Reports of Trials for Murder by Poisoning_ G. Lathom Browne and active 19th century C. G. Stewart 2376 downloads.pdf

The Project Gutenberg eBook of Reports of Trials
for Murder by Poisoning;
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United
States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it
away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg
License included with this eBook or online at
www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United
States, you will have to check the laws of the country where
you are located before using this eBook.

Title: Reports of Trials for Murder by Poisoning;

Author: G. Lathom Browne
active 19th century C. G. Stewart

Release date: December 7, 2015 [eBook #50636]
Most recently updated: October 22, 2024

Language: English

Other information and formats:
www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/50636

Credits: Produced by Giovanni Fini, Chris Curnow and the
Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at
http://www.pgdp.net (This
file was produced from images generously made

available
by The Internet Archive)

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK
REPORTS OF TRIALS FOR MURDER BY POISONING; ***

TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES:
—Obvious print and punctuation errors were corrected.
—The transcriber of this project created the book cover image using the title page of the
original book. The image is placed in the public domain.

REPORTS OF TRIALS
FOR

MURDER BY POISONING.

REPORTS OF TRIALS
FOR
MURDER BY POISONING;
BY

PRUSSIC ACID, STRYCHNIA, ANTIMONY,
ARSENIC, AND ACONITIA.

INCLUDING THE

TRIALS OF TAWELL, W. PALMER, DOVE,
MADELINE SMITH,
Dr. PRITCHARD, SMETHURST, AND Dr.
LAMSON,

WITH

CHEMICAL INTRODUCTION AND NOTES ON
THE POISONS USED.

BY

G. LATHOM BROWNE,
OF THE MIDLAND CIRCUIT, BARRISTER-AT-LAW, AUTHOR OF
“NARRATIVES OF
STATE TRIALS IN THE 19TH CENTURY,”

AND

C. G. STEWART,
SENIOR ASSISTANT IN THE LABORATORY OF ST. THOMAS’S
HOSPITAL;
ASSOCIATE OF THE ROYAL COLLEGE OF SCIENCE, DUBLIN;
AND OF THE SOCIETY OF PUBLIC ANALYSTS.

LONDON:
STEVENS AND SONS, 119, CHANCERY LANE,
Law Publishers and Booksellers.
1883.

LONDON:
BRADBURY, AGNEW, & CO., PRINTERS, WHITEFRIARS.

PREFACES.

This volume of selected reports of the most remarkable trials
for murder by poisoning, which have been held during the past half
century, with essays and notes explanatory of the nature, and
operation, and methods of detecting the various poisons supposed
to have been employed, will it is hoped prove useful to the medical,
as well as the legal profession. With this object the evidence of the
medical and chemical witnesses has been given in detail, especially
in those cases in which a conflict of scientific testimony arose,
between experts of the highest professional character and
reputation. Care has also been taken to state the scientific
nomenclature of this class of witness correctly, a point on which
the shorthand writers, otherwise so reliable, are naturally liable to
fail, catching as they do only the sounds of a language unknown to
them, in reporting which the error even in a single letter is often
most important. My colleague, besides furnishing the latest
information obtainable with reference to the various poisons, has
offered from recent experiments, made specially for this purpose,
explanations of those points in the several trials about which the
rival experts disputed, bringing to bear on them the latest
discoveries in chemical science.

In preparing these reports, I have followed the form adopted by
the late Mr. Townsend, the Recorder of Macclesfield, in his
valuable volumes of trials—now I believe quite out of print—
grouping the witnesses under the heads of the case to which their
evidence specially applied, dividing the scientific from the moral
testimony, and wherever a conflict arose between the experts called
for the prosecution and those for the defence, giving the evidence
of the latter immediately after that of the former, so as to place the
points at issue more clearly before the reader.
It would have been impossible, within reasonable limits, to
have reported in detail the elaborate speeches of counsel (most of
them models of argument, criticism, and eloquence), or the minute
and exhaustive charges of many of the presiding judges. The
abstracts which have been given will, however, serve to perpetuate
the most important and notable parts of both. In some of the cases
the immediate application of these either to certain points in the
evidence, or to the arguments adduced on either side, has been
shown by quotations in the notes. With these exceptions, and a few
notes pointing out errors or discrepancies in the evidence, I have
generally forborne to express an opinion on the verdict, preferring
to present such reports of the evidence as may enable the student to
form his own conclusions.
With the progress of chemical science the field of the poisoner
is constantly extending. New poisons are yearly discovered, each
succeeding one apparently more difficult of detection than the
former. Death lurks in many unsuspected forms, and but for the
parallel march of the science of detection, the poisoner would more
often escape. A grave danger to society, too, lies in the patent
medicines, so popular and so perilous; in the vermin killers, loaded
with deadly poison, which can be bought without let or hindrance
by any one; and the use of preparations for animals—not so

deleterious to the latter, as they are death-dealing—if either
intentionally or by accident given to a human being. Stringent as
the regulations of the Poisons Act appear on paper, the facility with
which Lamson purchased aconitia, merely on the credit of his name
appearing in the Medical Directory, and the really unrestricted sale
of patent medicines and vermin-killers, mark the practical inutility
of the Act. A new Act, dealing with these points, has been promised
by the Government, but there seems little probability of its passing
this session.

G. L. B.

In the compilation of these chemical notes it has been found
very difficult to be sufficiently simple and complete in explanation
for non-scientific readers, without either sacrificing many
important details, or exceeding the limited space available. I have
attempted as far as possible not only to solve the questions that
arose in the trials, but to look forward to many that might occur in
future cases. No claim is laid to originality except in a few
experiments; but the search through existing authorities has
involved so much labour, that I must plead a very limited leisure as
an excuse for any incompleteness. In such portions as touched on
medicine I have been guided by the later text-books, and by living
advice. It has been thought preferable to give references in the text,
at the very passage quoted, instead of in foot-notes.

With regard to the proposed new Poisons Act one or two
considerations should not be forgotten. There are hundreds of ways
of taking life: the poisoner’s is only one. Even in his method the
number of fatal agents he may use is almost unlimited. To make a
schedule of certain poisons that are not to be sold without
restriction, seems like prohibiting knives, while allowing stilettos—
the latter are certainly less usual, but quite as fatal. Moreover, the
Act of 1868 only affects one channel by which poisons may reach
the public—viz., through the retail chemists. It secures a record of
ordinary shop purchases, and thus facilitates the tracing of crime.
But the channels of trade are still open: hundred-weights of arsenic
are obtained, where ounces could not be purchased; and these large
stocks are often carelessly kept, and left open to servants,
workmen, or even children. The result is that the supposed
restrictions on obtaining poisons are almost illusory: these
substances are sown broadcast among ignorant people, and are
placed in cupboards unlabelled among articles of food. The
following are recent illustrations:—
“At Corkley, Wilts, the wife of a labourer used, instead of
baking-powder, a packet of arsenic, intended by her husband as
medicine for his horses. The husband and wife died.”—Weekly
Dispatch, May 6, 1883.
“At Whitchurch, a farmer was accused of poisoning a large
number of cattle and other animals with arsenic. In 1881 he had
obtained several pounds of it from Liverpool, stating that he wanted
it to destroy vermin.”—Evening Standard, June 2, 1883.

