in smelling them. I did not come to the conclusion, after trying for those acids and mercurial poisons, which I did not discover, that there was prussic acid in the stomach, but I remarked to those present at that time, ‘Well, if this person has taken poison, it must be prussic acid.’ “I have no idea how much Prussian blue I obtained from the first experiment, as it was made in a hurry. (The bottle of dark blue liquid was here shown again.) I thought the obtaining evidence of its presence sufficient. I got more Prussian blue in the second experiment than in the first, and more in the third experiment than the second. I have not calculated the total amount of Prussian blue in the bottle.” As to the contents of the stomach: “There was undigested flesh and a pulpy mass of which I could make nothing, and some portion of apple, but no pips either partially digested or undigested with the apple. I am not prepared to say that the pips of this apple contained more prussic acid than others. There is a great difference between bitter and sweet apples—the bitter contain a great deal of prussic acid, the sweet, I believe, none.” As to prussic acid being in many substances: “Strictly speaking, I don’t think it exists in any substance, not even in bitter almonds. I mean in a free state; it is so extremely volatile that it cannot possibly exist unless in combination with some other substance. It is my opinion that prussic acid is a ‘product,’ and not an ‘educt’—that is to say, in consequence of its great volatility it Question.—“Are not the substances which are already known to contain the elements of prussic acid, and from which it can be obtained, very numerous?” Answer.—“They are very numerous certainly, because all those compounds which contain carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, and hydrogen, may, in my opinion, by new changes be made to produce prussic acid. All animal substances of any kind contain those elements, in which are contained the elements of prussic acid. I agree, as far as I know, with Christison, that the distilled seeds of bitter almonds, and pomaceous seeds, yield prussic acid by distillation.” Question.—“Is it not found, from time to time, by accident or experiment, to exist in organic and other matters?” Answer.—“I believe it is. I was the first person to discover it in fulminating silver, and perhaps also in apple-pips, from recent experiments. I am not aware of it ever having been produced by mere organic changes in the stomach. If the apple-pips on which I operated had been macerated, I cannot say that I should have obtained more Prussian blue. I know it is the habit to macerate bitter almonds, but I also know that without maceration they have sometimes yielded more prussic acid than with maceration.” Question.—“I will ask you one question more, ‘Do you agree with Dr. Taylor that the odour of prussic acid, which is said to be peculiar, may be found when all tests fail?” Answer.—“I do not believe it. As far as my experience goes, it would lead me to the contrary conclusion.” Question.—“But if I understand you rightly, you do not smell prussic acid, but feel its effects in another way?” Answer.—“Sometimes it has produced a spasmodic constriction about the throat, without my smelling it. At other times I have distinctly smelt it. It depends very much, I think, on the state of the nasal organ at the time.” To Serjeant Byles.—“The same peculiar action at the back of the throat is, I think, felt by others on putting prussic acid to the nose. I communicated the nature of my evidence to the solicitor of the prisoner about a month ago.” Baron Parke.—“Have you or have you not a doubt upon your Witness.—“None whatever! I have no doubt that prussic acid may exist without being smelt.” Baron Parke.—“If there was an absence of smell, would you suppose that the prussic acid was present in the shape of a salt, and that, therefore, you did not smell it?” Witness.—“Absence of smell may arise from dilution, or from its being covered by the smell of other substances.” Baron Parke.—“Do you, in this particular case, ascribe the absence of smell to the circumstance of the prussic acid being in the form of a salt?” Witness.—“No, because it could not exist in the stomach as a cyanide of potassium, which is a salt, or as a cyanide of soda, when another and more powerful acid was present; as, for instance, muriatic acid, which in this case was found in considerable quantity, it being an acid generated by the process of digestion.” Baron Parke.—“Do you not believe that there was also acetic acid present. Is not that a strong acid?” Witness.—“I have no doubt there was also acetic acid present, and it would have a greater affinity for soda or potash than prussic acid. I think prussic acid cannot be formed by putrefaction in the stomach.” Mr. Joseph Cooper, a son of the last witness, and his assistant for four years, deposed to having smelt the ordinary prussic acid at the time in the process, mentioned by his father. Mr. Norblad, surgeon and apothecary at Slough for 10 years, said: “On January 2 I went to Mrs. Hart’s house and saw her body; have heard the evidence of Mr. Champneys, and should say that death was caused by prussic or oxalic acid; do not know of any other poisons that would produce death so rapidly; was present at Mr. Cooper’s experiments; have heard and perfectly agree with his evidence; oxalic acid must have been detected if present; I am quite of opinion that prussic acid was present in the stomach, and have no doubt about it; have heard the evidence of the witness Howard, the symptoms she describes (of supposed former attempt) are precisely those of prussic acid. That acid acts uniformly upon all animal subjects, and destroys life in the same way in all cases. By the Court.