G. Lathom Browne

POISONING BY ACONITIA OR ACONITINE. THE WIMBLEDON POISONING CASE—DR. LAMSON.

Under this head of poisons, there is only one trial to report in full, that of Dr. Lamson for the murder of his brother-in-law, Percy Malcolm John, at Wimbledon, on Saturday, the 3rd of December, 1881, for which he was tried before Mr. Justice Hawkins, at the Central Criminal Court, on the 8th of March, 1882, and the five following days. The especial difficulties in the way of detecting this preparation of aconite, invested the case with more than usual interest to both the medical and legal profession. The subsequent attempt by the convict’s friends to induce the Home Secretary to delay his execution, in order that his mental condition might be inquired into, backed as it was by the American Government, kept alive the public interest to an unusual extent, and bid fair to revive another such controversy as that which followed, but with a different result, on the conviction of Smethurst. By the kindness of Mr. W. A. Mills, Dr. Lamson’s solicitor, I have had the advantage of reading the whole of the very numerous affidavits tendered in support of this application, of which I have given a summary at the close of the trial.[197]

Though the trial now reported is the only one in which aconitia was employed, other forms of aconite have been used in previous cases. In that of Dr. Pritchard it was administered in the form of tincture of aconite, and as far back as 1841, in the case of Reg. v. McConkey, it was administered as powdered aconite root. In this case the reputed poisoner was tried at the Lent Assizes, Monaghan, and the medico-legal investigation was conducted by the late Dr. Geoghegan, of Dublin. As in Pritchard’s and Lamson’s cases, the medical evidence was beset with difficulties, for no trace of the poison could be discovered in the body, and it was only by a close analysis of symptoms and appearances that the charge was brought home to the prisoner. The deceased had eaten at his dinner some greens dressed for him by the prisoner: he complained of their having a sharp taste, and this was perceived also by another person present who tasted them. It was ascertained that the deceased, soon after the meal, had vomited a greenish matter, and suffered from purging, restlessness, incoherence, lockjaw, and clenching of the hands. He died in about three hours after having eaten the greens, but was not seen by a medical man while living. The chief appearance met with was in the stomach, where the mucous membrane was of a light reddish-brown colour. Traces of vegetable matter were found in the intestines, but no poison could be detected, either botanically or chemically. The symptoms suffered by a friend of the deceased, who had accidentally tasted the greens, were very characteristic of poisoning by aconite. In two minutes he felt a burning heat in the mouth, throat, gullet, and stomach; then a sensation of swelling in the face, with a general feeling of numbness and creeping of the skin. Restlessness, dimness of sight, and stupor almost amounting to insensibility, followed; and in about an hour after the meal he was found speechless—frothing at the nose and mouth, the hands and jaws clenched, appearing occasionally as if dead, and then again reviving. Vomiting, purging, tenderness at the pit of the stomach, cramps, tingling of the flesh, and a burning taste in the mouth, followed. This man did not entirely recover until after the lapse of five weeks. The prisoner was convicted, and confessed before his execution that the powdered root of Monkshood (aconite) had been mixed with pepper and sprinkled over the greens.[198]

THE WIMBLEDON POISONING CASE.

Before The Hon. Mr. Justice Hawkins, at the Central Criminal Court, March 9, and five following days, 1882.

For the Prosecution: The Solicitor-General (Sir F. Herschel), Mr. Poland, and Mr. A. L. Smith.

For the Defence: Mr. Montagu Williams, Mr. C. Matthews, Mr. E. Gladstone, and Mr. W. S. Robson.

George Henry Lamson, surgeon, aged 29, was indicted for the murder of his brother-in-law, Percy Malcolm John, at Blenheim House, Wimbledon, on December 3rd, 1881.

HISTORY OF THE CASE.

In the winter of 1881, among the pupils at the school of Mr. Bedbrook, of Blenheim House, Wimbledon, was Percy Malcolm John, the youngest of the five children of a Manchester merchant, a lad of about nineteen years of age, a sad sufferer from paralysis of the lower limbs produced by curvature of the spine, but otherwise in a fair state of health. Since the death of their mother in 1869, the children had been orphan wards in Chancery, and previously to 1881, one brother and one sister had died, under age, another sister had married a Mr. Chapman, and the third the prisoner, a medical practitioner at Bournemouth, who was now indicted for the murder of his brother-in-law. By the wills of their parents, the children, as they came of age or married, were entitled to the family property in equal shares, those of such as died under age passing to the survivors. Hence, at the time of his death, Percy John had property in expectance to the amount of £3,000, which, in the event of his death as a minor, would be equally divided between his two married sisters, and by the settlement made by Mrs. Lamson on her marriage, her share would come into the hands of the prisoner.[199] Though such a sad sufferer from paralysis as to be unable to move about readily except in a wheel-chair, and only able to drag himself backwards up a few stairs,[200] there were no symptoms of serious bodily illness in the lad: his temper was good, and his intelligence fair.

In his brother-in-law’s health Lamson appeared to take great interest, visiting him at the school, having him to stay at his own house, and sending to his master from America some medicines which he stated had been found useful in that country in similar cases. On the 1st of December, the prisoner wrote to the boy that he would come to see him the next evening, before he left for Paris—a promise which he failed to keep.[201] On the 3rd, however, about seven in the evening, he came, bringing with him some sweets, a cake, and a box containing gelatine capsules, which he told the master he had brought for him from America, as convenient for enabling him to administer nauseous medicines to his pupils. At this interview with his brother-in-law, he persuaded Mr. Bedbrook, who was present, to take one of these capsules to try how easily they were swallowed. Whilst doing so, the master noticed that the prisoner was filling another with some powdered sugar, which he had asked for, on the plea of destroying the alcohol in some wine of which he was partaking. When he had put in the sugar, the prisoner, turning to the lad, shook up the capsule, saying, “It has to be shaken in order that the medicine may go to the bottom. You are good at taking medicine; take this.” The boy swallowed the capsule, and within a few minutes after, the prisoner, saying that he wanted to catch the tidal-train for Paris, left the school-house. In about twenty minutes afterwards Percy complained of heartburn, gradually became worse, was carried up to bed, and vomited largely in the closet.[202] “He felt,” he said, “as he had done in the previous August when the prisoner gave him a pill in the Isle of Wight.” He was in great pain, violently restless, and with difficulty kept down by those who were holding him. After more simple remedies had failed to relieve him, the doctors who had been called in injected morphia under the skin, which had a temporary effect. This was subsequently repeated, but with no apparent result, and shortly afterwards he died, within four hours of swallowing the capsule. The post-mortem examination revealed no signs of such a natural form of disease as would account for his sudden death—the only sign of disease being the long-standing curvature of the spine, distressing, but at that time innocuous. A chemical analysis of the stomach and other parts of the body was had, and, so far as the present state of scientific knowledge could decide, it was the firm opinion of the experienced analysts Drs. Stevenson and DuprÉ, that death was due to an irritant vegetable poison, and that that poison was aconitia, a most highly poisonous vegetable alkaloid, containing the active principle of aconite, the product of the root of monkshood.

Suspicion naturally fell on the prisoner, and was greatly increased when it was discovered that a few days before his last visit to the boy he had purchased aconitia in London, and that previously to the illness of the deceased in the Isle of Wight, the prisoner had also purchased of a druggist at Shanklin some of this deadly poison. In the meantime the prisoner had gone to Paris, whence on the 8th of December he unexpectedly returned, presented himself to the police at Scotland Yard, in consequence, as he said, of the reports he had seen in the papers, and, apparently to his surprise, was taken into custody.

Other incidents in the prisoner’s career and conduct gradually came to light. Whilst in practice as a surgeon at Bournemouth he had been in great pecuniary difficulties, though he had received his share of the property of that one of the children who had died a minor; an execution had been put into his house, and at the time of the murder he was admittedly in straitened circumstances. Again, in the boy’s boxes at school, in addition to some genuine quinine powders purchased of a chemist in the Isle of Wight, and proved to be free from poison, which had been sent to the boy by the prisoner, were three heavily charged with aconitia, and two pills containing this deadly drug. Again, he had written to the boy on the 1st of December that he would call on him on his way to Paris the next day. He went to Wimbledon, however, on the evening of the 2nd, with his friend, a Mr. Tulloch, whom he left at the station, whilst he professed to have gone to the school, and to whom he said that “he had seen his brother-in-law, who was much worse, and that he did not expect he would live long, and that he would not go on to Paris that night, as Mr. Bedbrook, who was a director of a continental line, had told him that there was a bad boat on.” All this was untrue. He had never been to the school, and Mr. Bedbrook had nothing to do with any continental line. He had invented the whole story.

In the trial that followed, the interest centred on the impossibility of detecting vegetable poisons by any chemical tests, and on the necessity, as in Dr. Pritchard’s case, with aconite, of relying on the test of tasting the extract from the various parts of the body. On this test, supported by the effects observed on injecting drops of the extract under the skins of mice, which successively died of the operation, and exhibited the same symptoms before death as resulted from similar injections of pure aconitia, depended the proof that the death resulted from this poison. I proceed therefore to give the medical and analytical evidence in detail.

EVIDENCE OF MEDICAL ATTENDANTS.

Dr. Berry, of Wimbledon, the regular medical attendant at the school, who had known the deceased for a year and a half, and only had occasion to attend him twice during that time, once for vaccination, and another time for an eruption on the skin, his state of health being otherwise good, gave the following account of the symptoms:—

“On Saturday, Dec. 3, I arrived at the school about five minutes to nine p.m., and was taken by Mr. Bedbrook to Percy John’s room.[203] He was in bed, and partly undressed, and in great pain in the stomach. He also complained of the skin of his face being drawn, and that there was a sense of constriction in the throat, in consequence of which he was unable to swallow. He was retching and vomiting; the vomit was a small quantity of dark-coloured fluid. I asked him shortly after the cause of his illness (Mr. Bedbrook had previously made a communication to me), and said to Percy, ‘Did your brother-in-law ever give you quinine pills before?’ He said, ‘Yes, at Shanklin.’ I said, ‘Did it make you like this before?’ ‘Yes,’ he said, ‘but not so bad.’ There is nothing in ordinary quinine pills to produce such symptoms. I did not form an opinion at that time to what the symptoms were due. During an interval of the vomiting I had some white of egg beaten up in water given to him, which he was able to swallow, and had hot linseed poultices placed on his stomach. He was very restless on the bed—violently so, throwing himself backwards and forwards and from side to side. Several people held him to prevent him from injuring himself. He did not improve at all under this treatment. Hearing that Dr. Little, a medical man of Wimbledon, was in the house, I had him sent for, and in about twenty or twenty-five minutes after I had been in the room he came. I consulted him, and we determined to inject some morphia. I left the house to get the morphia and an instrument, being away five to ten minutes. When I returned the deceased was not better, and I injected a quarter of a grain of morphia under the skin, over the region of the stomach. This was done about ten o’clock. The symptoms abated somewhat about half-past ten, but not very much. They were still all present, but in a modified degree, and then they returned again a little before eleven as severely as before the injection of the morphia. A little before eleven the deceased asked to have the morphia injected again. He complained then of pain in his body, but not in any particular part. I then about eleven injected one-sixth of a grain of morphia in the same place as before, but it had no apparent effect. In about ten minutes he became a little unconscious and wandering. That was the first time I noticed it. His breathing became slower and sighing, and the heart’s action weaker and weaker, and he died about twenty minutes after eleven.”