In the schedule of the 1868 Act, among the less dangerous
poisons, to be obtained without restriction beyond proper labelling,
appears, “Almonds, Essential Oil of (unless deprived of prussic
acid).” Yet this preparation is one of the most perilous, as has been
shown by numbers of deaths, and lately by the West Malling case

(not yet ripe enough for reporting). There are also other faults in
the schedule.
Remembering, then, that legislation on the sale of poisons is
utterly unable to prevent poisoning, that all it can do is to make the
means a little difficult, and the detection more easy, how can we
approve the proposal at this moment made, to tack on a few, very
tentative clauses to an unsuccessful Act, and four more names to a
very defective schedule? Why insert chloride of antimony, and omit
nitrate of silver, sulphate of copper, and chloride of tin? The
essence of a “poison” is quantity; and no Act which does not
specify the maximum quantity that may be sold, can be effective.
Beyond this, why should it be more criminal to sell a dangerous
substance to a poisoner than to give it to him, or by culpable
negligence to allow him to take possession of it? If such neglect
were made punishable, if people who left arsenic, &c., about in
cupboards without precaution, had to suffer for the consequences,
we should hear less of such “accidents.”
I am deeply indebted to Dr. Bernays, Professor of Chemistry at
St. Thomas’s Hospital, for kind advice and facilities of consultation
and experiment; to Doctors Harley, Ord, Acland, and to my
namesake, Mr. Charles Stewart, F.L.S., for many valuable
suggestions; and especially to Mr. E. G. Clayton, F.C.S., who
contributed the main part of the chapter on Aconitia, and helped me
materially in other portions of the chemical notes.
The main authorities drawn upon have been:—
Taylor’s Medical Jurisprudence, 1873.
Taylor on Poisons.
Woodman and Tidy’s Handy-Book of Forensic Medicine and
Toxicology, 1877.
Blyth’s Manual of Practical Chemistry, 1879.
Guy and Ferrier’s Forensic Medicine, 1881.

Allen’s Commercial Organic Analysis, 1879.
Royle’s Materia Medica, edited by Dr. J. Harley, 1876.
Christison on Poisons, 1829.
Fresenius’ Qual. and Quant. Analysis.
Watt’s Dictionary of Chemistry.
Chemical Society’s Journal.
Chemical News, Lancet, &c.
Farquharson’s Therapeutics.
Mohr’s Toxicologie, trans. by Gautier, 1876.
Casper’s Handbook of Forensic Medicine, trans. by Balfour,
1861-5.
Beilstein’s Organische Chemie, 1882.
Year Book of Pharmacy.
British and other Pharmacopœias.
Squire’s Companion.

In conclusion, it has been obviously impossible in the limited
space to explain elementary facts or principles. These may be
ascertained from any of the standard textbooks.

C. G. S.

CONTENTS.

PAGE

Prefaces v
Addenda: Differences between Strychnia and
Morphia xv
” Process for obtaining Pure Chlorine xvi

CHAPTER I.

Chemical Introduction.
Summary of symptoms exhibited by various poisons: 1
(1) Sudden death—(2) Insensibility—(3)
Vomiting—(4) Action on the eye—(5)
Convulsions—(6) Chronic poisoning. Alkaloids,
chemically and physiologically—Processes for
their detection—Necessity for keeping the
extracts separate—Dragendorff’s process—Dr.

Guy’s sublimation process—Effects on animals
—Doubtful value of this test—Preparation and
effects of reagents: (1) Mayer’s—(2) Potassium
tri-iodide—(3) Sonnenschein’s test—(4) Bismuth
—(5) Phosphotungstic acid—(6) Picric acid—(7)
Animal charcoal—(8) Platinic chloride—(9)
Tannin or Tannic acid—(10) Phospho-antimonic
acid—(11) Silico-tungstic acid—(12) Auric,
palladium and mercuric chlorides—Ptomaines or
cadaveric alkaloids; difficulties raised by their
discovery—Principles to be observed in
analysing
CHAPTER II.

Trials for Poisoning by Prussic Acid 16
(1) John Tawell (Slough Case), March, 1850.
(2) George Ball (Lewes Case), July, 1860.
(3) Peter Walker (Egglesham Case), Dec., 1857.

CHAPTER III.

Hydrocyanic or Prussic Acid.
Nature of—Strength of different preparations of, 55
English and foreign—Where found—Tests,
preliminary: (1) Odour—(2) Silver—(3) Prussian
blue—(4) Sulphur—(5) Guaiacum—(6) Uranium
—(7) Picric acid—(8) Cupric sulphate—(9)
Cobalt chloride—(10) Mercuric oxide—(11)
Peroxide of hydrogen—(12) Mercurous nitrate.
Test apparatus—Salts of hydrocyanic acid: (1)
Potassium cyanide—(2) Mercuric cyanide—(3)
Cyanides of the heavy metals—(4) Double
cyanides—(5) Sulphocyanides—Oil of bitter
almonds—Antidotes—Fatal dose—Symptoms—

Post-mortem appearances—Drops and minims—
Period after death at which hydrocyanic acid can
be discovered—Formic acid to be tested for—
Processes

CHAPTER IV.

Trials for Poisoning by Strychnia 84
(1) William Palmer (Rugeley Case), May, 1856.
(2) William Dove (Leeds Case), July, 1856.
(3) Silas Barlow (Vauxhall Case), November,
1876.

CHAPTER V.

Strychnia and Brucia.
Contained in St. Ignatius’s bean—False Angostura 276
bark—Nux Vomica, &c.—Properties of strychnia
—Facility of detection. Tests: (1) Microscope—
(2) Taste—(3) Color test; ditto in other alkaloids,
in bile, and in resinous and saccharine matters—
(4) Physiological test (Marshall Hall)—(5)
Bichromate of potash—(6) Picric acid—(7)
Sulphuric acid and sodium nitrite—(8) Mercuric
chloride. Preparations of strychnia: Vermin killers
—Battle’s, Gibson’s, Miller’s, Marsden’s,
Barber’s, Hunter’s, Keating’s—Brucia—Igasuria
—Igasuric acid. Doses of strychnia: medicinal,
fatal, recovery—Nux vomica. Fatal period for
strychnia—Symptoms in man, commencement of
symptoms, if given in powder, in solution, in
pills. Explanation of symptoms: by hysteria,
tetanus, epilepsy, gritty granules on spinal cord—
Angina pectoris. Post-mortem appearances—
Treatment—Antidotes—Dr. Taylor’s evidence—

Ptomaine—Did Cook die from morphia?—
Granular preparations at St. Thomas’s Hospital

CHAPTER VI.

Trials for Poisoning by Arsenic 294
(1) Madeline Smith (_Glasgow Case_), June,
1857.
(2) Ann Merritt (Clapton Case), March, 1850.

CHAPTER VII.