—“I examined the brain; it was perfectly healthy; death did not arise from apoplexy.” By Serjeant Byles.—“Less than a grain of pure prussic acid would be sufficient to produce death.” Cross-examined by Mr. Kelly:— “I have never attended any one who had taken prussic acid except in the form of medicine. The average dose of Scheele’s is five minims, and a minim is about a grain. Never heard of prussic acid being administered externally for varicose veins, and should think it useless (prescription handed to him). That is a proper prescription for varicose veins. I agree with Dr. Thompson, of London, that prussic acid may be applied successfully to diseases of the skin and cancerous affections to alleviate pain. I consider my sense of smell very acute. I mixed twelve grains of prussic acid with a pint of porter, but could not smell it. Some porter dropped on the table and I did then smell it. I know that prussic acid when combined with the blood of an animal volatilises very rapidly when exposed to the air. There is a case in which prussic acid appears to have allayed irritation of the stomach; it is a useful medicine sometimes in small doses. I have seen dogs vomit after it. Disease of the heart would produce death from mental emotion or rupture of the coronaries of the heart. Forcing water down the throat of a person in a syncope might cause sudden death. There was no congestion or gorging of the lungs. I saw but did not examine specially the coronary arteries.” Kelly.—“If sudden death had occurred from a disease of the coronary arteries, what would be the appearance of the lungs?” Witness.—“The lungs have nothing to do with the coronary “I examined the lungs carefully. The lungs have been found gorged in some persons who have died of prussic acid. I don’t think that what has been called congestion was always clearly so. In all cases of paralysis of the heart, the blood has not been returned to the heart, and remaining in it gorges the lungs. Death by prussic acid paralyses the heart. In death from prussic acid, death is often denoted by an involuntary scream. I cannot say that I have heard of a succession of screams in any case of the kind. When I first saw the body, my impression was that death had been caused by oxalic acid, and that impression continued until the tests were applied. Blackness of the stomach is a symptom. There was a dark spot on the surface of the stomach. I have not seen a case of poisoning by oxalic acid.” Re-examined by Mr. Prendergast. “There was nothing in the stifled screams described by Mrs. Ashley yesterday at all inconsistent with poisoning by prussic acid; on the contrary, the catching of the breath is the last symptom. Less than one grain of prussic acid will kill a healthy person.” By the Court.—“I saw nothing on the brain to indicate death by apoplexy. If a sudden emotion had caused death I don’t think I could have told that by the brain.” Mr. Pickering, who had been in practice as a surgeon for nine years, and was present when Mr. Champneys made the first incision through the integuments, said he then smelt the odour of prussic acid, Previous visits of Tawell to Mrs. Hart, were proved by Kesiah Harding, a washerwoman at Slough, in December, 1844, and particularly on the Monday week before her death, when he told the deceased that he wished her to be alone when he next came, and that he would come on the Tuesday or Saturday week. PURCHASE OF PRUSSIC ACID BY TAWELL. This was proved by Henry Thomas, shopman to a Mr. Hughes, a chemist in Bishopsgate Street, who said, “On the 1st of January, between twelve and two the prisoner came to the shop dressed in a great coat and usual quaker garb and asked for two drachms of Scheele’s Prussic Acid, bringing with him a ½oz. bottle with a regular label of Scheele’s Acid on it. As I could not get the stopper out, I gave it him in one of our own bottles. When about to put on a label, I believe the prisoner said “You need not,” but I would not swear it. He said he wanted it for an external application to varicose veins, paid 4d. for it, which was entered in the book now produced. Next day he came again between ten and two and asked for the same quantity, and, as he had broken our bottle, took it in the one he had originally brought. I had seen him frequently before and might have sold him prussic acid, but am not certain. He told me, three months before, that he had been a chemist and apothecary abroad. I do not remember his being in a hurry to catch the train and my being not able to get the stopper out. It is our practice to do it. We usually cover our bottles with leather. Attended at Aylesbury on the 13th of January, and recognised the prisoner the next morning in gaol.” The cross-examination of this witness, who was evidently favourable to the prisoner and in communication with his solicitor, was directed to three points—the suitability of prussic acid to the disease in the legs from which the prisoner suffered; the effect of porter on the odour of prussic acid when mixed with it; and the amount that can be produced from apple-pips. “The prisoner,” said the witness, “told me he was suffering from varicose veins. I judged that he was, from the medicine I sold him. He rubbed his leg. The prescription now shown me Baron Parke.