In his account of the symptoms and the progress of the case until the deceased’s death, Dr. Berry was fully confirmed by Dr. Little, who added that at that time they were of opinion that the death was due to an irritant poison. Dr. Berry then gave the results of

THE POST-MORTEM EXAMINATION.

“After his death Dr. Little and I collected some of the vomit which had been caught in a basin in the bedroom. (He had previously vomited in the closet.) I also collected some from the floor of the bedroom and the closet, and the whole was put into a cup together, and thence into a clean bottle, which was sealed with my own seal, and given to Mr. Bond on the day of the post-mortem examination.

“On Tuesday, Dec. 6th, Mr. Bond, Dr. Little, and myself, made a post-mortem examination. I made some notes at the time which I have here. With the exception of the paralysis of the lower limbs, he was a particularly well-developed, muscular lad. The brain was slightly congested superficially, as well as the substance of the brain itself. By superficially, I mean the membranes. There was no fluid in the ventricles of the brain, nor under the membranes. The pupils of the eyes were dilated; the lips pale and the tongue bleached; in the right lung were some old adhesions at the apex, between the lung and the chest wall, the result of inflammation at some previous time. Both lungs were healthy, but considerably congested in the lower part. The heart was healthy muscularly, the valves also healthy; it was almost entirely empty and flaccid. There was a small quantity of fluid in the pericardium. The liver was normal in size, but intensely congested. The kidneys were also normal in size, but much congested, and the spleen was also congested but normal in size. The stomach had the mucous membrane congested throughout. Under the surface, near the large end of the stomach, were six or eight small yellowish-grey patches, slightly raised, about the size of a small bean. Towards the smaller end of the stomach were two or three similar smaller spots. I believe that they were the result of inflammation, caused recently before death. The stomach contained three or four ounces of dark fluid, which was carefully preserved, and of which Mr. Bond took charge. I examined the duodenum, the first part of which was greatly congested, and there were patches of congestion on other parts of the small intestines. Portions of the intestines were taken care of by Mr. Bond, who also took possession of the stomach itself and portions of the liver, with the gall bladder, both of the kidneys and the spleen. The bladder contained three or four ounces of urine, which was drawn off and taken possession of by Mr. Bond. There were no traces of inflammation in the peritoneum. The membranes of the spinal cord were greatly congested. Except the appearance of the lungs and the curvature of the spine, these were all the appearances I noted in the post-mortem examination. There was nothing in the post-mortem examination to account for death from natural causes. I should say that he died from the effect of some irritant poison, the administration of which would, I believe, account for all the appearances. Aconitia is a vegetable alkaloid poison, and the appearances would be consistent with a fatal dose of that poison, but I have no special knowledge on the subject.”

On cross-examination, the witness repeated, in several forms, that he had no special knowledge of aconitia, but some of aconite as used internally for cancer, erysipelas, and other complaints, and was unable to say whether a grain of aconitia blended into 20 pills would be good for curvature of the spine, and that the remedies he applied were for the violent irritation of the stomach from which up to the time of his death he believed the deceased was suffering.

“At the post-mortem I examined the spinal cord and the spinal curvature. The cord was healthy, but congested. The existence of paralysis is consistent with a healthy spinal cord, but not with healthy bone and healthy intervertebral cartilages. I did not examine the condition of the arteries in the neighbourhood of the curvature.”

Mr. Williams.—“Are you not aware that there are many cases on record of death having resulted from the effects of pressure on the arteries in the regions of these curvatures?”

Witness.—“No; but I am not prepared to say that there are not such cases.”

Mr. Williams.—“Will you undertake to say that death did not result from such a cause as that?”

Witness.—“I cannot undertake to say. I did not examine to see the effect of the spinal curvature on the position of the lungs.”

Mr. Williams.—“Nor what its effect was on the heart?”

Witness.—“No.”

Mr. Williams.—“Do you not know that the lungs are very much displaced in some cases of spinal curvature?”

Witness.—“Yes, they are.”

Mr. Williams.—“Is not the heart very much displaced?”

Witness.—“Yes.”

Mr. Williams.—“You say this irritation of the stomach was consistent with poisoning with vegetable alkaloids, and yet you have never seen a case of such poisoning?”

Witness.—“I have not; I did not take means to ascertain whether the appearances were post-mortem. I know—only from Taylor’s ‘Medical Jurisprudence’—that vegetable alkaloids have produced these symptoms.”

On re-examination, the witness said that “he could not think that the death was caused by anything he saw in the curvature of the spine; that if death had been caused by pressure on the arteries, he should not have expected to find the symptoms of irritation in the stomach which existed after death; that displacement of the lungs and heart had not been, in this case, produced by the curvature of the spine, and, if there had been much displacement of either, he could not have failed to observe it.” Dr. Little was equally inexperienced with Dr. Berry in cases of poisoning, but agreed with him that the curvature of the spine in the lumbar region had not displaced either the lungs, the stomach, or the heart, and that the patches on the surface of the stomach were of recent date—“might have existed for days, but not for weeks, but not without the patient suffering.”

Mr. Bond, the Lecturer on Forensic Medicine at the Westminster Hospital, detailed the various portions of the body which he put aside for chemical analysis and delivered to Dr. DuprÉ; the receipt of two pills given to him by Dr. Berry, one of which was taken out of one of the capsule boxes after the boy’s death, and the other brought to Dr. Berry whilst he was in attendance on the deceased, and two packets of sweets, and part of a cake. He further confirmed the evidence of Dr. Berry as to the results of the post-mortem examination, with the exception, that Dr. Berry had omitted to state that “the whole of the lungs were somewhat congested, and the anterior part of them exceedingly so, and that the body was not decomposed.” In his opinion there was nothing to account for death from natural causes, and he attributed it to poisoning by some vegetable alkaloid, such as aconitia, a fatal dose of which could be given in one of the capsules. The appearances on the post-mortem examination were, he considered, such as he should expect to find in death by aconitia. He agreed also with the other medical men that the grey patches on the stomach were recent, due to intense irritation, and would cause the deceased great pain, and induce vomiting. On the question of the probable effect of the curvature of the spine, he gave the following most material evidence:—

“The principal curvature was in the lower part of the body; in the upper part of the spine there was slight anti-posterior or forward curvature, but it was not enough to affect the position of the heart or lungs relatively to each other. The cavities of the chest appeared to me to be deeper from before backward than usual. The heart was in its right position, except perhaps that it was higher up in the body than is normal. In the lower region there was a good deal of lateral curvature. I examined the spinal cord down to the end of the dorsal vertebrÆ, and I found the membranes very much congested, but otherwise it was quite healthy, to all appearance. I did not examine it with a microscope. In the lower lumbar region I did not open the canal, for it was very twisted, and I had difficulty in getting it open. No disease there could have caused sudden death. The curvature appeared to be of long standing; the bones were very hard, and there was no active disease there. I think it impossible that death could have been caused by pressure produced by the curvature on one of the arteries.”

The cross-examination of Mr. Bond by Mr. Williams was directed, first, to whether the time at which after taking the dose the symptoms might be expected to show, depended on its amount. Of this the witness had no knowledge, but considered that that would be determined by the fulness or emptiness of the stomach; and secondly, whether he would expect to find in the stomach the amount of poison that would cause death. On this last point the following questions and answers must be reported:—

Mr. Williams.—“Would you, supposing death had been occasioned by aconitia, expect to find the amount of poison that had caused death, or would it have disappeared?”

Mr. Bond.—“I believe it would be possible to use so small a dose that it could not be found in the stomach.”

Mr. Williams.—“Supposing death caused by aconitia, would you expect to find the actual amount that caused death?”

Mr. Bond.—“That would depend on the amount. My opinion is that if death was caused by an ordinary amount, traces would be found.”

Mr. Williams.—“Of the amount that caused death?”

Mr. Bond.—“Not of all.”

Mr. Williams.—“And you say aconitia enough to cause death might leave no trace in the stomach?”

Mr. Bond.—“Not of aconitia in the stomach.”

Mr. Williams.—“Do you agree with this: ‘that the poison found on analysis would be over and above that used up in causing death?’”

Mr. Bond.—“No; I should not agree to that, unless it means that so small a quantity had been absorbed, causing death, leaving a larger amount which did not cause death. What I mean is, that the poison which may have caused death has been removed from the stomach to other organs, and it is quite possible that a larger amount may be left behind in the stomach than the portion which has been removed, and caused death.”

Mr. Williams.—“Do you mean that it would be decomposed in causing death?”

Mr. Bond.—“I do not know whether it would or not. I think not. I will not give a decided answer one way or the other. I have no idea.”

Mr. Williams.—“‘Guy and Ferrier on Forensic Medicine’ is one of the first authorities, is it not?”

Mr. Bond.—“Yes, I think so.”

Mr. Williams.—“Do you agree with this, in regard to aconitia, ‘that the commencement of the symptoms may be in a few minutes or in one or two hours’?”

Mr. Bond.—“I do not know anything about poisoning by the alkaloid aconitia, so I cannot say one way or other.”

Mr. Williams.—“I understood you to say, that the ventricles of the heart were both empty?”

Mr. Bond.—“The ventricles and auricles were both empty.”

Mr. Williams.—“Can you produce any case on record where such a symptom as that has appeared in poisoning by aconitia?”

Mr. Bond.—“No, I cannot produce any case on record of poisoning by aconitia.”

On re-examination, the witness declined to speak more positively on this point, on the ground that he was a surgeon, and therefore had not had experience in the pathology of such cases. His only experience in poisoning by alkaloids had been in a case of strychnia. In reply to the Judge, he admitted “that other vegetable poisons, even a strong solution of oil of mustard, would produce the same congestion of the stomach, and the same yellow marks as had been found; that a vegetable alkaloid would pass within a minute from the stomach into the blood, and that it would be more likely to be found in the liver, kidneys, and urine, than in the heart; he did not know whether strychnia had been found in the heart when not discoverable in the blood and the urine.”