Arsenic.
The element (arsenicum)—The oxide (white arsenic) 373
—Arsenicum—Arsenicum trioxide. Forms of: (1)
Crystalline—(2) Amorphous—Solubility. Uses
and occurrences: (1) Steeping, wheat—(2)
Preservation of skins—(3) Antiseptics—(4) Glass
making—(5) Fur in boilers—(6) Candles—(7)
Preservation of wood—(8) Sheep washes—(9)
Scheele’s green and emerald green as pigments in
sweets (case of Franklin and Randall), wall
papers, toys, &c.—(10) Medicinal—(11) For
horses—(12) Tooth-stopping—(13) Aniline dyes
—(14) Fireworks—(15) Rat and fly poisons (case
of Maria Gage)—(16) For cleansing metals—
(17) Arsenic eaters—(18) Cosmetics—(19) For
bronzing metals—(20) Beer brewed from glucose
—(21) American paper collars—(22) Speculum
metal—(23) Inhalation for asthma and bronchitis
—(24) Mineral waters. Sulphides of Arsenic: (1)
Orpiment (case of M. A. Burdock)—(2) Realgar.
Arsenic acid—The arsenates—Arsenic
trichloride—Arseniuretted hydrogen—Methods
of extraction—Tests—Modifications of old

processes suggested—Marsh’s test, distinction of
results in arsenic and antimony—Reinsch’s test—
Doses—Antidotes—Physiological effects—
Remarks—Did L’Angelier commit suicide?

CHAPTER VIII.

Trials for Poisoning by Antimony 397
(1) Dr. Pritchard (Glasgow Case), July, 1865.
(2) Dr. Smethurst (Richmond Case), August,
1859.
(3) Thos. Winslow (Liverpool Case), August,
1860.

CHAPTER IX.

Antimony.
Properties of the metal—Alloys—Compounds—
Chlorides, sulphides, oxides, hydride. Tartar
emetic—solubility, composition, uses and
occurrence—commercial, veterinary, medicinal.
Doses and preparations—fatal dose, fatal period.
Physiological effects—Antidotes—Separations
and tests—(1) Reinsch’s—Presence of antimony;
purity of the copper employed, how to be
secured; different stains resulting from presence
of arsenic, antimony, mercury, bismuth, tin,
silver, gold, platinum, palladium, sulphur
compounds—(2) Dr. Maclagan’s test in
Pritchard’s trial—(3) Marsh’s test—Remarks on
Pritchard’s trial—On Smethurst’s trial—Dr.
Taylor and Mr. Herapath—Arsenic in bismuth—
Antimony in grey powder 490

CHAPTER X.

Trials for Poisoning by Aconitia or Aconitine 514
(1) McConkey—Dublin.
(2) G. H. Lamson (Wimbledon Case), December,
1881.

CHAPTER XI.

Aconite, and Aconitia, or Aconitine.
Plants: Aconitum napellus—A. ferox. Alkaloids:
aconitia—Pseudaconitia—other bases—
Decompositions—Proportions in the plants.
Commercial aconitia—German aconitia—
English aconitia. Separation—Tests, chemical
and physiological. History—Preparations, official
and non-official. Physiological effects—Causes
of death—Post-mortem appearances—Treatment
and antidotes—Remarks 568

INDEX 583

ADDENDA.

A.
The following is my own experience of the differences between
strychnia and morphia.—C. G. S.

MORPHIA. STRYCHNIA.
Concent. H2SO4—cold. If pure, nothing at If pure, nothing.
” ” warmed. first. Some yellow-
To this warmed solution Violet, not strong. brown.
add:— Do.

MnO2. Red, changing Deep blue purple —
slowly to brown, tored purple—
then orange. On cherryred—finally
dilution, (changes slow). On
yellow-brown. dilution, rich orange
red.

K6Cfy2. Violet, changing to Same changes, but
orange; not more rapid and less
strong. On distinct. On dilution,
dilution, at once at once destroyed to

destroyed to greenish-yellow
greenish-yellow solution.
solution, turning
blue.

K2Cr2O7. Red-brown, Same as with MnO2,
orange-brown, but more evanescent
green. On and rapid in change.
dilution, green. On dilution, at once
removed to
yellowish-brown.

HNO3 concent. Intense brownish- In the cold, nothing if
red, changing to pure. On warming,
brown— bleached orange-yellow —
by SnCl2. then SnCl2 brown
with excess to
yellow.

B.

The chlorine used in the separation of arsenic (p. 385) must be
pure. The best process for making it is to heat pure potass.
dichromate with pure hydrochloric acid. The latter may be obtained
by heating the “pure” acid of commerce in a retort until a portion of
the distillate gives no indication of arsenic by the tests. The
remainder in the retort is then arsenic-free.

ERRATUM.
Page 397, line 11, for “Waislow,” read, “Winslow.”

TRIALS FOR POISONING.

CHAPTER I.

CHEMICAL INTRODUCTION.

Summary of symptoms exhibited by various poisons: (1) Sudden death—
(2) Insensibility—(3) Vomiting—(4) Action on the eye—(5) Convulsions
—(6) Chronic poisoning. Alkaloids, chemically and physiologically—
Processes for their detection—Necessity for keeping the extracts separate
—Dragendorff’s process—Dr. Guy’s sublimation process—Effects on
animals—Doubtful value of this test—Preparation and effects of
reagents: (1) Mayer’s—(2) Potassium tri-iodide—(3) Sonnenschein’s test
—(4) Bismuth—(5) Phosphotungstic acid—(6) Picric acid—(7) Animal
charcoal—(8) Platinic chloride—(9) Tannin or tannic acid—(10)
Phospho-antimonic acid—(11) Silico-tungstic acid—(11) Auric,
palladium and mercuric chlorides—Ptomaines or cadaveric alkaloids;
difficulties raised by their discovery—Principles to be observed in
analysing.

Before proceeding to a separate examination of the poisons
used in the following trials, it will be advisable to take a general
view of poisons, specially noticing those that we have selected as
the most important legally. They do not admit, perhaps, of accurate
classification, but inasmuch as the manner of death and symptoms
are usually the most available indication as to the nature of the

poison that has acted, the following arrangement will be
serviceable. The heads indicate the most prominent symptom:
I. Sudden Death.—Large quantities of any poison might be
rapid in fatal result, but the sudden poisons proper are:—
concentrated sulphuric, nitric, and hydrochloric acids; poisonous
gases and vapours, such as carbonic acid and sulphuretted
hydrogen (see Casper’s Forensic Medicine, Case CCXLI.),
carbonic oxide, arseniuretted and antimoniuretted hydrogen, and
certain rare organic compounds, as kakodyl, &c.; strychnia
sometimes, oxalic acid in large doses, chloroform under certain
circumstances. But beyond all others, the quickest of poisons is
hydrocyanic or prussic acid.
II. Insensibility, generally following nervous excitement.
Morphia and opium; henbane (Hyoscyamus); stramonium;
belladonna; nicotine (tobacco); darnel (lolium temulentum);
hemlock (Conium maculatum); water hemlock (Œnanthe crocata);
fool’s parsley (Æthusa cynapium), [Dr. J. Harley shows that this is
not so poisonous as believed: see St. Thomas’s Hospital Reports, x.
25]; Indian hemp (Cannabis indica); Woody Nightshade (Solanum
dulcamara); Solanum nigrum; the berries of Potato (Solanum
tuberosum); Lobelia inflata: Foxglove (Digitalis); cocculus indicus;
certain fungi (notably Amanita muscaria); chloroform; chloral;
butylchloral —“croton chloral”): amylene; methylene dichloride;
sulphuretted hydrogen; carbonic oxide; and many other substances
usually classed as narcotics.
III. Vomiting.—Irritant poisons, such as acids, alkalies, alkaline
salts in considerable doses (even common salt has proved fatal: see
Christison[1]); most soluble compounds of the heavy metals
(especially antimony, arsenic, zinc, and copper); certain vegetal
alkaloids (from colchicum, laburnum, yew, savin, ipecacuanha,
capsicum, pepper, ergot, many species of Ranunculaceæ, the