—“What is that?” Kelly.—“Scheele’s Acid.” Witness.—“That prescription is in the handwriting of Dr. Addison. I do not believe that Scheele’s Prussic Acid could be mixed with a drink and taken by a person and not smelt after death. I do not think porter would disguise it. I put about twenty drops of Scheele’s Prussic Acid down the throat of a parrot with a glass syringe. Three women were present, and the smell was so strong and suffocating, that it compelled them to leave the room. The bird was afterwards stuffed. I mixed thirty drops of this acid with eleven ounces of porter, and found the odour slightly perceptible. I did not perceive the difference when the froth was on and when there was none. It is the property of prussic acid to give out a smell when volatilising. Apple-pips contain prussic acid. I have assisted at the extracting it from fifteen small apples. The process was a soft-water bath, diluted sulphuric acid, and sulphate of iron. Two Grains And a Quarter of Cyanide of Silver Were Produced. I did this under the direction of Dr. Lievesley, a lecturer at the London Hospital. In this process two sweet almonds were used.” On cross-examination by Serjeant Byles the witness admitted that he made this experiment on the 9th of March at the request of the Prisoner’s solicitor, and that he had never made this experiment before; that he had been with Mr. Hughes only about a year and half, and was paid £80 a year, and that Dr. Lievesley provided the London Pharmacopoeia acid, and the porter. On being shown a leather or paper covering of a small bottle that had been found in the ashes of the grate in Mrs. Hart’s house, the witness declared that it could not be the covering of the bottle that he had put on, as it was too small for leather. HISTORY OF MRS. HART. Sarah Bateman said that she knew Mrs. Hart six years ago, when employed to nurse the Prisoner’s first wife, who soon after died. The witness at that time observed that Mrs. Hart—then known as Hadler—was with child, and the following statement was subsequently made by her when at tea with Tawell and the witness. “I am in the family way, and will vindicate my master in it. He is going to be married to Sarah Catforth (the present wife), ‘and if it was to get abroad it would make a great difference to him.’ She seemed much excited, and Tawell begged her not to excite herself. ‘He was about to be admitted into the Society of Friends,’ he said, ‘and should not like these things to get abroad.’ She said, ‘He could marry Miss Catforth, and no one, not even her mother, should know what had become of her.’” Mary Ann Moss, of Crawford Street, Bryanston Square, with whom Mrs. Hart came to lodge in 1841, when she was confined of a girl, remembered Tawell frequently visiting her, as Mrs. Hart said, “to bring her money from her husband.” From there she removed to a small house on Paddington Green for the sake of privacy, where Tawell paid regular visits, and eventually to Salt Hill, at Tawell’s desire. She represented to this witness that her husband was Tawell’s son, that Tawell disapproved of the marriage, and that the girl and a boy of whom she had been subsequently delivered were his. Mrs. Hart’s mother, Mrs. Hadler, also spoke to her having not heard of her for several years. With the proof by a clerk of Barnet’s Bank that Tawell had drawn a cheque for £14 on the 1st of January, and the identification of certain letters being in his handwriting, the case for the prosecution was closed. THE DEFENCE. The nature of the defence opened by Mr. Fitzroy Kelly, in his long and eloquent address to the jury has already been indicated by his cross-examination of the medical witnesses, THE JUDGE’S CHARGE. After the usual introductory caution to the Jury to be strictly impartial, Baron Parke said:— “He would next tell them what the case was, and how it was to be proved. It was to be proved by circumstantial evidence—the only sort of evidence that could be obtained in most cases of a similar nature. The most atrocious crimes were committed in secret, but Providence had so ordered it that some traces were frequently left which were sufficient to lead to the discovery of the perpetrators. The law, therefore, wisely provided that direct proof of crime was not absolutely necessary; but on the other hand it was equally necessary that by circumstantial evidence the case should be so fully made out as to leave no rational doubt of its committal. He should, therefore, advise them to lay down the rule, that they should first consider what had been proved to their satisfaction, and then whether all those facts were consistent with the guilt of the prisoner. If they thought that they were consistent with his guilt—and there was nothing inconsistent with it except the prisoner’s previous character—then they should consider whether they were inconsistent with his innocence, and they should remember that the existence of the crime was not inconsistent with the other parts of the case. Whilst on this part of the case, he should observe that the counsel for the prisoner had admitted all those facts, but had asserted