ANALYTICAL EVIDENCE.

Dr. Thomas Stevenson, Lecturer on Medical Jurisprudence and Chemistry at Guy’s Hospital, and Examiner in Forensic Medicine at the London University, after enumerating the various matters handed to him and Dr. DuprÉ by Mr. Bond for analysis,[204] and stating that the methods of it were arranged with his colleague, the manual operations carried out by both of them, and the results of those performed by Dr. DuprÉ examined by himself, gave the following evidence, which must be reported in full.

“The bottle marked ‘A’ contained portions of the liver, spleen, and kidney. To that was applied Stas’s process. I obtained an alkaloidal extract which contained a trace of morphia, and which, placed on the tongue, gave a faint sensation like that produced by aconitia. I reserved that for experiments. To the bottle ‘2,’ which contained part of the bowels, large and small, I applied the same process. I obtained an extract which I have done nothing further with—that is to say, I have not tested the extract. No. 3 contained a fluid, the contents of the stomach, 3½ ozs. This was treated in a somewhat similar way. The fluid contained a raisin and a piece of fruit like the top of a carrot or an apple. From that fluid I obtained, by Stas’s process, an alkaloidal extract, which was distinctive, and produced a very faint sensation, like that of aconitia. When placed on the tongue, burning of the lips was produced, though the extract did not touch the lips. Burning, tingling—a kind of numbness peculiar but difficult to define; a salivation creating a desire to expectorate, a sensation at the back of the throat of swelling up, and this was followed by a peculiar seared sensation of the tongue, as if a hot iron had been drawn over it, or some strong caustic placed on it. I reserved that alkaloidal extract also for physiological experiments. No. 4 D contained a human stomach, and 7 ozs. of spirits added to preserve the stomach. I observed that the stomach was reddened, I think from congestion, in the region of the greater curvature, and posteriorly. At one part there was a little pit as if a blister or inflammatory effusion of lymph had broken. From the stomach and liquid in the bottle I made an extract by Stas’s process, and obtained an alkaloidal extract. That I reserved; but I tasted it, and it had no particular taste that I could recognize. Next was No. 5 E, containing the urine, 6 ozs. I opened it in Dr. DuprÉ’s presence. He found that 4 ozs. of urine had had 2 ozs. of spirit added to preserve it. I made an extract from a portion of that liquid—three-fourths. I obtained an alkaloidal extract which contained a trace of morphia. By a further process I obtained more morphia, but the first alkaloid I referred to was more than could be accounted for by the morphia I obtained. Some of this extract was placed upon my tongue. It produced the effects of aconitia, which I have already described, in a marked degree, and a peculiar burning sensation extending downwards towards the stomach.”

By the Judge.—“I have 50 or 80 alkaloids in my possession, and I have tasted most of them.”

The Solicitor-General.—“How long did the effects last?”

Witness.—“About four hours—not all the effects, but the burning on the tongue did. I made an experiment on about one-third of the urine. I injected it beneath the skin of a mouse. The animal was obviously affected in two minutes. From that time it exhibited symptoms of poisoning, and died in 30 minutes. I made some experiments on mice from Morson’s aconitia, which I procured for the purpose. I injected some of that, after dissolving it, under the skins of several mice. It operated on the mice in a manner which was undistinguishable from the effect of the urine. The effects of the two I might say were ridiculously alike. Tartaric acid was previously used on a mouse in the same quantities and was found inoperative. I retained portions of the extract made from the liver, spleen, and kidneys, from the stomach, and from the contents of the stomach. All contained an alkaloid; two giving a slight taste of aconitia, and the third no taste. I then mixed together the alkaloidal extracts, Nos. 1, 3, and 4, and I injected it under the skin of a mouse, in the same manner, and it produced effects on the mouse, in nine minutes from that time, of severe symptoms of poisoning, and the animal died in 22 minutes. These symptoms were precisely similar to those produced by Morson’s aconitia. No. 6, the vomit, contained nearly ten ounces, or half a pint, of thick, pasty fluid stuff, with which also were spirits of wine. Dr. DuprÉ pointed out marks showing that to 5oz. of vomit 5oz. of spirit had been added. There was a good deal of solid matter in the vomit, which must have been of a solid character. I examined the solid portion and found it consisted of pieces of fat, a very small portion of the muscular fibre of some animal, pieces of onion, a little starch, probably that of wheat, a slice of candied peel like that put on the top of cake, a piece of apple pulp, raisins, and some pineapple, with just the odour of pineapple drops. I subsequently examined with the microscope the vomit again, the solid portions, to see if I could find anything corresponding to the root of aconite or the root of horseradish. I found neither. I made an extract from the vomit, and obtained an alkaloidal extract. The extract had no trace of morphia or of quinine. I applied it to the tongue with a very powerful result, such as that of aconitia. The severe forms of attack lasted for 6½ hours; it lasted for that time, though the effects did not then cease. I took 1-24th part for experiment on a mouse. I injected it into the back of a mouse. It was severely affected in 2½ minutes, the symptoms continuing till the time of its death, 15½ minutes after. Those symptoms were parallel with those of aconitia. In my judgment the vomit submitted to me contained a considerable quantity of aconitia.”

Question.—“Can you fix what quantity?”

Answer.—“Approximately it was not less than one-seventh, and not more than one-fourth of a grain.”

Question.—“What would be a fatal dose of aconitia to a human being?”

Answer.—“There is only one fatal case I know of, and in that death was caused by about one-sixteenth of a grain. What is known to have caused death was not less than one-twenty-first of a grain, and not more than one-thirteenth. Each of the boxes produced contained capsules. There were only two pills in them. They were gelatine-coated pills, like those in the bottle. I examined those pills, or rather I saw Dr. DuprÉ do so. They were simply five-grain quinine pills.”

Question.—“The packet of sweetmeats, No. 8. Did they contain any traces of poison?”

Answer.—“No.”

Question.—“No. 9, the cake?”

Answer.—“That contained no traces of poison of any kind.”

Question.—“No. 10, the capsules, did you examine them?”

Answer.—“They are simply gelatine capsules.”

Question.—“You have told us there were some pills loose?”

Answer.—“Yes; there were four, and they were similar to those I have just referred to, quinine, gelatine-coated pills. There was some sugar in a paper. Some of the powders were in larger papers than others; six were in large. They contained 1½ grains of disulphate of quinine. There were 14 smaller papers containing powders. They were tied together in a bundle numbering from 7 to 20. They varied considerably in weight, the lowest weighed 6-10ths of a grain, the highest 1? grains. Three of the powders differed in appearance. The average weight of those which were quinine were 9-10ths of a grain. I examined those powders, and I found they consisted, eleven of them, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, and 20, of disulphate of quinine simply, the ordinary quinine powders, but varying considerably in weight, from 3-10ths of a grain up to 1¼ grains. Of the other three, my attention was drawn to No. 16 by Dr. DuprÉ; it was a different colour, as also were Nos. 17 and 19. No. 16 was an obvious mixture; there were two substances clearly to a chemist, who would have noticed the mixture at once. It was a very pale fawn, the mixture; the other was a pure white. No. 16 weighed 1⁸/₁₀ grs. or 1·79 grs. No. 17 weighed ·88 of a grain; No. 19 weighed 1·26, or about 1¼ grs. In the No. 16, which appeared to be a mixture, it looked as if the quinine had been damaged. I tasted it, and in about three minutes a startling sensation came on. The sensation was severe for three hours, and then gradually went away after dinner.”

Question.—“Did you make a special examination of the pills?”

Answer.—“Yes.”

Question.—“What amount of aconitia was in the pills?”

Answer.—“Decimal 83. In the quinine pills there was ·96. I tested the action of this quinine on a mouse. In three and a half minutes after I had administered it the effect was the same as before. In No. 17 there was aconitia, and in 19 there was aconitia; I cannot tell you how much. In 17 and 19 I noticed the difference in colouring between the ordinary quinine powders. The proportion of aconitia was considerably less in 16 as compared with 19.”

Question.—“Is it usual to wrap pills in tinfoil?”

Answer.—“No.”

Question.—“Or to put them in boxes of this description?”

Answer.—“Oh, no.”

Question.—“Were these two pills examined by yourself and Dr. DuprÉ?”

Answer.—“Yes; one weighed 3 grs. and another 2¾. There was nothing particular in the appearance. There was a little bitterness at first with the 2¾ grain pill. I cut out a small piece with a penknife. We all took a little piece, I only took the 22nd part of a grain. Part of it was used for the microscope. It caused intense burning. The bitterness of quinine was followed by intense burning, and the same symptoms I have already described, but of a more severe kind. I injected some of that into the back of a mouse. It exhibited symptoms of poisoning, was very ill in two minutes, and it died in 4½ minutes. I came to the conclusion that there was ·45 of a grain of aconitia in that pill, or nearly half a grain. No. 12 was the sherry. I found no trace of poison in that, nor in the wafers. I have said the urine contained aconitia, showing that the poison had been absorbed into the blood, had passed through the tissues of the body, and had become excreted. I have said I found in the extracts traces of morphia. I have heard of the injection of morphia by Dr. Little and Dr. Berry during the last hour of the boy’s illness. The traces I found were such as I should have expected to find from that, both in the urine and probably in the liver too.”

Question.—“Could a fatal dose of aconitia be administered in such a capsule as this?”

Answer.—“Oh, yes. Many times a fatal dose. I have put into one a grain of aconitia, and into another a half-grain.”

[Capsules produced by Witness, and shown to Judge and Jury, to show how little space in the capsule was occupied even by the grain of aconitia.]

Witness continued.—“The symptoms lasted after tasting the pill 7½ hours, notwithstanding having taken a meal.”

Question.—“Supposing aconitia taken in a capsule of this description, would it prevent a taste on the tongue?”

Answer.—“Oh, yes.”

Question.—“I believe there is no test of aconitia?”

Answer.—“No specific or characteristic chemical test.”

Question.—“What are the tests?”

Answer.—“We can tell chemically that it is an alkaloid. Then there is the physiological test, the effect on the tongue and the neighbouring parts, and its general effect on the system if taken in any quantity. Then the other physiological test is that it will kill, after a definite course of symptoms, as shown in my experiments with the mice.”

Question.—“Have you any doubt that you did find aconitia in the portions of the body you examined and in the vomit?”

Answer.—“Not the least. I have heard the description of the deceased boy. He had symptoms such as would arise from poisoning by aconite. His symptoms approached more nearly to those caused by that than any other poison. Judging from the symptoms discovered at the post-mortem examination, I should say that he died from poisoning by aconitia.”

Question.—“Is aconitia a medicine commonly used for spinal diseases in this country?”

Answer.—“No.”