Hellebores, and some fungi); cantharides, turpentine, and essential
oils, &c. Pain in the digestive organs, purging, and general
inflammation are commonly present. Most of the medicinal
purgatives will produce sickness and vomiting if given in
overdoses; of course unwholesome food or disease may frequently
be the cause.
IV. Action on the Eye.—Opium and morphia, calabar bean,
aconite (?), and strychnia, contract the pupil: belladonna, henbane,
tobacco, stramonium, digitalis and hemlock, dilate the pupil. The
effect is often temporary, and sometimes is reversed after a time. It
is a valuable indication in after-experiments on animals.
V. Convulsions.—Strychnia, brucia, and some fungi: but this
symptom is by no means confined to these, and may even result as
tetanus, from disease or irritants (see Trial of Palmer). Morphia, in
rare cases, has also caused it.
VI. Chronic Poisoning, prostration and wasting. Antimony,
mercury, and lead in small repeated doses. With the two latter, but
more especially with lead, there is a blue line at the edge of the
gums; constipation and colic, paralysis and trembling of the limbs.
As lead frequently occurs as an impurity in food, and also may be
absorbed by those working with it, these symptoms may be often
accidental. Mercury also is given, less than of old, it is true, but still
systematically by some, as a regular course in syphilis, &c.: also to
children in teething powders. Antimony has been almost abandoned
in medicine, from its depressant effect. In these cases, motive,
amount, and necessity of dose, and right to administer, must be
considered before wilful poisoning can be proved. The analysis,
therefore, must be strictly quantitative, which is fortunately
tolerably easy.
The above summary is by no means perfect, since there are
minor differences in each class, which may sometimes rise into

such prominence as to confuse the classification. But in medical
evidence on the individual poisons of which we treat, those
physiologically resembling them in action are always most heard of
at the trial, and questions are asked whether this or that may not
produce the same symptoms; and hence it is well to direct attention
to the analogues of our types.
The primary idea of an alkaloid is derived from its resemblance
to an alkali. Alkaloids are often called also “Organic Bases.” Their
names terminate in—ia or ine.[2] They are more or less alkaline to
test paper, and combine with acids to form salts which are neutral
in reaction and often crystallizable. Only a few of the alkaloids are
liquid and easily volatile, but almost all can be volatilized by
careful heating at definite temperatures, giving in many cases a
sublimate of characteristic appearance under the microscope, either
of crystals, globules, or a mere film. In a free state, the alkaloids
are very slightly soluble in water, but soluble in alcohol, and
generally in ether and chloroform. Some are soluble in benzine,
others in amylic alcohol, petroleum spirit, acetic ether, &c. On a
judicious use of these various solvents depend the different
processes of isolation, among which Dragendorff’s is the most
complete, but so complicated that it is rarely used in its entirety.
Fortunately there is generally a clue more or less definite to the
probable poison administered, enabling a shorter and quicker
method to be adopted. For further details as to these processes see
Blyth’s Manual of Practical Chemistry. The sulphates, chlorides,
and acetates of the alkaloids are generally soluble in water; if
ammonia or potash be added to the solution, a precipitate (usually
crystalline) of the free alkaloid occurs if the solution be of
moderate strength.
Chemically, the alkaloids are derived from ammonia (NH3) by
substituting various organic groups or “compound radicles”

(compounds of carbon and hydrogen), for the hydrogen of the
ammonia. They are therefore “compound ammonias,” or “amines.”
Nitrogen, carbon, and hydrogen, are always present in natural
alkaloids, the non-volatile ones, including the greater number, also
contain oxygen.
Physiologically, alkaloids as a class have a powerful action on
the human and animal frame. The medicinal properties of plants are
generally due to these substances, though many are still
undiscovered or imperfectly known. They exist in the plant
combined with vegetal acids, some of which are characteristic, as
aconitic acid in aconite, meconic in opium, igasuric (?) in nux
vomica, &c. The very small quantity which may sometimes be fatal
(a fraction of a grain of the pure alkaloid), the indefiniteness of
many of their chemical reactions, and the facility with which they
decompose if too high a heat, or too strong reagents, be employed
in their extraction, render the detection often a difficult, and
sometimes an impossible matter. Fortunately, however, fresh tests
and better processes develop from every case, and other
indications, from symptoms and collateral circumstances, rarely
fail to bring home the guilt even to the most ingenious and
scientific of poisoners.
For extracting the alkaloids from animal matters the following
process has been used by the author. Mince finely, digest with
rectified spirit and enough acetic acid to just acidify, warm to
blood-heat for 15 minutes, filter: this is the first extract. Warm the
insoluble matters with more alcohol and filter again: this is the
second extract. Repeat the extraction a third time. Keep the three
extracts separate. Each should be evaporated at as low a
temperature as possible, not exceeding 50° C., and preferably in a
vacuum at the ordinary temperature, if this can be done fairly
quickly. The syrupy residues must be treated with water and a drop

of acetic acid, passed through wet filters to separate fat, rendered
just alkaline with ammonia, and shaken with a moderate quantity of
a mixture of equal volumes of ether and chloroform (Allen). By a
stoppered funnel or burette the ethereal layer is separated, the
shaking with ether and chloroform and the separation repeated a
second and a third time, the ethereal extracts mixed, transferred to a
large porcelain dish, and evaporated, first in a current of air, then in
a vacuum or spontaneously. As the solvents evaporate, water
generally appears: this hinders any crystallization. Therefore the
residue must be rendered dry, then dissolved in a little anhydrous
chloroform (dried by standing over fused calcium chloride), and
again evaporated in air in a large watch glass. The residue will
generally be crystalline under the microscope if any alkaloid be
present. Dissolve again in chloroform, transfer to a graduated
burette, make up to a convenient volume (say 10 cubic
centimetres), and transfer a measured fraction to a number of watch
glasses, reserving about one-fourth for any subsequent quantitative
test that may be necessary. Allow the liquid in the watch glasses to
spontaneously evaporate. To the first add a little water and a very
minute quantity of dilute hydrochloric acid, and cautiously taste a
portion. A tingling of the lips and subsequent numbness indicate
aconite; intense bitterness points to strychnia; if there be no taste at
all it is unlikely that any alkaloid is present. There are some
alkaloids of a peppery taste; these are irritants, and are not common
as poisons. Bitterness is the most frequent characteristic.
2. Moisten the contents of the second watch glass with a little
water and a trace of acetic acid, and apply through an incision in
the skin of the back of a young frog. He should be kept as
comfortable as possible and the symptoms observed. Strychnia
readily produces tetanus in this animal; other poisons also have
peculiar effects. Some observers have used mice, rabbits, or cats; in