that the law required not only that those facts should be proved, but that it should be shown directly that the deceased had died from poison, and that a sufficient quantity of poison to cause death had been found in her stomach. That was not true of the law. It was not necessary to give direct and The learned judge then proceeded to comment on the evidence of Mrs. Ashley, and others, who deposed to the perfect health and good spirits of the deceased up to a few minutes of the discovery of her lifeless body, and to the medical evidence of the perfect state of her internal bodily organs, leaving no doubt that she had not died from natural causes. He then went to the evidence of Messrs. Champneys and Pickering, the surgeons, who, on opening the body of the deceased on the day following her death smelt the odour of the prussic acid. With respect to the evidence regarding the odour of the acid being perceptible under this or that circumstance, said the Judge:— “All that could be inferred was, that though the perception of it was a positive proof of its presence, the non-perception was no proof of its not being present. As to the deceased having died from water having been poured down her throat, it was quite idle to attribute it to that. At that moment she was not living: death had already done its work. With regard to the quantity of prussic acid requisite to kill a human being, it had been proved that less than a grain would kill in some cases, as appeared by the melancholy cases so frequently referred to of the seven epileptic patients in Paris; and Mr. Cooper had proved that more than a grain existed in the stomach of the deceased. It was said that the experiments were not satisfactorily conducted—that was a question for the jury. “In considering the conduct of the prisoner, the jury must couple it with all the other evidence, in order to judge how far it “He had told several falsehoods when informed of the nature of the charge. On the Friday, about one o’clock, the prisoner had an interview with his legal adviser, and after that, but not until after that, did he make any attempt at explanation or give any account of what had taken place; and the account which he then gave was the extraordinary statement of her self-destruction. Here, then, the prisoner represented himself as present when the poison was administered, and as it was found in her stomach, it was for the jury to say whether the question did not amount to the simple one, of whether she had destroyed herself or the Coming then to the question of motive the Judge gave a brief history of the connection between the prisoner and the deceased, and, after detailing its commencement, commented on it as showing her extraordinary affection and devotion to the prisoner. “With striking self-devotion,” said Baron Parke, “she had said, that, in order not to prevent the union of the prisoner with the lady to whom he was about to be married, she would go out of the world, and be dead to the world, even to her own mother, from that day forth; and the jury had heard from that very mother that from that time she had never heard of her unfortunate daughter until after her death. She kept her promise. She did go out of the world, and went from place to place till she went to reside at Slough. It appeared that there she received from the prisoner an allowance of £13 a quarter, and on the day in question it was seen that he was to have taken her her quarterly allowance. When taken into custody, the sum of £12 10s., besides silver, was found in his pocket; and it was proved that he had drawn a cheque for £14 that morning. From that fact it might be inferred that he had gone down with a sort of mixed feeling, either of paying her the money or, if he had the opportunity of accomplishing his purpose, of poisoning her. But as to motive for destroying her, it had been suggested that no man would commit such a dreadful crime for the sake of getting rid of expense. That, he should say, was not a matter to be easily judged of.” His Lordship then touched upon all the evidence regarding his alleged pecuniary circumstances, and read the letter from his wife, in which allusion was made to his anxiety to have the papers from Sydney. “As to the feeling appeal made upon that affectionate letter by his counsel, it only proved that the prisoner had been very kind to and enjoyed the affection of his wife, which was not at all incompatible with the commission of the crime with which he stood charged towards another woman.” As to the alleged previous attempt to poison the deceased in September last, the Judge considered that there was no sufficient proof that he then administered prussic acid to her. It was, however, remarkable that after drinking porter with the prisoner on the 30th September, she should have been so ill, and that after drinking porter with him on the 1st of January she should have been taken ill and died. The strong facts against the prisoner, in his opinion, “were his presence at the woman’s house at the time she died; his declarations before and after his arrest, and the fact that prussic acid was found in her stomach.” The Judge then read over the whole of the material evidence, and, with the usual caution, left the case in the hands of the jury. On Mr. Gunning reminding him of the evidence to the prisoner’s character which had been produced, Baron Parke said—“Such