Question.—“I do not know if you are aware of its use here by medical men?”

Answer.—“No; the British Pharmacopoeia orders it for external use, but makes no mention of any dose for internal use. It was formerly tried a quarter of a century ago, or thirty years ago, but it was given up because it was too dangerous.”

On cross-examination by Mr. Williams, after he had stated that he had never seen an acknowledged death from aconitia, but founded his opinion not only from tasting, testing, and the experiments on mice, but from his reading, and that he knew that it was used in France and Germany, but not that it was sold at the French chemist’s in the Haymarket as a patent medicine, the examination proceeded as follows:—

Question.—“Do you know Guibert’s French book on chemistry?”

Answer.—“Yes; I know the book. I have it in my possession.”

Question.—“Would you look at that book—is that it?”

Answer.—“Yes; that is the book.”

Question.—“Do you there find a formula for pills with aconitia in them?”

Answer.—“Yes.”

Question.—“And drops?”

Answer.—“Yes.”

Question.—“For internal use?”

Answer.—“No. The drops are for dropping in the ear; the pills are for internal use.”

Question.—“Also for ointment?”

Answer.—“Yes.”

Question.—“And in the British Pharmacopoeia you will find ‘Unguentum AconitiÆ,’ 8 grains of aconitia to 1 ounce of lard?”

Answer.—“Yes.”

Question.—“Is Sidney Ringer an acknowledged authority on therapeutics?”

Answer.—“Yes.”

Question.—“Do you know his books?”

Answer.—“Yes.”

Question.—“Do you agree with this:—‘Aconite is used externally in the form of liniment or ointment to relieve pain?”

Answer.—“Yes.”

Question.—“The ‘Unguentum AconitiÆ’ alludes to aconitia, does it not?”

Answer.—“Yes, the ointment does.”

Question.—“Is that applied in neuralgic cases?”

Answer.—“Yes, it is used in neuralgia and rheumatism.”

Question.—“Do you agree with the statement, ‘That a piece of ointment the size of a bean or nut should be applied with friction, which enhances its efficacy?’”

Answer.—“Yes, to the skin.”

Question.—“A piece the size of a bean would contain half a grain of aconitia, would it not?”

Answer.—“Yes.”

Question.—“Do you agree that the application in such a case will cut short pain?”

Answer.—“Yes.”

Question.—“And prevent sickness?”

Answer.—“I do not know about that. Sickness is not a usual symptom in neuralgia and rheumatism.”

Question.—“Do you agree with this, that ‘Aconite diminishes sensibility, and it has been used internally in various painful diseases?’”

Answer.—“Yes, aconite.”

Question.—“Have you heard of the use of aconitia in typhoid fever?”

Answer.—“No; I have heard of its use in fevers generally, but not in typhoid.”

Question.—“In the Journal of Medicine, No. 27, March, 1882, by Dr. Phipson——“[205]

The Solicitor-General objected that that was something written within a few days.

Mr. M. Williams.—“Then I will put this question generally. Have you heard of its use internally in severe cases of fever?”

Answer.—“Yes, I have heard of its use in fever, but not in typhoid.”

Question.—“Have you heard of its use in pleuro-pneumonia?”

Answer.—“Yes, in very minute doses; it is recommended in a journal of medicine which is edited by a man who is not a medical man.”

Question.—“Your collaborateur, Dr. DuprÉ, is not a medical man, is he?”

Answer.—“No.”

Question.—“With regard to the symptoms—the dilated pupils—are they not invariably dilated three days after death?”

Answer.—“After a natural death. The surface of the tongue being rough is no sure sign of aconitia poisoning. Congestion of the brain has been observed in aconite poisoning, but is no sure sign.”

Question.—“Has bloody fluid in the bag of the heart been met with in aconitia poisoning?”

Answer.—“Yes.”

Question.—“Would you expect to find the ventricles and auricles empty?”

Answer.—“It has been observed in poisoning by preparations of aconitia; but in the only case of aconitia poisoning I know of the state of the heart is not mentioned. You will find it in the Philadelphia Journal of Medicine of November last.”[206]

Question.—“Is congested liver a sign of aconitia poisoning?”

Answer.—“The congestion of the internal viscera is an important sign of poisoning by aconitia. The congestion could be caused by various means. The kidneys being congested was consistent with aconite poisoning, but not dependent on it. The same could be said of congestion of the spleen. I am prepared to admit that cases may have occurred in which congestion has been caused without poison. The patches in the stomach may have existed days before death, but not without causing pain. I commenced the analysis of the contents of the stomach on the 10th of December. I commenced the analysis of the vomit the same day. I commenced to examine the urine the same day.”

Question.—“You say the bottle C, No. 3, contained matter from which you extracted an alkaloidal extract. Would you expect to find an alkaloid from morphia in the contents of the stomach?”

Answer.—“No; but I should expect to find it in the urine, and I found in that more alkaloid than was consistent with morphia. That requires the most delicate test. By a further extraction I got a little more morphia.”

Question.—“The precise process I ask you for in testing the alkaloidal extract.”

Answer.—“I took half the contents of the stomach. I mixed it with such a quantity of rectified spirit as, with the spirit previously added by Dr. DuprÉ, made the proportion of spirit two volumes of spirit to one volume of matter. The liquid I took was acid in reaction. The liquid stood over from Sunday to Monday. It was then filtered. The insoluble part was well washed with rectified spirit. The clear liquid was then evaporated at a temperature below that of the human body, till it was almost solid. The portion I had not dissolved in spirit was then treated with an additional quantity of spirit, to which a little quantity of tartaric acid was added. The mixture was then warmed to 140 deg. Fahr. It was then cooled. The insoluble part was well washed with spirit, and the clear liquid evaporated at a temperature below that of the human body. A fairly solid residue was obtained. I now obtained two alcoholic extracts, each of which was treated in a precisely similar manner, but separately, by digesting them with warm absolute alcohol, or rather tepid, till the alcohol would take up and dissolve nothing more. The solutions in absolute alcohol were filtered and evaporated nearly to dryness. They were then treated with a little water. They were found to be acid in reaction, and the two solutions—that is to say, that from the plain spirit, and the other from the tartaric acid spirit—were mixed. Care was taken that they remained just faintly acid, and the solution was then agitated with washed ether. The ether was allowed to separate; it was drawn off, and replaced by fresh ether. This operation was carried out five times. The ether was set apart, and allowed to evaporate at a temperature below boiling point; that was reserved as not containing any alkaloid. The residue was oily and partially dissoluble with water; it was of a brownish colour. It was not weighed, but was a very appreciable quantity.”

Question.—“Were these tests conducted for aconitia only?”

Answer.—“Oh, no; I tested for other poisons. The aqueous liquid which separated from the ether was made alkaline by carbonate of soda, and it was then agitated with a mixture of washed ether and washed chloroform. The ether-chloroform solution was then allowed to separate, drawn off, replaced by washed ether, the ether again drawn off, and again replaced by ether, which was again drawn off. These chloroform-ether mixtures were mixed and evaporated, and finally dried in vacuo over oil of vitriol. Before it was placed in the vacuum, I examined it to see if there were any volatile alkaloids, which would be distinguished by their peculiar odour. There were none. I then weighed it, after drying, and found its weight ·108 of a grain, or rather more than 1-10th of a grain. It was slightly crystalline in appearance. I tasted it, putting a little on my tongue. That was one of my taste tests.”

Question.—“That was afterwards dissolved, and part of it was applied to the mouse?”

Answer.—“Yes, but I had previously tested it for an alkaloid. I went through the same operation with the vomit and the urine, with only minor differences of details here and there as occasion required.”

Question.—“You say that the effect on the tongue was characteristic of aconitia. Was it characteristic of nothing else?”

Answer.—“Nothing else that I know of.”

Question.—“Not of veratria?”

Answer.—“No; I have tried that on the tongue, and its effect is different. I do not recollect that delphinia is like aconitia. Morphia has no marked bitterness. I know that the taste is very different from other substances. Pepperine has an immediate burning effect.”

Question.—“Is not phosphoric acid a test for aconitia?”

Answer.—“No; it is given as a test, except by those who have studied it recently. I have made experiments with pure aconitia with no results. The book produced is written by an authority. Fluckijer, in his work on the subject, gives the reaction of aconitia, but it is German aconitia he refers to; it is very different to English aconitia. I see no reference to English aconitia in Fluckijer.”

The book was handed back to counsel, and Mr. Montagu Williams said the date was 1879.

Witness, cross-examined further.—“The solution injected into the mouse was measured on each occasion. About three minims of liquid altogether was injected. With the exception of the urine and one of the vomits, the injections were unmixed. He believed, of course, that too much reliance must not be placed on experiments on animals.”

Question.—“Is it not a recognised fact that alkaloids are found in the human body after death, irrespective of poisons?”

Answer.—“It is a question still sub judice. It has been asserted that such is the case where the stomach or other viscera has been much decomposed.”

Question.—“What are called cadaveric alkaloids, utterly irrespective of the administration of poison?”

Answer.—“It is so asserted.”

Question.—“Is not Stas’s test a mode of extracting cadaveric alkaloids?”

Answer.—“Cadaveric as well as natural alkaloids.”

Question.—“Would these cadaveric alkaloids produce the same effects as the natural alkaloids?”

Answer.—“They have been described as producing the same effects; but I have seen no description of one producing the effects of aconitia. There is a test distinguishing these cadaveric alkaloids from all natural alkaloids, except morphia and veratria, and certainly from aconitia. That test was applied to these extracts when no morphia was present,—the reduction of the ferricyanide to the ferro-cyanide of potassium. There is an authority for the method of obtaining and distinguishing these cadaveric alkaloids. I was one of the first to point out that alkaloidal extracts from the stomachs of the dead would kill frogs if injected under the skin. I have read most of the foreign writers on this subject. I have not read Peschi, and cannot say whether they produce pricking of the tongue. I do not remember any of them describing sensations produced on the tongue from cadaveric alkaloids, similar to those from aconitia. Many things would produce prickings on the tongue.”

Question.—“Have you found the ordinary residue of the stomach from the dead poison the lower animals?”

Answer.—“I have never known it to do so. I will not say it is not so.”

Question.—“How long after the administration of aconitia would you expect the symptoms to appear?”

Answer.—“From a few minutes to an hour and a half.”

Question.—“Would the time of action depend upon the dose?”

Answer.—“The probabilities are that a large dose would soonest produce effect. The smallest dose that has produced death has been between 1-21 gr. and 1-13 gr., or about 1-16 gr.”