the Palmer trial it was observed that dogs were not employed
because they were inconvenient and might bite! On the whole this
so-called physiological test has been overrated, as it is hardly to be
expected that an animal with its back cut and otherwise injured will
not exhibit some symptoms; and all who have kept wild animals in
confinement will know how soon they become, first almost
convulsive from excitement, then finally sink into stupor and die. If
necessary, any judge may grant a special licence to the experts in a
trial to make experiments on animals, otherwise such cruelty is
rendered penal by the Vivisection Act.[3]
3. To the third watch glass, after the contents have been
dissolved as before, a drop of a solution of iodine in potassium
iodide is added. Nearly all alkaloids give a brown precipitate. If
none occur, a negative conclusion may be expected.
4. Test the fourth watch glass in one corner for strychnia by
concentrated sulphuric acid and peroxide of manganese; in another
corner for morphia by iodic acid and starch; in a third corner for
brucia (and morphia) by strong nitric acid. (See the special
paragraphs on these reactions, pp. 280, 285.)
5. If there is still no indication, and no information has been
obtained from other sources, it may be necessary to employ
Dragendorff’s process on the remainder. But if the poison has been
discovered, the solution reserved in the burette should be
evaporated, dissolved in water and a little dilute acid, avoiding
heat, and titrated by Mayer’s reagent to ascertain the quantity.[4]
The second and third extractions of the organs must now be
considered. Most of the text-books recommend that all the extracts
should be mixed. The objection to this is, that since the alkaloid is
usually present in very small amount, the first extraction will
remove nearly all of it, while the second and third will mainly
contain other matters, and therefore will be only adding to the

impurities, and consequently to the difficulty of isolation. If it be
worth while, the second and third extracts may be treated
separately as above, and should any further quantity of alkaloid be
found, it may be determined quantitatively, and the amount added
to that already obtained.
It has been proposed to precipitate the original spirituous
extract by neutral or basic acetate of lead, which throws down
many impurities, but leaves the alkaloids in solution. After
filtration, the liquid is treated with a current of sulphuretted
hydrogen to remove lead; again filtered, evaporated (as speedily as
can be done without overheating) to a moderate bulk, and treated
with a little ammonia and with ether-chloroform as before. If the
sulphuretted hydrogen be left exposed to the air for some time, it
oxidizes to sulphuric acid, which, during and after evaporation,
tends to destroy the alkaloid. Hence I have found it advisable to
remove the H2S quickly by a current of carbonic acid and warming
—previous to evaporation. But this process is not good for
alkaloids, as sulphur compounds are often formed, which interfere
with subsequent operations.
The foregoing process may fail to extract morphia, curarine,
and solanine, as these, being very little soluble in ether-chloroform,
may remain behind in the aqueous liquid. This, therefore, should be
afterwards treated in one of the following ways:—
1. Heat some redistilled amylic alcohol nearly to boiling (it
boils at 120° C.), add an equal volume to the aqueous (alkaline)
solution; shake vigorously, separate while still hot, and shake again
with a fresh, but rather smaller, quantity of the hot solvent. The
united amylic alcohol solutions will contain all the morphia, but
can only be distilled in vacuo, since at 120° C. the stability of the
morphia would be endangered. It is better to extract the morphia
from the amylic solution by shaking with successive small portions

of weak acetic acid, separating each time, till the acidity remains
unneutralized. The alkaloid will now be in the acid solution. Nearly
neutralize this with ammonia, evaporate at a gentle heat, and apply
the special tests.
2. Instead of the above, the aqueous alkaline solution may be
agitated with a mixture of equal volumes of ether and pure acetic
ether (the latter having been previously purified from free acid by
standing over powdered carbonate of lime). Although this mixture
does not extract the morphia so readily as amylic alcohol, it has this
advantage that, after separation from the aqueous layer, it can be
evaporated at a moderate temperature, when the morphia, if in
sufficient quantity, will be left in the crystalline state, and can be
tested as usual.
If sufficient material be at hand, of course both processes may
be used.[5]
Selmi (Gazz. Chim. Ital. vi., 32) has given a process for
alkaloidal extraction of which I have no experience.
When the alkaloid is obtained in a sufficiently pure form and in
sufficient quantity, the sublimation process of Dr. Guy, as improved
by Blyth, may be used. For the entire original method, see Blyth’s
Practical Chemistry, page 285.
Dr. Guy’s “subliming cell” is a ring of glass tubing about ⅛-
inch long and ⅓ to ½-inch diameter, ground true and smooth at top
and bottom, resting on a circle of thin microscope glass, and
covered with another similar circle. The alkaloid, thoroughly dry, is
placed on the lower disc (a drop of the solution may be evaporated
on it), the whole fitted together, and floated on mercury, or better,
fusible metal, contained in a small glass beaker nearly full,
supported on wire gauze over a small flame. A thermometer held
by a clamp dips in the liquid metal. With a hand lens of as high
power as possible, the melting point, and also the point when the

first sublimate occurs on the upper glass, may be observed. As soon
as the sublimate has become sufficiently distinct, the upper disc is
removed, replaced by another, and examined under ¼-inch power
of the microscope. The heat is slowly raised till charring occurs,
and anything characteristic noted.
Morphia gives a clouding, consisting of minute dots, at 150°
C.; from 188° to 200° C., distinct crystals are obtained; then it
commences to brown, melt, and carbonize.
Strychnia gives a minute sublimate of fine needles at 169° C.,
and melts at about 221° C.
Brucia melts at 151° C., browns easily, but gives no true
sublimate.
Aconitine or aconitia melts at 183° to 184° C.
Pseudaconitine melts at 104° to 105° C., and easily
decomposes, giving off water.
Commercial aconitine usually melts below 100° C., and gives
an amorphous sublimate above 150° C.
The reactions of the other alkaloids will be found in Blyth’s
Practical Chemistry.
In order to avoid repetition, the mode of preparing the general
reagents for alkaloids will be given here.
1. Mayers Reagent, potassio-iodide of mercury, already
described (p. 7; Liebig’s Annalen, 133, 286), gives white
precipitates with almost all alkaloids. The latter can be recovered
from the precipitate by treating it with a solution of zinc chloride
mixed with caustic soda. (Mayer.)
2. Potassium tri-iodide, a solution of iodine in potassium
iodide, gives a brown or reddish precipitate.[6]
3. Sonnenschein’s test, Phosphomolybdic acid, is prepared as
follows. To a warm solution of molybdate of ammonia acidified

with nitric acid, phosphate of soda is added as long as any yellow
precipitate is obtained. The precipitate is washed with water
containing a little nitric acid, and heated with sodium carbonate
solution till dissolved. Evaporate to dryness, heat to expel
ammonia, add a little nitric acid and heat again. One part of the
residue is then dissolved in a mixture of one part of nitric acid of
1·4 sp. gr., and nine parts of water. With this reagent strychnia
gives a pale, other alkaloids a bright yellow flocculent precipitate,
in very dilute solutions. The precipitates are soluble in ammonia,
with the production of a greenish blue colour in the cases of
aconitia and morphia. From the alkaline liquid the alkaloid can be
dissolved out by at once shaking with ether-chloroform or hot
amylic alcohol as already described. Instead of using ammonia, the
precipitate may be agitated with barium carbonate, which has less
tendency to decompose the base on its liberation.
4. A solution of bismuth iodide in iodide of potassium is
recommended by Dragendorff (Zeitschr. f. Chimie, 1866, 478). 80
grammes of commercial bismuth subnitrate are dissolved in 200
cubic centimetres of nitric acid of sp. gr. 1·18: 272 grammes of
potassium iodide dissolved in a little water are added, the
potassium nitrate allowed to crystallize out, and the whole diluted
to one litre. This solution precipitates most alkaloids. The
precipitate can be treated with sodium carbonate and the liberated
alkaloid extracted by ether-chloroform, &c. For the equivalents, see
Maugini, Gazz. Chim. Ital. 12, 155.
5. Scheibler has proposed Phosphotungstic acid as a
precipitant. Sodium tungstate is digested with half its weight of
phosphoric acid, sp. gr. 1·13: on standing, phosphotungstic acid
crystallizes. Its solution is said to give a distinct precipitate with
1
/200000 of a grain of strychnia and 1/100000 of quina, and with similar
amounts of other alkaloids. From this precipitate the alkaloid is