evidence was admissible in cases of this kind, because it went to show the general impression of the habits and feelings of a person. The prisoner was reputed to be a kind-hearted, benevolent man. It was admitted that he had been transported for some offence, the nature of which they had not been told, but it was said that it was not one to affect his character for kindness of disposition.” The Judge then read over the evidence to character, and left it to the jury to decide in reference to its value to the prisoner in his present position. On the conclusion of the Judge’s charge, which lasted from eight in the morning until half-past eleven, the Jury retired, and in about half an hour returned a verdict of Guilty. In a At the Easter Quarter Sessions of the County, held subsequently to the execution of Tawell, an ineffectual attempt was made by a section of the magistrates to compel the jail chaplain to deliver to the visiting justices this written confession, which the chaplain refused to hand over, on the ground of its having been received under the seal of confession, and on the promise that it should not be published. All that was known of it rested on the statement of the governor of the prison, and the general admission of the chaplain that it was a full confession of the prisoner’s guilt. A difficult legal question arose, after Tawell’s death, with reference to his Australian land, which the Crown re-granted to his widow and family, after its forfeiture by his conviction; whether this re-grant should prevail over the claims of a previous purchaser, a retired auctioneer, who had houses on it, who alleged that he had purchased it for a bon fide consideration, under a sufficient power of attorney, executed before Tawell’s conviction. “The affixing the seal of the colony to this grant by Sir W. Denison, created a serious difference between that governor and his chief minister, Mr. Cowper. The seal was affixed pursuant to the instructions of the Secretary of the Colonies, who only acted in the matter in accordance with the opinion of the Attorney and Solicitor-General of England. A part of the sworn duty of a colonial governor is to obey the instructions of the Secretary of State TRIAL OF GEORGE BALL FOR POISONING HIS MOTHER WITH PRUSSIC ACID. July, 1860, Home Circuit, Lewes, before Coleridge, Chief Justice of Common Pleas. Barrow, for the Prosecution. Serjeant Ballantine for the Defence. This case, really of misadventure, is reported, briefly, as showing the carelessness with which dangerous medicines may, no doubt most unintentionally, be administered even by professional men, the culpable ignorance in some of those chemists who deal in such deadly preparations. The accused, a medical man, but not in regular practice, had for some time attended his mother, a very ailing old lady, and been in the habit of giving her small doses of prussic acid, as a remedy for violent attacks of vomiting to which she was subject. On the 11th of July in consequence, he purchased of a Mr. Moswell, a chemist in Lewes, a drachm of Scheele’s prussic acid, equal to 60 “minims,” and gave her a dose of 4 “minims.” The result was favourable, and the old lady went for a walk. On her return, however, she again complained, and the accused administered another dose of prussic acid, evidently from its effects, a deadly quantity, as she hardly got to her bedroom before she became insensible, and died almost instantaneously. The accused believed he had given her only seven drops, the proper quantity to be given. That he gave her seven drops was not doubted, but Mr. Scrate, a surgeon at Lewes (who was sent for by the accused, found the lady dead and the accused apparently in a very distressed state of mind), said:— “I asked what was the matter; and the accused said he had given her seven drops of prussic acid, and witness replied he must have given her more.” Chief Justice.—“Would seven drops be sufficient to cause death?” Witness.—“Not according to my experience; it was the proper quantity to be given. The smallest quantity of prussic acid on record having caused death was of nine-tenths of a grain.” Chief Justice.—“How many ‘minims’ would a ‘drop’ contain?” Witness.—“That would depend upon how the drops were obtained from the bottle. If the cork was partly in, the drop would be larger than if it was carefully poured from the open neck of the bottle. Some medical men made use of one method and some of the other, but it was his practice not to rely on ‘drops,’ but to measure ‘minims.’” To Mr. Barrow.—“With such a deadly poison as prussic acid I should say that it was not prudent for any medical man to rely on ‘drops,’ but to measure ‘minims.’ The proper doses, as marked on all bottles of Scheele’s strength, to be administered were one, two, or the largest three ‘minims.’ Scheele’s acid was not uniform in strength: sometimes it contained four, sometimes five, and sometimes as much as six per cent.” Chief Justice.—“Would not that amount to almost the difference between life and death?” Witness.—“It would make a very great difference certainly. Taylor and other eminent medical men have recommended that Scheele’s prussic acid should not be used, on account of the very great variation of strength. I myself always use that of the Pharmacopoeia. But notwithstanding what has been written upon the subject by many eminent men, Scheele’s acid is generally used in the profession.” Chief Justice.