On re-examination by the Solicitor-General, the Witness explained that it was when corpses were putrefying that the cadaveric alkaloids were produced. He had procured alkaloidal extracts from the urine, viscera and stomach, and ascertained the effects of them upon mice: had made twenty-two experiments this year: there were two cases of heart disease, and four of the liver, kidneys, spleen, vomit, and six from the urine. He had also, in six instances, taken from the urine of living persons, and in three from that of healthy dead persons. Those extracts had no effect on his tongue. He had had many years’ experience, and certainly never tasted anything like aconitia, and he had tried these alkaloidal extracts on the same number of mice without the animals suffering except from the puncture. One of these mice, he added, he had killed with the three-thousandths of a grain, and two-thousandths of a grain was always fatal to a mouse. To a question by the judge, he said “it would make a great difference in the time when the severe symptoms appeared, whether the poison was swallowed directly and whether it came into direct contact with the tongue.” Dr. DuprÉ confirmed in every detail the statements of his colleague. “In his case the effects of tasting the alkaloid from the urine continued over four hours, and that from the vomit over six hours, though he took lunch and dinner during that time. In the vomit he did not find any trace of quinine which he should have expected had aconitia been given in conjunction with quinine.”

THE PREVIOUS ACTS OF THE PRISONER.

Soon after his marriage in 1879, the prisoner set up in practice at Bournemouth, whence in April, 1880, he went for a six months’ trip to America. Early in 1881, he was in great pecuniary difficulties, and had to part with his furniture to pay an execution out of his house, and again went to America on the 30th of August. Three days before he sailed, whilst staying with his mother at Ventnor, he visited Percy John at Shanklin, where the boy was staying with the Chapmans, and promised to return on the Monday, the 29th, before he left England. It was supposed that he did so, and it was then, according to the boy’s statement before reported, that he gave him a pill, after which he was taken ill in much the same way as at Blenheim House in the December following.[207] From America he returned on the 17th of October, and after a visit to Ventnor, where he got a cheque, which was subsequently dishonoured, cashed by a tradesman (Price Owen), he was in London on the 1st of December, staying at the Nelson Hotel, Portland-road. His actions are now taken up by the following witness, to whom, and to whose brother, the prisoner had from time to time advanced money, in the case of the brother pawning his surgical instruments and watch, on the 24th of November, in order to lend him five pounds.[208]

John Law Tulloch, a student of medicine living in Alma Square, St. John’s Wood, said:—

“I have known the prisoner for some time. I did not see him till December of last year from the previous April. I saw him on the 1st of last December, a Thursday night, at my house. He said he was staying at Nelson’s Hotel, and was going to Paris the next night. He had dinner at my house. I went with him to Nelson’s Hotel, and assisted in packing his luggage. I went with him from the hotel to Waterloo Station. We had with us a leather case, a handbag, and a rug. He said he thought he would go first of all to see his brother-in-law at Wimbledon. We went to Wimbledon together at about six in the evening.[209] He said he was going up to the school, at Mr. Bedbrook’s. I waited for him in the public-house opposite. He came back to me in about twenty minutes. He said that he had seen his brother-in-law, who was very much worse. He added that he did not expect him to live long. He said he had seen Mr. Bedbrook, who was a director of one of the Continental lines, and that gentleman had told him that it was as well that he should not go that night, as there was a bad boat on the service. We returned to town, and went together to the Comedy Theatre in Panton-street. After that we went to Stone’s, a public-house opposite the theatre, and while we were there he wrote the cheque produced, on the Wilts and Dorset Bank, dated December 2, 1881, for 12l. 10s., payable to J. L. Tulloch. He asked me to try and obtain the cash for it. We went first to the Adelphi Hotel in Adam-street, but could not get it cashed there. We then drove to the Eyre Arms, St. John’s-wood, which is close to where I reside. Mr. Perrot, the landlord, cashed the cheque, and I gave the money to the prisoner. I then parted from him, and arranged to meet him on the following day at the Adelphi Hotel. I saw him there about three or four in the afternoon. I was to meet him at half-past one, to see him off by a train at 2.50, but I do not know from what station. He said that he was too late for the mid-day train, and could not go until night. I went with him to the Horseshoe to have some refreshment. When there we found that one of the bags received from the Eyre Arms contained coppers. We returned to the house and obtained a 5l. note in exchange. He left me there about six. I did not hear of him again till he was in custody. The cheque was dishonoured. On the 13th of December he wrote saying the amount would be in my hands very soon, and he was surprised at my attitude towards, or, rather against him.”[210]

On cross-examination, the witness said:—

“I have said to-day the prisoner said on December 2, ‘the boy is very much worse, and I don’t think he will last long.’ I do not think he said anything about his having passed his examination that day. I was quite sober. I do not owe him money.”

At five minutes to seven, on the evening of the 3rd of December, he was at Blenheim House telling Mr. Bedbrook he wished to see his brother-in-law. The boy was brought into the dining-room, some wine got for the prisoner, and some powdered white sugar to cure, as he said, the alcohol in it. He then had with him a leather bag from which he took some Dundee cakes and sweets, of which the boy and the master partook.

Mr. Bedbrook deposed:—

“About a quarter past 7 the prisoner said to me, ‘Oh, by the way, when I was in America, I thought of you and your boys, and I thought what excellent things these capsules would be for the boys to take nauseous medicine in.’ He produced two boxes of capsules from his bag, and said, ‘I should like you to try one to see how easily they can be swallowed.’ I examined them, and put one in my mouth.”

The Judge.—“Was the box wrapped in paper, or was it handed to you open?”

The Witness.—“It was handed to me open.”

The remainder of the capsules were here produced.

Mr. Montagu Williams.—“I do not think they are all of one size.”

Mr. Poland.—“These are the original capsules.”

Witness continuing, said—“I swallowed an empty capsule, and it was very easy to swallow.”

The Witness continuing, said—“The prisoner took the lids off both of the boxes. While I was examining a capsule the prisoner was filling another with sugar, with a little spade spoon. He then, having apparently filled it with sugar, said, ‘If you shake it the medicine will come down to one end.’ He then handed the capsule to the boy Percy John, who was sitting on his right, about a yard from him. In doing so he said, ‘Here, Percy; you are a swell pill taker; take this, and show Mr. Bedbrook how easy it is to swallow.’ Percy John then put the capsule in his mouth as far back as he could, and at one gulp it was gone. I remarked to him, ‘That is soon gone, my boy.’ The prisoner then said, ‘I must be going now,’ and I then looked at the time-table to see the next train for London. It was then 7.20 or thereabouts, and I told him the next train left at 7.21, and advised him to go at once or he would miss his train. Previous to this I had asked him to remain a little longer, until the 7.50 train. He said, ‘I cannot, as I have to catch a train at eight o’clock at London Bridge, en route to the Continent.’ He said he was going to Florence, vi Paris. Passing through the drawing-room I remarked to him that I thought the curvature of the spine of the deceased was getting worse. He observed on that occasion that he did not think the boy would last long. I did not make any reply to that. He then left the house at about 21 or 22 minutes past seven o’clock. He left behind the two boxes of capsules. I placed them on the dining-room waggon.”

Question.—“From the time Percy John had swallowed the capsule how many minutes elapsed before the prisoner said, ‘I must be going now’?”

Answer.—“He said it within five minutes. After the prisoner left the house I returned to the dining-room, where Percy John was. When I got back deceased said, ‘I feel as if I had an attack of heartburn.’ I think after that I returned to my guests. He was reading the newspapers.”

Mr. Montagu Williams objected to the statements of the deceased being put in evidence.

The Judge said that evidence as to symptoms could be received when made by the deceased.

The fatal attack now came on as previously described. In the box with the capsules were some little pills, and in the boy’s own box in his bedroom a small box of quinine powders, and another with two pills wrapped in tinfoil.[211] In the previous year, when the prisoner was in America, Mr. Bedbrook had received from him a box of pills, with a letter, saying that “he had met some one in America suffering from the same complaint as the boy, who had derived great benefit from taking medicine similar to that now sent, and requesting Mr. Bedbrook to see the boy take the medicine.” “I afterwards,” said the witness, “gave the boy one of the pills, and next morning he complained of being very unwell. At that time the box was in his bedroom, and Percy John said, ‘I will take no more of them.’ I thereupon took the pills downstairs, and until the box produced was found, was under the impression that I had thrown it away.”[212]

PURCHASE OF ACONITIA BY THE PRISONER.

Mr. Charles Albert Smith, a chemist at Ventnor, proved that on the 28th of August, 1881, the prisoner purchased of him 3 grains of sulphate of atropine, and 2 grains of aconitia, and that he had labelled the latter “Aconitine, poison.” As he had previously made up prescriptions for the prisoner, and knew him as a medical man, he sold the poison to him without hesitation. Aconitia, he believed, was commonly used for neuralgia and cancer, to relieve the palpitations in heart disease, and as a diuretic in dropsy.

On the 24th of November, 1881, the prisoner asked for 2 grains of aconitia at Messrs. Allen & Hanbury’s, of Plough-court, Lombard-street; and as the assistant, on reference to the Medical Directory, found the prisoner’s name as a medical man practising at Bournemouth, he sold them to him without further precaution than labelling it “Poison.” On the evidence of this witness, Mr. Dodd, a difficulty arose, from his having at first entertained the impression that it was “atropia” which he had sold. The price of this drug to a medical man would have been only threepence a grain, whilst that of aconitia would be 1s. 3d.[213] In the petty-cash book of the day, among entries of sales marked “C”—the sign that they were sold to a medical man—was one of 2s. 6d., but none of 3d.; and Mr. Dodd, after consulting with the other assistant who was present at the sale, became convinced that it was “aconitia,” and not “atropia,” which he had sold to the prisoner. “There is also,” he said, “a difference in colour, atropia being white, and aconitia yellowish-white.”

A previous attempt to purchase aconitia was proved by Mr. Stilling,[214] an assistant of Messrs. Bell & Co., Oxford-street, on the 20th of November. Twice before that day the prisoner had had prescriptions made up there, which he wrote in the shop, and marked as for his own use. These contained morphia and atropia, but at the bottom of the second of these prescriptions he had written, “Digitaline, pure, 5 grains.”

It may be noted here that the larger quinine powders in the box which were found to be pure were proved to have been purchased of Mr. Littlefield, a chemist at Ventnor, on the 13th of October, 1880; that he knew nothing of the smaller ones, which were proved by Dr. Stevenson to contain aconitia, and that he never kept that drug in his shop. In this he was confirmed by his assistant, Mr. Bright, who identified his own handwriting on the box in which they had been sold. The smaller quinine powders were not traced.

THE SURRENDER OF THE PRISONER.