obtained by treating with sufficient milk of lime and shaking with
ether-chloroform, &c., as before. He recommends the previous
removal of impurities by lead acetate and sulphuretted hydrogen as
already described (p. 7) (Fresenius, Zeitschr. f. anal. Chemie, 12,
315).
6. Picric acid, a saturated aqueous solution, gives precipitates
in neutral solutions of morphia and atropia. In solutions acidified
with sulphuric acid it gives the following:—morphia, and
pseudomorphia, no precipitate; aconitia, a precipitate only in
concentrated solutions; other alkaloids of opium, a thick
precipitate.[7]
7. Animal charcoal, previously purified by hydrochloric acid
and thorough washing with water, when digested with neutral or
alkaline solutions of alkaloids, not too dilute, absorbs them from
the liquid. The charcoal, washed twice or thrice with small
quantities of water, is dried at a moderate temperature, and boiled
with strong alcohol, which extracts the alkaloid. This process has
been used for separating picrotoxin from beer, but has the
inconvenience that the alkaloid is liable to gradual oxidation within
the pores of the charcoal, and that the separation is never complete.
It is this property that has caused charcoal to be recommended as
an antidote in poisoning.
8. All alkaloids form with platinic chloride double salts of more
or less sparing solubility. These precipitates, washed, dried and
weighed, and then burnt, leave metallic platinum, the amount of
which yields a clue to the composition of the base. But aconitine
and narcotine are only thrown down from concentrated solutions,
and a few are not precipitated at all. Hence this test is of only
occasional value in toxicological work. The same may be said of
auric chloride.

9. Tannin or tannic acid, a moderately strong solution in water,
throws down most alkaloids. Coffee and tea, and other tannin-
containing infusions, have, therefore, been used as antidotes with
dubious success. As a test it is not distinctive.
10. Phospho-antimonic acid (Schultze), prepared by mixing
antimony pentachloride with ordinary sodium phosphate and
decanting the clear liquid, gives whitish amorphous precipitates
with alkaloids.
11. Silico-tungstic acid is prepared by boiling commercial
tungstate of soda with fresh gelatinous silica. Filter and allow to
crystallize. This gives precipitates with very dilute solutions of
alkaloids, but it is also precipitated by ammonium chloride
(Godefroy, Arch. d. Pharm., Nov. 1879). Zaubenheimer
recommends it as a most delicate test: the precipitate may be
decomposed by soda or potash, and the base extracted by ether-
chloroform.
12. Auric chloride, palladious chloride, and mercuric chloride
have been proposed, but are not of much use. Potassium chromate
and sulphocyanide, and sodium nitroprusside give somewhat
insoluble precipitates, generally crystalline and of characteristic
appearance under the microscope. These tests should be strong, and
must be used in small quantity.
Ptomaines or Cadaveric Alkaloids.—Much attention has been
attracted lately by the possible interference to toxicological
detections owing to the undoubted existence of natural alkaloids in
the dead body unpoisoned. Some of these, called by Selmi
“Ptomaines” ([Greek: ptôma], a corpse), somewhat simulate
strychnia, &c., in their chemical and physiological characters. The
observation is not new, as years ago, in the Privy Council’s reports,
Thudichum called attention to alkaloids separated by
Sonnenschein’s process (phosphomolybdic acid) from the brain,

urine, and from decomposed bodies. Various substances of the kind
have also been found by other investigators. To these “cadaveric
alkaloids” have been attributed the “sausage poisoning,” so
frequent in Germany (for cases, see Casper’s Handbook, vol. 3),
poisoning by various foods, such as tinned meats, cheese, &c.
Some are irritants, others narcotics: different periods and
circumstances of putrefaction producing different compounds.
In an Italian criminal prosecution, F. Ciotto, who made the
investigation of the corpse, gave it as his opinion that strychnia was
probably present. Selmi, for the defence, pointed out differences
from strychnia, and considered the compound to be a ptomaine.
[Arch. Pharm. (3), 19, 187.] This will show the importance of the
subject.
Casali (Gazetta, 1881, 312) regards ptomaines as not true
alkaloids, but as “acid or basic amidated compounds.” It is only the
basic ones that will interfere with testing. Panum and Bergmann
have isolated a substance called “sepsin,” generated by
putrefaction, poisonous, acting like a ferment but not destroyed by
boiling, soluble in water, but insoluble in alcohol, and thereby
distinguished from alkaloids. Sonnenschein and Zuelzer found a
product of putrefaction which produced tetanic symptoms, besides
one resembling atropine. But these substances, or similar ones, can
be produced without putrefaction, as Paterno and Spica have shown
that fresh blood and fresh albumen (white of egg) yielded, with
phosphomolybdic acid, potassio-mercuric iodide, and other
alkaloidal reagents, precipitates like those of the vegetal alkaloids.
Selmi has even supposed that death from various diseases may be
due to the formation of these compounds. The same author
obtained from a dead body one month after death a considerable
amount of a crystallizable ptomaine, giving reactions like those of
alkaloidal poisons, and having poisonous effects on frogs.

Brouardel and Bouting (Compt. Rend. 92, 1056) propose the
reducing action of ptomaines as a distinction between them and
vegetal alkaloids. The solution in weak acid is added to a dilute
mixture of ferric chloride and potassium ferricyanide: the latter, if a
ptomaine be present, is reduced to ferrocyanide, and Prussian blue
is thereby precipitated. But Spica (Gazetta, 11, 486) has shown that
strychnia, brucia, morphia, and some others produce this reaction
readily, and Beckurts (Arch. Pharm. 3, 20, 104) adds aconitine and
others as producing it slowly. Hence the distinction is delusive. See
also Husemann (Arch. Pharm. 3, 16, 169; also 3, 20, 270), Tauret
(Compt. Rend. 92, 1163).
The discovery of these bodies has certainly raised a new
difficulty for toxicologists, and suggested a new and plausible
defence, as it must be confessed that at present there is no general
method of distinguishing between “cadaveric” and vegetal
alkaloids. Yet this mainly affects the “physiological” tests—on
frogs and other small animals—for there is no ptomaine yet
discovered which gives all the reactions of strychnia, morphia, &c.
If a chemist be asked, “Could any other substance produce these
reactions?” he can only answer, “I do not know of any”; he cannot
aver the impossibility. Then the circumstantial evidence must
decide.
In conclusion, the following principles should be noted:—
1. The quantity of poison found is generally only a small
fraction of the quantity taken. The vomit and evacuations are
frequently lost, and much may be decomposed by vital actions in
the body, or by putrefaction. That which has caused death is
probably thereby either decomposed or so combined as to be
rendered undetectible: that which is found is merely the surplus
beyond the fatal dose. This would account for the frequent non-
discovery in the tissues when a small amount has been given, or