—“Supposing the acid to be of the highest strength you have mentioned, do you consider seven drops would have been sufficient to cause death?” Witness.—“I don’t believe they would.” To Mr. Barrow.—“Six per cent. is an exceptional strength, but I should think that it would take seventeen minims of that strength to cause death.” Chief Justice.—“What do you say is the difference between a ‘drop’ and a ‘minim’?” Witness.—“That would depend on the sort of ‘drop.’ The prisoner afterwards gave me a bottle which contained prussic acid. He told me he had given his mother four minims, and 2·5 minims remained. I did not test the strength of what remained, but had no doubt the deceased died from the effects of prussic acid.” To Serjeant Ballantine.—“There was a broken cork in the bottle when the accused gave it to me. In his opinion ‘seventeen minims’ was the smallest dose that would destroy life. It was very easy to destroy life when dropping the liquid from a bottle. When accused told him he had given seven drops, he understood that he had given three and a half minims. He had never heard of any instance in which the strength of Scheele’s acid had exceeded six per cent.” Mr. C. H. Moswell (chemist in Lewes).—“On the 11th of July accused came to his shop and asked for some prussic acid. Gave him a drachm, which would contain sixty minims. Did not measure it, but gave what he considered a quarter of the bottle.” Cross-examined by Serjeant Ballantine.—“As you say you really did not measure it, can you tell us how much prussic acid you really did give?” Witness.—“I cannot say to a drop. I am sure he had fifty drops. I consider a ‘drop’ and a ‘minim’ synonymous. I gave him about the quantity, but when prussic acid is dispensed by a medical man, he is, of course, careful as to the quantity he uses.” Chief Justice.—“We have been told that a ‘drop’ contains two ‘minims,’ and this witness says he looks upon them as synonymous.” Serjeant Ballantine.—“If you were told to give a patient so many ‘minims,’ should you give him so many ‘drops’?” Witness.—“Certainly not.” Serjeant Ballantine.—“Can you tell us the strength of the prussic acid you sold?” Witness.—“I don’t know what the strength was—I should suppose about four per cent.” Case for the prosecution closed. The Chief Justice called the attention of the Jury to the evidence and observed, that the fact of the cork being broken in the bottle and defective was certainly an important matter for their consideration, as it admitted the possibility that the prussic acid might have escaped from the bottle accidentally, and then there was an absence of evidence that an excessive dose had been administered by the accused. The Jury almost immediately returned a verdict of “Not Guilty.” If the estimate of the witness Scrate is taken for the difference between a drop and a minim, and the second witness, Moswell, is correct in saying that he gave the accused at least 50 drops, equal to 25 minims, as only 2·5 minims were left in the bottle, equal to 4¼ drops; in the two doses the accused must have administered more than 45 drops, equal to 22½ minims. If the cork was not broken in the bottle when the first dose was administered, the probability is that the dose then given did not exceed seven drops of the size that would make them equal to 3½ minims, thus leaving 19 minims for the second dose. It is to be regretted that the strength of the prussic acid was not tested. NOTE ON TAWELL’S CASE. In a case of the poisoning at Egglesham, near Glasgow, by prussic acid, of a young woman, of the name of Agnes Montgomery, by Peter Walker, a tailor, the symptoms were thus described by one of the witnesses, as well as the effect of prussic acid on herself:— “After we learnt that the moaning came from Aggie’s room, we came up, got Clarkson’s key, and went in. (As in Tawell’s case, the prisoner had left the girl’s room only a few minutes before.) Aggie was sitting on a chair (in which it was probable from other evidence that she had been placed by her murderer), with her head leaning on the table. The body was quite still. There was a little froth coming out of the wicks of her mouth. It was a little coloured with blood; and we afterwards found she In this case, on a post-mortem examination of the exhumed body, the presence of prussic acid was clearly detected; and it was proved on the trial that the prisoner had employed a carrier to get some prussic acid for him, and that the bottle containing it had been given to him on the day of the murder; and the fragments of a glass phial were subsequently discovered, with the key of the girl’s room, at the root of a tree, at which the prisoner had been seen stopping, as he returned from going for a doctor. In this case the poison had been most probably given in beer, as in Tawell’s, a tumbler in which beer had been being found on the girl’s table. The fellow, two months afterwards, tried to poison a Mr. Mason and his wife, with whom he had gone to lodge in Glasgow, with prussic acid, but happily failed in his attempt. He confessed his guilt; and at first gave as his motive his desire to possess himself of the girl’s money, but subsequently said he could not tell what possessed him to do it. “Following so closely on the case of Madeleine Smith, the probability is that her case had had on him the same effect as |
|