On the 7th of December, the prisoner called at Scotland Yard and saw Inspector Butcher, who gave the following account of the interview:—

“When the prisoner came there and saw me, he said, ‘Mr. Butcher?’ and I replied, ‘Yes.’ He said, ‘My name is Lamson. I am Dr. Lamson, whose name has been mentioned in connection with the death at Wimbledon.’ I asked him to be seated, and he continued, ‘I have called to see what is to be done about it. I considered it best to do so. I read the account in the public papers in Paris, and came over this morning. I have only just now arrived in London. I am very unwell, and much upset about this matter, and not in a fit state at all to have undertaken this journey.’ I then communicated with Chief Superintendent Williamson, who said to the prisoner, ‘You will have to remain a time.’ I remained with him. His wife was present. He conversed on various subjects for some time, and then he said, ‘Where is the delay? I thought I would come here and leave my address. I am going into the country to Chichester, so that you will know where to find me, and I will attend the inquest. I have travelled from Paris vi Havre and Southampton. I went over vi Dover and Calais.’ After this I again saw Chief Superintendent Williamson, who called the prisoner into another room. I said, ‘Dr. Lamson, this case has been fully considered, and it has been decided to charge you with causing the death of Percy John. I therefore take you into custody, and charge you with causing the death of Percy Malcolm John, at Blenheim House, Wimbledon, on the 3rd of December instant.’ He said, ‘Very well; do you think bail will be accepted? I hope the matter will be kept as quiet as possible, for the sake of my relations.’ I told him he would now be taken to Wandsworth police-court, and the question of bail would rest with the magistrate. I conveyed him in a cab to the Wandsworth police-station. On the way he said, ‘You will have my father here in a day or two. I hope it will be stated that I came to Scotland Yard voluntarily. I came from Paris on purpose.’ I said, ‘Certainly.’”

On searching the box which he had left at Euston Station among various articles, chiefly of plate, a medical memorandum book was found, from which the Solicitor-General read an extract on the “effects of acrid vegetable poisons,” and then closed the case for the prosecution.

Mr. Montagu Williams, having previously had the letter read from the Home Office, refusing to allow an independent analysis of the contents of the body on the part of the prisoner, then commenced.

THE DEFENCE.

Of the speech for the defence, which lasted the greater part of two days, and dealt with the case with extreme minuteness, it will be sufficient to give a summary, especially as its leading points were remarked upon so fully in the charge of the learned Judge.

On the question whether the death of the boy was from poison, Mr. Montagu Williams, necessarily laid great stress on the admitted inability of the scientific witnesses to rely on any other test than that of taste. “Scientifically,” he said, “it was a leap in the dark, and they had to traverse a region of science up to the present moment unexplored. Who knows about aconite? and echo answers who? What was it? The root of monkshood. Aconite was one form, and aconitia was the active principle of that form: and up to the present moment, with the exception of one reported case, there was not a single authority on the subject.” Pursuing this subject, he said:—

“The first medical witness called was Dr. Berry, who on the night of December 3rd was visiting at Blenheim House, where he saw the poor boy until his death, and observed all the symptoms under which the unfortunate lad suffered. What were they? The lad told him that he was suffering from heartburn, and where was the symptom of heartburn in the administration of aconite in the evidence of the experts that had been brought before them? What medical gentleman had said that heartburn was a sign of aconitia poisoning? The poor lad was found vomiting, and Dr. Berry and another medical man, Dr. Little, treated him for irritation of the stomach. Neither of them treated him for, or thought of, poisoning. The boy was taken from the bath-room, where he was found, to the bed from which he never rose, and from first to last all the symptoms were those of irritation of the stomach. From nine o’clock to past eleven no attempt was made to use the stomach pump; and if the medical gentlemen thought poison had been taken, they never used anything to relieve him, or what might have saved him. If poison was in the minds of these medical men, why did they not treat him for such? It was clear, therefore, there was no thought of poison; and Dr. Berry admitted in evidence that it never occurred to him that it was so until the post-mortem examination. He said he then thought the death was from alkaloid poisoning. It was the duty of him (Mr. Williams) to cross-examine him on vegetable alkaloids. What was his knowledge? His knowledge was a blank, and he admitted he knew nothing of vegetable alkaloids. Therefore, the first expert witness called for the prosecution—who had, moreover, the benefit of seeing the symptoms in life—broke down altogether. It was his case that the theories of the prosecution were of the most speculative character. Dr. Little differed somewhat, and said, ‘We came to the conclusion that the boy was dying from a vegetable poison an hour before his death,’ while Dr. Berry said it was not until the post-mortem examination that they thought anything of the sort. Dr. Little says he read about vegetable alkaloids in his student days. Both those gentlemen, who give the opinion that death resulted from vegetable alkaloids, knew nothing whatever about the subject. Then they had Mr. Bond, a gentleman of great scientific attainments, well known in these courts, who gave the results of the post-mortem examination, and he (the learned counsel) thought it would not be straining the imagination too much to say that that gentleman gave the first idea of poisoning in the matter. Mr. Bond said he came to the conclusion that death resulted from a vegetable alkaloid, and again the same line of questions and answers followed. Mr. Bond admitted he had never known a case of such poisoning. And so the jury were asked to form a verdict on the evidence of two persons who had seen the symptoms of the deceased in life, and were entirely ignorant of the signs of vegetable alkaloid poisoning, and of Mr. Bond, who was not present, and who admitted he was also ignorant upon the subject. They were asked to give a verdict on which an existence hung, and to say they had no doubt whatever that aconitia was in the body. He could only say up to that time there was not one single piece of evidence that the boy died by aconitia poisoning.”

Passing thence to the evidence of Doctors Stevenson and DuprÉ, whose tests, the former said, “rested on his taste, on the effects of the solutions on the mice and his reading,” he called the attention of the jury to Dr. Stevenson’s admission that the results of most of these tests were consistent with other causes, though consistent with aconitia, and ridiculed the effects on the mice as confirmatory tests, quoting the remarks of Lord Coleridge that tests upon animals were always found to be most unreliable, and of Professor Tidy, “that although useful at arriving at results, they sometimes failed, and were not reliable.” “If they used their common sense they must see that that must be so. So delicate was the constitution of a mouse that one of those experimented on had died because the injecting needle had been stuck in a quarter of an inch too far. Mice would sometimes die from fright, and also from the injection of water, and yet because these mice spoken of died in five minutes they were asked to say that they died of aconitia poisoning.” As to the test of taste, Dr. Stevenson had admitted “that it was like some other alkaloids, and not like others.” The question of the production of cadaveric alkaloids was still sub judice. He was prevented, by the refusal of the Home Office, to allow experts on the prisoner’s behalf to be present at the analytical examination, from calling scientific witnesses to rebut—“an act that was trifling with life—a beautiful bit of red-tapeism; and, if it was contrary to all practice, the sooner it was done away with the better.”

On the second point, whether if aconitia was given, it was given by the prisoner, Mr. Montagu Williams, after alluding to the way in which his admitted poverty had been pressed against the prisoner, called the attention of the jury to the facilities the prisoner would have had of poisoning his brother-in-law during the boy’s visit at his house in the summer, or his projected visit at Christmas; to the fact that the supposed attempt was made in the full light of gas, and in the presence of both the master and the victim; that there was no proof that he had brought a capsule ready charged with poison, and that he must have manipulated one before their eyes, and that it was not by his request that powdered white sugar was brought. “What was there to prevent lump sugar being brought?” As to the pills found with the capsules,

“Where did they come from? No pills were given to the boy by the prisoner, for Mr. Bedbrook was present the whole time and no mention was made of pills. Where was the boy all the afternoon? In the room downstairs, and able to move about, though this was studiously concealed by everyone from Blenheim House. In this room was the box in which two pills were afterwards found, one of which was charged with aconitia. Were there other pills in that box? It was known that Percy John kept medicine unknown to everyone in the establishment, although it was against the rules of the school; it being the duty of the master to administer all medicine. The poor fellow was called ‘the swell pill taker,’ and what was more likely than that, with the fascination of the new capsules before him, he should have taken a pill for the heartburn from which he was suffering. Did he do so? It was suggested that these pills were some sent by the prisoner, but Mr. Bedbrook had exploded that idea. He swore that he thought he had destroyed those referred to, but at any rate he had never given them back to the prisoner. Now did these four or five pills, found on the table, come from the box? Was there any evidence to show that the boy did not carry pills in his pocket, and took one in consequence of the heartburn? What did the prosecution mean? Did they mean to say that there was a pill hidden in the capsule? If the boy had thought of such a thing, would he not have asked Mr. Bedbrook or Banbury whether they felt in a similar state? The boy was in the possession of all his faculties when questioned, but he did not say one word about the capsules.”

Mr. Montagu Williams then alluded to the admission of Mr. Whalley that poisons were occasionally left in the house after the chemical lectures, and to the probability that so large a dose of aconitia as was assumed to have been given would have acted sooner, as Dr. Stevenson admitted that ¹/₂₁ of a grain might kill, and ¹/₁₃ would certainly have a fatal effect. As for the medical note-book found in the prisoner’s possession, he reminded the jury of Lord Campbell’s opinion in Palmer’s case that nothing was more natural for a professional man, and added, “It had no more bearing on the case than if ‘Russell on Crimes’ had been found in his own possession, on a charge of murder.”

On the proof of the purchase of aconitia at Allen’s, he begged them to note, that on the 5th of December the police commenced their enquiries, on the 6th the assistants at Allen’s communicated with them, saying that the prisoner had purchased atropia, and that it was not until after that that they changed their opinion and were convinced that it was aconitia. It was true that no entry of 3d. was found in the cash book, but there was one of 8d., and one of the chemists had deposed that the wholesale price of atropia, to a medical man, was 4d. a grain. But even if it was aconitia that the prisoner then purchased, it was only natural for him so to do, as he was suffering from rheumatism, of which it was a cure. Again, though they knew where the larger quinine powders, which were not poisoned, came from, it had not been proved whence the smaller came, which it was the duty of the prosecution to have done. “Oddly enough, they were tied up with a piece of string, a most unusual thing coming from a chemist’s shop. They had traced twelve quinine powders, but they had failed to trace the pills sent from America which Mr. Bedbrook swore were not given back to the deceased. He, Mr. Williams, could not say where the smaller powders came from, nor where the pills came from. The burden was not on him to do so, but on the prosecution.”

Turning then to the evidence of the visit to the boy at Shanklin, Mr. Williams said he would deal with that important episode most successfully.