much time has elapsed. To metallic poisons this does not apply, as,
unless eliminated, they can always be found. See further under
Strychnia.
2. The symptoms will differ according to the dose, the form
(solid or solution, pure or admixed), habit, or idiosyncrasy, the state
of health, &c.
3. In the post-mortem examination, appearances common to
dead bodies generally are often mistaken for the effects of poison.
See Casper’s Handbook, vol. I., et passim.
4. Unhealthy or improper food or acute disease may cause
suspicious symptoms. This is the commonest solution of suspected
poisoning.
5. In experiments on animals, it may be objected that they are
inconclusive as to man. This is not strictly true. But if a recent
vomit proves poisonous to an animal, with the same symptoms as in
the man, that is almost conclusive evidence.
6. When a poison is not found by analysis, it does not follow
that it has not caused death. Unequal distribution, uncertainty of
tests, improper securing of the samples (Palmer case),
decomposition or elimination of the poison, may hinder discovery.
7. In every case, if possible, the approximate quantity of the
poison should be ascertained and stated. This specially applies to
substances that may have been administered medicinally.
“If poison be administered with intent to murder, it is not
necessary that there should be enough in the article administered to
cause death, or that it should be given in such a way as to act
fatally. If any poison be there, and the intent be proved, the crime
of attempting to administer poison is complete.” [Judge’s ruling in
Hartley, Cent. Crim. Court, May 12th, 1850; Reg. v. Bacon,

Lincoln Summer Assizes, 1857; Reg. v. Southgate, Chelmsford
Lent Assizes; Reg. v. Cluderay, York, 1849].
For minute directions as to the conduct of toxicological
investigations, see Taylor’s Medical Jurisprudence, 1873, I., 202-
209; also Guy and Ferrier’s Forensic Medicine, 1881, p. 359, et
seq.

CHAPTER II.

TRIALS FOR POISONING BY HYDROCYANIC
OR PRUSSIC ACID.

Two cases are reported under this head. The first that of John Tawell, for the
murder of his mistress, Sarah Hart, at Salthill, near Windsor, tried at the
Spring Assizes at Aylesbury, 1845, before the late Baron Parke (Lord
Wensleydale). The second—a case of misadventure—the trial of George
Ball, a surgeon, at Lewes, for the murder of his mother by the negligent
administration of an overdose of this poison, medicinally, before the Lord
Chief Justice of the Common Pleas (Coleridge) Summer Assizes, Lewes,
1860.

TRIAL OF JOHN TAWELL FOR
POISONING SARAH HART AT SALTHILL
BY PRUSSIC ACID.
March 12, 13, and 14, 1845, Spring Assizes, Aylesbury, before Baron
Parke.

HISTORY OF THE CASE.

The trial of John Tawell, of Berkhampstead, Berks, for the
murder of Sarah Hart, at Hall Place, Slough, attracted more than
usual attention, from the cruelty of the act in poisoning the woman
whom he had seduced, the position and popular character of the
murderer as a benevolent and hospitable Quaker, noted for his
charities, and the novelty of the mode by which his detection was
mainly insured. The electric telegraph had only very lately been
established on the line of the Great Western Railway, and though
Tawell lost no time after committing the act, in getting into the
train for London at Slough, the telegraph outstripped him, and on
his arrival at the Paddington station he was recognised, and tracked
to his lodgings, and thus his immediate arrest secured.
Tawell’s life had been of a remarkable character. Originally a
commercial traveller, he had exhibited a strange mixture of great
shrewdness and money-making talent, combined with an outward
show of religious observance. As a young man he had been
indicted for forging a bill for £1000, and had he been tried on the
counts for forging, or uttering, he would doubtless have been
executed. By some influence, however, he was allowed to plead
guilty to the count for having the bill in his possession (a nolle
prosequi being entered on the others), and sentenced to
transportation for life. “Accordingly,” says Mr. Justice Therry, who
knew him well in Sydney, “he came out to the colony as a convict.
Besides being a commercial traveller for some time, he had been in
an apothecary’s shop in England, and on obtaining partial
exemption from convict discipline, became the principal druggist in
Sydney. After a prosperous career he sold his business for, it was
said, £14,000, and judiciously invested this sum in buildings and
other pursuits of profit. For nearly two years he occupied the house
opposite to mine in Sydney, which gave me almost daily

opportunity then of seeing him. He struck me as being a
remarkably well-conducted person. He had once been a member of
the Society of Friends; he wore a broad-brimmed hat, appeared
always in a neat and carefully adjusted costume, and his whole
appearance and manner impressed one with the notion of his being
a very saintly personage. He always sought the society in public of
persons of reputed piety. I have often met him in the street
accompanied by a secretary or collector to a charitable institution,
whom he assisted in obtaining contributions for benevolent objects.
At one time he took up the cause of temperance in such an
intemperate and silly spirit, that he ordered a puncheon of rum he
had imported to be staved on the wharf at Sydney, and its contents
poured into the sea, saying that, ‘he would not be instrumental to
the guilt of disseminating such poison throughout the colony.’ At
another time his zeal took an apparently religious turn. He built, in
Macquarie Street, Sydney, a commodious meeting-house for the
Society of Friends, on the front of which was inscribed on a large
square stone inserted in the wall some such words as these—

John Tawell
to
The Society of Friends.

He conveyed no title, however, to the Society to secure them
the tenure of the property. After his execution it was sold, I
understood, with other portions of his property, for the benefit of
the party entitled to it under his will, the Crown having waived its
right to the forfeiture of the estate.
“Tawell was himself a liberal contributor to charities, and the
opinion of his character was so favourable, that the act for which he
suffered created great astonishment in Sydney. A considerable part

of his money had been realised by buying up all the whalebone that
trading vessels, at an early period, imported into Sydney. This he
sent to a London house, where it was manufactured into combs,
handles for brushes, and various other articles of domestic use. He
was the first person in the colony who converted whalebone into an
article of profitable export. When he left the colony, he had a
considerable property from rents and other sources which became
much reduced by the general distress that prevailed in New South
Wales in 1843.” Hence the anxiety expressed by him for his
Sydney letters, referred to in the course of his trial. Still, however, a
man of good means, occupying a respected position in his town,
and noted, through a long and industrious life, for his benevolence
and straightforward conduct in his relations with his neighbours, he
might well say when first charged with the murder of his mistress,
“My station in society places me beyond suspicion.” Such had been
the remarkable career, and such was the ostensible character of the
man to whom the most cold-blooded of murders was clearly
brought home in the following trial.”
At the trial before Mr. Baron Parke, at Aylesbury, on the 12th,
13th, and 14th of March, 1845, Sergeant Byles and Mr. Prendergast
appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. Fitzroy Kelly, Q.C., Mr.
Gunning, and Mr. O’Malley, assisted by Messrs. Herapath, of
Bristol, Professor Graham and Dr. Letheby, of London, the eminent
chemists, for the defence.
In consequence of the excitement in the county caused by the
event, numerous objections were taken to jurymen by the prisoner’s
counsel. At length, however, a jury was formed, and after a brief
recapitulation of the leading facts of the proposed evidence by
Sergeant Byles, Mary Ashley, a next door neighbour of the
deceased, was called, who had seen Tawell go to Sarah Hart’s
between 4 and 5 in the afternoon of the 1st of January, and between

6 and 7 the same evening, “hearing a sort of stifled scream,” had
gone to her door with a candle and seen him leaving the cottage.
The cottages stood in a row, with small gardens in front, with rails
and gates, and contained four rooms, two on the ground floor, and
the same number above.