“Albert Smith,” he said, “proved that on the 28th of August he sold to prisoner three grains of atropia and one grain of aconitia, charging 4d. per grain for the first and 1s. 6d. per grain for the last named. The suggestion on the part of the prosecution was that in the month of August the assassin was at work and an attempt was made on the life of the lad. In his judgment he would make that melt into the thinnest of thin air. The 28th of August was a Sunday, and on the previous day Mr. and Mrs. Chapman and the boy arrived. At that time there were four persons of the name of Lamson residing at the Isle of Wight—namely, the prisoner’s father and mother, and himself and his wife. On the 27th of August they met the boy at the station, and went to Mrs. Jolliffe’s lodgings, and here again there appeared a kindness and solicitude for the deceased. The 28th was Sunday, and it was said that he bought aconitia on that day, and that he was present on the 29th, and in order to prove it it was said that a parcel was left at the station in the name of Lamson, when there were four persons on the island named Lamson. It was further said that the deceased suffered from illness after taking something given to him by the prisoner, and from that they assumed it was aconitia bought at the shop of Mr. Smith that he had taken. The proof was all the other way, as the symptoms upon which the prosecution relied all through the case were not those which could be assigned to aconitia, while he recovered within a few hours. Beyond that, it was shown that he suffered from indigestion, especially by the fact that although he dined at one o’clock on the day of his death, undigested food was found in the vomit at nine o’clock at night. The prisoner purchased the atropia and aconitia on the 28th of August, he was to leave for America on the 30th. This mixture was the very thing he would have taken, and the very time he would have bought it for the purpose of going on the voyage. The dates exactly suited.”

Counsel’s explanation of the story told by the prisoner to the witness Tulloch was ingenious.

“The prisoner did not deny that he went down to Wimbledon on December 2 with Tulloch, but if he contemplated assassination then would he have been likely to have taken Tulloch with him? That was an observation worthy of some note. He would try and imagine a state of things to have existed, which was not impossible but more than probable. It was admitted that upon the 2nd of December the boy had been passing an examination. It was also admitted the first thing the prisoner was greeted with on the 3rd was, ‘I am glad you did not come yesterday.’ When he went down on the 2nd what was more likely than that he met some one, perhaps one of the boys, for it was a holiday, who told him it was an examination day, and he therefore postponed his visit until the next day? All the importance of this visit depended on the evidence of a man who had altered his evidence as originally given, and who, it was suggested, was on that night the worse for liquor.”

With the remarks that the flight of the prisoner to Paris, where he could have been arrested, and his return to England and surrender to the police, were not the acts of a guilty man; that, to obtain the pecuniary gain from the boy’s death, the prisoner must have applied to the Court of Chancery, and if there had been suspicion of foul play would find, instead of receiving £1,500, the hangman’s halter round his neck, and a fervid appeal on behalf of the wife who had stood by him in Court, and his young child, Mr. Montagu Williams concluded his minute and able survey of the case against his client.

THE REPLY.

The Solicitor-General, in his comparatively brief reply, directed the attention of the jury to the following points. He admitted that, in this case, they had to traverse a branch of science but little known, that little was known of aconitia, and everything speculation. He urged, however, that “that argument, whilst fair, might be pressed too far, as then a man desirous of taking life had only to use some poison but little known, and then to ask that he should not be rendered liable for the results of his crime. They found, no doubt, from time to time, fresh materials used for the commission of crime. If a man from his knowledge used a poison little known and little used, still science, with unerring precision, and working as fast as him, could bring the crime to light.” The idea of death from natural causes had apparently been abandoned by the prisoner’s counsel, so that it was impossible to doubt that it was due to poison, and what that poison was must rest on the evidence of the scientific witnesses, “the first in their profession, of the highest skill, not called in to prop up any theory, but to frame an independent opinion. The presence of a third party would not have been likely to assist the analysis, while on the other hand it might have led to difficulty, and even mistake.” He disputed the correctness of the quotation from Dr. Tidy. What he really did say, was, “Experiments on animals may furnish us with much useful information in cases of suspected poisoning, but their value must not be over-estimated.” In this case they were only used to strengthen the evidence from taste. “The two tests must be used together. It was their combined force that drove home to the mind the conviction that Dr. Stevenson was right when he said that what he found in the body was aconitia, and nothing but aconitia.” “As to the cadaveric alkaloids, they had in evidence that they were only produced along with putrefaction, and that their results on animals were totally different from those of the extracts from the boy’s body. Would they not say that Dr. Stevenson’s experiments had been conducted in every way to exclude error, and must they not, looking at the whole of the scientific evidence, accept his judgment?”

As to the possibility of the boy himself obtaining this poison, it was fenced round with such safeguards that not even a medical man, unless personally known, could obtain it without a record being kept. His story about the visit to Wimbledon was pure invention, and the explanation of it by counsel ingenious, and no more. Falsehood seemed to have been uttered by him at every turn. The taking Mr. Tulloch with him was a mere blind: his return and surrender intended to divert suspicion. Had he remained in France he must have been arrested, and, if he had no money, he was compelled to return to England.

THE JUDGE’S CHARGE.

In his charge to the jury, after pointing out that the two points to which they had to direct their attention were whether the boy died from poison or a natural disease, and if by poison, whether it was administered to him by the prisoner, Sir Henry Hawkins alluded to the alleged motive—the prospect of an accession of fortune at the time when the prisoner was in great pecuniary difficulties—and the fact that until the day of his death the deceased, though a cripple, was free from any mortal disease. Then, after referring to the details of the prisoner’s visit to the boy on the 3rd of December, the judge made the following remarks on the results of the chemical analysis, and the comments of Mr. Williams on them:—

“The presence of morphia was, he said, accounted for, as it had been injected beneath the skin for the purpose of allaying the pain. With regard to the dark fluid in the stomach, it contained, according to the evidence of Dr. Stevenson, traces of food, an apple, and a raisin, and from it an alkaloidal extract was obtained; on applying which to the tongue a slight taste of aconitia was produced. The sensation extended to the lip, although the extract did not touch it. The sensation was a burning, tingling, numbing one difficult to define. Salivation and a desire to expectorate were produced—there was a sensation at the back of the throat, a swelling up: this was followed by a peculiar seared sensation of the tongue, as though a hot iron had been passed over it or strong caustic. Experiments were made with extracts from the liver, spleen, and kidneys, from the dark fluid, and from the stomach itself, and within nine minutes mice showed symptoms of poisoning, and died in about twenty-two minutes afterwards. The same sensation, in fact, was produced on the mice as had been produced on his own tongue previously. In the urine there was a taste of aconitia, which brought on a sickening and a burning sensation. Mr. Montagu Williams had said that the experiments upon mice were hardly a test as to what the effect of the extract would be upon human beings. Granted; but they were about the only tests that could properly be made, and they proved the presence of aconitia. The drug, Dr. Stevenson said, produced a sensation to the tongue and throat which was unmistakable, and its property of killing was proved by its test upon the mice. Could they believe Dr. Stevenson mistaken about that, it was asked—were there not other vegetable alkaloids? There were; and Dr. Stevenson said they all had peculiar tastes which differed from that of aconitia. He further said that, having made himself acquainted with between 50 and 80 vegetable alkaloids, aconitia differed in taste from any of them. The learned Judge proceeded to read the evidence given by Dr. Stevenson as to the action of the extract and of prepared aconitia on the mice. Dr. Stevenson had minutely examined the vomit to endeavour to trace some of the fibre of monkshood from which aconite was extracted, and which, as was known, had sometimes been mistaken for horse radish, but not a particle could he find. But he obtained all the symptoms of aconitia upon his tongue, and death resulted in 15½ minutes when a small quantity was injected into the back of a mouse. He gave it as his opinion that 1-13th of a grain was sufficient to kill, and that he found enough aconitia in the stomach to cause the death of two persons. Dr. Stevenson had been submitted to a severe cross-examination, and it would be for the jury to say whether they believed that he had really found aconitia. Mr. Williams had said they were embarking in a new region in aconitia poisoning. It might be they were not very learned in it, though they would doubtless advance as fresh experiments were made and fresh tests applied. At present it was true there was no chemical test. That was admitted. Mr. Williams, in the course of his cross-examination, had spoken of phosphoric acid, but Dr. Stevenson said that only applied to foreign aconitia, and not to Morson’s English preparation. They had before them the explanation of Dr. Stevenson. It stood for what it was worth, and it was for them to say if he was correct, after the experiments he had made, in saying that he had found aconitia. Dr. Stevenson had explained the only tests, physiological and otherwise, to trace aconitia, and had formed his opinion that death arose from that substance. With reference to cadaveric alkaloids, Dr. Stevenson did not admit that poisonous cadaveric alkaloids were to be found in the human body. He did not dispute there were cadaveric alkaloids, but he disputed their being poisonous. He did not say they were not so; it was still an open question. The result of the 22 experiments he had made by tasting cadaveric alkaloids never gave him any taste like aconitia, and in only one case did death ensue to a mouse experimented upon, which was where the little animal’s spine was injured by the needle used for the injection. Another circumstance spoken to by Dr. DuprÉ was that no trace of quinine was found in the vomit, but that might be due to the fact that a portion of the vomit was thrown away. Upon the testimony as to the cause of death the prosecution said that there was no possibility of accounting for death by natural causes, and it was for the jury to say whether the death was from aconitia.”

Then going through the evidence of the prisoner’s pecuniary embarrassments, he alluded to the sending of the pills from America as showing that if he had entertained the design of poisoning the boy, he had done so long before the fatal act.

Reviewing then the prisoner’s conduct in London, and the story invented by him about his pretended visit to the boy on the 2nd of December, “which,” he said, “did not amount to much, but must be taken, with the other circumstances of the case, to show that the prisoner’s word was not to be relied on,” the learned judge then referred to the incidents of the fatal night. As to the two boxes of capsules, he continued:—

“The prosecution suggested that these two boxes of capsules were brought by the prisoner, but they did not suggest there was poison in any of them. They were clearly innocent capsules, as two of them did no harm either to Mr. Bedbrook or to the lad Banbury, each of whom swallowed one. What the prosecution suggested, however, was that whilst Mr. Bedbrook was examining the capsule he had taken from the box, the prisoner took another, in which there was aconitia, from another box, and that over that aconitia he put in the sugar, and then administered it to the boy. That was the suggestion made. They asked for those facts to be put together—the boy was in as good health as he ordinarily was, in as good spirits as usual, having neither eaten nor partaken of anything in which there was a suggestion of poison during the day, and yet within half-an-hour, or less, of seeing the prisoner and swallowing the capsule he was taken ill. The cake, the sweets, and the capsule were all three given him by the prisoner, and within a short time he showed the first symptoms described, viz., heartburn, which was followed rapidly by painful sensations, and the contraction of the throat, retching, vomiting, agony, and raving to the time of death. On these facts the prosecution asked them to come to the conclusion that he not only died by aconitia, but by aconitia administered to him by the prisoner, it being clear that no other person administered anything to him during the prisoner’s visit. The prosecution contended farther that they had shown the prisoner to be possessed of aconitia, upon the evidence of two purchases of aconitia by him, one from the chemist at Ventnor on the 28th August, and the other about the 20th November at Allen and Hanbury’s, in Plough Court.

Then again placing before the jury the two questions he had referred to in the opening of his charge, and warning them not to allow sympathy either for the poor boy or the prisoner to bias their decision, Sir Henry Hawkins left the case in their hands.

In less than three-quarters of an hour the jury returned a verdict of “Guilty.” When called upon as usual to say why judgment should not be passed upon him, the prisoner, standing with arms folded, in a loud voice, “protested his innocence before God,” and with very few words, the learned judge pronounced sentence of death.

EVIDENCE OF LAMSON’S STATE OF MIND.

Within a short time after the conviction of the prisoner, Mr. Lowell, the American Minister, by the instruction of President Arthur, requested the Home Secretary to suspend the execution, on the faith of a statement from the United States Attorney-General that evidence bearing on the state of mind of the prisoner, was preparing in America, and would be shortly forwarded to England. To this novel application Sir William Harcourt acceded, in courtesy to the applicant. The promised affidavits arrived, and were considered by the Home Secretary as insufficient. Again a further application for delay was made, on the promise of further evidence, and acceded to for the term of a fortnight, with clear notice to Lamson that if the promised affidavits were not more satisfactory than the preceding ones, the sentence would be carried out. Such they proved in the opinion of Sir William Harcourt, and Lamson was at length executed on the 28th of April.

The proffered evidence not only covered the whole of Lamson’s life from the days of his medical pupilage at Paris till his trial, but sought to establish “a marked hereditary tendency to insanity,” from the fact that his grandmother had been in the New York Bloomingdale Asylum from the age of seventy-six till her death four years after, and had been previously suffering from “senile dementia,” the apparent cause of which was entered in the Hospital Register as “predisposing;”—that her brother, a sea captain, at the age of eighty, was in the same asylum, having been suffering for two years from “dementia,” also entered as “predisposing;” and that her daughter, a Mrs. McGregor, at the age of thirty-one, was a patient until her death about three years after—her mania “puerperal,” and also entered as “predisposing.”[215] No evidence, however, was offered of the mental condition of any less remote ancestors.

As a Medical Student in Paris in 1869-70, Lamson is described as suffering from cerebral anÆmia with a tendency to melancholia, given to imaginary complaints about the surgical theatre, apt to take offence, with a passion for chemical experiments of a morbid character, generally genial in manner, and taciturn of speech. When employed in the American Ambulance during the siege of Paris in 1870-71, “his behaviour was so wild, erratic, and bad, that his associate aids were not prepared to say whether it was that of an idiot or the result of special wickedness—his mind so disordered that he could not be entrusted to administer medicines, as to the effects of which he seemed to be utterly destitute of judgment and common sense—just as likely to give a large and dangerous dose as a smaller and safe one, no matter how particularly instructed, and seemed to be utterly reckless of results.”[216]

From this date to the year 1877, no evidence was offered of his conduct or state of mind. In that year he acted as a surgeon for the Red Cross Society at Bucharest, in the Servian War. Whilst there “he exhibited a mania for the administration of aconitia in almost every case, using it in season and out of season, and in such quantities as to alarm the medical staff and render his recall to England necessary. Here, too, he appears to have commenced on himself the extravagant use of hypodermic injections of morphia, to which he subsequently became so notoriously addicted, on the plea that he was in constant pain and misery,” and to have been constantly under the influence of some anÆsthetic. He was also habitually incoherent and inconsistent in his way of talking, boasting of adventures in the American Civil War, when he could have been only twelve years of age. His father, who was with him, seemed to keep a constant watch over his son, and frequently expressed his wish that some other surgeon should be associated with him.[217]

In 1879 Lamson purchased a medical practice at Bournemouth, and during the two years that he remained there, according to the testimony of friends and servants, behaved in a most erratic and strange manner. Whilst there his habit of injecting morphia under his skin increased in a most extraordinary degree, one witness saying that “he was hardly ever in his company for more than an hour that he did not use the hypodermic syringe.” When visiting patients he seemed not to know why he had come, or what he ought to do, behaving so strangely that his services were eventually dispensed with. His habit of telling extravagant stories grew rapidly upon him. His eyes had a fitful and nervous look as if afraid of phantoms. He seemed to be perpetually trying to look sane, and the witness (Warren, an artist) who spoke to these symptoms said “he had frequently seen him walking along quickly, his head hanging down, when he would stop suddenly, turn back, and branch off in some other direction, crossing backwards and forwards over the road without rhyme or reason.” Mr. Radcliffe Hall, of Welbeck-street, to whom Lamson had made in writing a perfectly baseless statement about Mrs. Hall’s antecedents, and afterwards could remember nothing about it, had seen him inject morphia twenty times a day. His servants thought him mad, and humoured him accordingly, and the patients who attended at the dispensary which with another medical man he managed, with only one or two exceptions, refused to be attended by him.[218]

From April to May, 1881, Lamson was staying at Rouse’s Point, New York, with the Rev. Irving McElroy, the rector of Christ Church, during which period his habit of injecting morphia was continued, and, according to the testimony of the rector and his wife, Dr. Winston, the Medical Director of the New York Mutual Life Assurance Company, Dr. Murray, Physician of Rouse’s Point, Dr. Hall, and others who knew him, it was seriously affecting his brain. On one occasion he was found in the public street with no coat on, and his left arm bared. He had a syringe in one hand, and with the thumb of the other was pressing down the place where the injection had been made.[219] At his friend’s house he passed the greater part of the day on the lounge, either dozing or attempting to read. He was then using a mixture apparently of morphia and atropine, but told them he preferred aconitine, but could not procure it in that section of the county. To one of the witnesses he admitted that his whole existence depended on the constant use of morphia. The marks of these repeated injections were detected by Dr. Williamson of Edinburgh whom Lamson consulted in New York in October, 1881, who marked the serious change that had taken place in his health, and urged his discontinuance of this baneful practice. Dr. Hall considered Lamson “not a perfectly sane man,” Dr. Winston considered that he “had become a helpless victim of the habit (of injecting morphia) which had seriously impaired his mental powers and destroyed his moral responsibility,” and in Dr. Murray’s opinion “he was utterly irresponsible for his acts.” It is admitted, however, that at intervals his conversation was perfectly clear and lucid, and to none of the medical men appears to have been put the legal test question, “did he know the difference between right and wrong, at the time wherein he committed the crime?”[220]

Lastly, we are offered testimony as to the condition of Lamson’s mind for a few days immediately preceding the fatal occurrence, and that of his father and wife as to his strange conduct for some time previous. All, however, that this evidence amounts to is, that he was so strange and extravagant in his manner and conduct, that he was spoken of by friends and acquaintance as a lunatic, that “for a year past his wife’s fears and anxieties had been greatly and increasingly aroused for the soundness of his mind—that his brain, predisposed to weakness, or constitutionally liable to disturbance, was unsettled by ill-health and trouble, and its disease aggravated by the use of morphia.” His father spoke to the wild and fanciful delusions in which his son indulged—the whole being myths, and believed “that for at least eighteen months he had been in an unsound state of mind, steadily increasing in its character and blinding him to the natural and inevitable effects of his acts; and that the balance of his mind had been quite destroyed.” His solicitor deposed that “he could obtain no assistance from him in the preparation of his defence—that he appeared to have no memory and to be incapable of appreciating the bearing of any of the facts of his case, or the gravity of his position; that he laboured under extravagant hallucination, whilst his statements were either incoherent, inconsistent, or manifestly the creations of a disordered brain.”

Three medical men of experience speak to the effects almost certain to be produced by such an habitually excessive use of morphia or opium, as that of which Dr. Lamson was the victim. Dr. Coghill, of the Ventnor Consumptive Hospital, and for eight years municipal medical officer and consulting physician to a general hospital in China, where he had unusual facilities for becoming familiar with the effects of opium smoking and eating, has no hesitation in saying that “anyone in the habit of using opium to such an extent would be incapable of self-control, and have his moral senses and powers of judgment deteriorated to a degree rendering him incapable of resisting morbid influences.” Dr. H. H. Kane, of Fort Washington, New York, who had written on the effects of “these drugs that enslave,” and on the “Hypodermic Injection of Morphia,” and was then in charge of a hospital devoted to the treatment of opium smokers and eaters and the like habits, admits that “as regards the question of insanity from the habitual use of opium or its alkaloids, more especially morphia, but little definite is known. Insane Asylum reports,” he adds, “record every year from six to eight cases of insanity attributed to the prolonged use of opiates; and physicians in general practice recognise it as a rare, though well-established, form of insanity. A person with an hereditary tendency to insanity, or with a mind weakened from any combination of circumstances, or from bodily disease, using this drug in large amount for a considerable time, could hardly escape some unsettling of his mental and moral powers. Actual mania, melancholia, and dementia are probably rare, but have undoubtedly occurred from this cause. Of all the forms of the opium habit that by hypodermic injection, as a rule, works the most harm in the shortest time.”

Dr. R. M. Miller, of Norwood, who saw Lamson professionally in July, 1881, when his friends were alarmed at his condition, is of opinion “that morphia and atropia, taken in such quantities, would gradually ruin the powers of the nervous system and also the powers of self-control.”

Such is the substance of the testimony of the cloud of witnesses proffered in support of the appeal for a scientific investigation into the mental state of Lamson at the time when he committed the act for which he was arraigned. To what does it amount? Even if it goes beyond proof that he was occasionally nervous, disconnected in his ideas, aimlessly untruthful, and with a hobby for the administration of aconitia as a panacea for all diseases, and a loss of vital nerve and energy, there is no evidence to suggest that these eccentricities were dangerous or ever assumed the form of homicidal mania. “If,” said a contemporary writer, “Lamson could appreciate the pecuniary benefit he would derive from Percy John’s death—and why else should he have selected his victim?—he could realise the wickedness of his act. A symptom of dangerous madness is that it acts without apparent motive—the immediate circumstances of the murder pointed to the exercise of a crafty deliberation, which, though not in itself inconsistent with homicidal mania, was not as aimless as homicidal mania.” Is it not a parallel case to that of Dove, a weak and erratic mind, in that case further weakened and unhinged by drink, in this case by the vicious use of morphia? Are not the words of Baron Bramwell in Dove’s case strictly applicable to this? “The rules of law,” said that judge, “are that it must be clearly proved that, at the time of committing the act, the party accused was labouring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing; and if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing wrong.” Until the law is altered it is impossible to doubt that the Home Secretary was right, “that he could find in the affidavits and statutory declarations no sufficient grounds for advising an interference with the sentence of the law.”