“The prisoner,” said the witness, “appeared to be agitated, and
unable to open the gate. I opened it for him; it was fastened with a
small button. When I went out of my house, I said, ‘I am afraid my
neighbour is ill’—not speaking to any person in particular, but as
the prisoner was then coming down the garden I should think that I
spoke loud enough for him to hear me: I was about six yards from
him. No reply was made by him. When I got to the gate I could hear
Mrs. Hart still making the same description of noise: the prisoner
made me no answer when I asked him if I should open the gate; he
appeared very much agitated, and was trying in a hurried manner to
open the gate; he came out of the gate before I went in; I saw his
face; I held the candle over the gate to open it: I have no doubt that
he is the same man, though I had never seen him before that
afternoon. In the afternoon Mrs. Hart said to me, ‘I expect my old
master, but perhaps he will not come till to-morrow.’ When I got to
Mrs. Hart’s door it was shut, and upon my opening it I saw Mrs.
Hart lying on the floor with her head not a great way from the door;
her legs were towards the fire, her dress was quite in a disordered
state, her petticoats nearly up to her knees, her left stocking down to
her ankle, and torn, and her left shoe off: her cap was off, and her
hair hanging down over her head: her cap was a little distance from
her: she was still making a noise, and her eyes were fixed, but her
lips moving. I took hold of her hands and raised her head, and said,
‘Oh, Mrs. Hart, what is the matter?’ She did not make any answer,
but I thought she seemed to press my hand, but I could not
positively tell. I then raised her up, and a little froth came out of her
mouth, and I thought she was dying. I laid her down again, and took
my candle and went into Mrs. Wheeler’s house, next door but one.
When I went into Mrs. Hart’s I observed a bottle and a glass by the

side of it half full, and another glass on the opposite side of the
table, near the door, empty; but there appeared to be something in
the bottom of it. A chair was beside Mrs. Hart, and another opposite
her. I returned from Mrs. Wheeler’s with Mrs. Barrett, and we
placed a pillow on the child’s chair and bathed her temples. One of
Mrs. Barrett’s apprentices went for Dr. Champneys, and he came. I
searched the place immediately, and found no small vial about the
size of a thimble. There was a middling fire in the house. Before I
got into the house I thought the prisoner was looking, and I locked
the door, because I was frightened. The deceased was breathing hard
in a short way, and making a noise like ‘oh! oh!’ and her eyes
looked very full.”

On cross-examination by Mr. Kelly, she said—

“That she heard Mrs. Hart’s voice rather loud after Mr. Tawell
went in—only a few words, but could not hear what she said. She
did not think that they were quarrelling, but that perhaps Mrs. Hart
was in hysterics, as money matters were always talked over when
Tawell came. When Mr. Champneys came in, he said he must try to
bleed her: he did so, and there was about as much blood as would
cover a plate; she died immediately afterwards; indeed, I think she
was dead when he bled her. About Christmas Mrs. Hart received a
basket of apples as a present—about a peck, some of which were
left in a box.”

On re-examination, she said—

“That it was not more than a minute after she left her own house
that she entered Mrs. Hart’s, and that she saw about ten or a dozen
apples in the box after her death.”

Mrs. Barrett confirmed Mrs. Ashley’s account of the condition
in which she found the deceased, but did not see any foam on her
lips until after she tried to pour some water down her throat.[8]

It was then proved by the barmaid at the “Windmill,” on
Salthill, and a gardener, that about half after six on that day the
deceased came there for a bottle of Guinness’s stout, and that she
was met between her house and the “Windmill” about the same
time in high spirits running towards her cottage.
The next witness spoke to the acts of the prisoner before he
arrived at the cottage. At three o’clock in the afternoon he had been
at the Jerusalem Coffee-house, inquiring at what hour they closed,
saying he was going to the West End, and should not be back until
half-past eight, and wishing to leave a greatcoat and a parcel,
which, by arrangement with the waiter, he fetched away about half-
past nine or a quarter to ten that night, leaving his umbrella there.
Other witnesses proved his being seen running from Bath Place
towards Slough, getting into the Eton omnibus and stopping
opposite Sir John Herschel’s house, then returning towards the
Slough station and leaving it for Paddington by the half-past eight
train.[9] The evidence of the next witness, who tracked him from the
moment of his arrival at Paddington, must be given in detail.
William Williams said—

“I am a sergeant of police on the Great Western Railway, at
Paddington Station. On the 1st of January, in consequence of a
telegraphic communication, I observed the prisoner get out of a
carriage and get into a New Road omnibus. I put on a private coat,
and acted as guard. He got out opposite Princes’ Street, near the
Bank, about a quarter past nine. I opened the door on purpose to
look at him; he went towards the Wellington Statue, and then
crossed over to Birch’s, the pastrycooks: he stood a moment, as if he
was considering; I watched him from behind the statue. He then
went towards the Jerusalem Coffee-house, and I followed him; he
then went down a court into Birchin Lane, and from thence to
Scott’s Yard, in the Borough, where he lodged, where I left him. On
returning there next morning he was gone, so I went to the

Jerusalem, and an officer (Wiggins) went in and took him into
custody. Wiggins said to him that he was last seen in the house of a
woman at Slough who was found dead, when he replied that, ‘I was
not at Slough yesterday—I know no one there.’ I then remarked that
I had seen him get off the train from Slough, and that he had given
me sixpence after riding in the omnibus from the Paddington
station. ‘You must be mistaken,’ he replied; ‘my station in life must
rebut any suspicion that might be attached to me.’”

Wiggins, an inspector of the Metropolitan police, gave a graphic
account of the arrest.

“On Thursday, the 2nd of January, I went into the Jerusalem
Coffee-house with the last witness, and asked the prisoner if his
name was Tawell; he said, ‘Yes.’ I then asked him if he had been at
Slough last night, and he said, ‘No, I did not leave town all day
yesterday.’ I then opened my coat, showed my uniform, and said, ‘I
want you concerning the woman you were with last night.’ He said,
‘I don’t know anyone there.’ I said, ‘There was a woman found dead
there, and you are supposed to be the last person who was seen with
her alive.’ He said, ‘Thee must be mistaken in the identity, my
station in society places me beyond suspicion.’ I then took him
down to Salt Hill, to the ‘Three Tuns,’ where the inquest was being
held. I searched him, and found £12. 10s. in gold and £1. 1s. 6d. in
silver, a gold watch, and a letter addressed to him, which he said he
had received from his wife. On the second day of the inquest I saw
him again. After consulting with his lawyer, he said to me, ‘I took
thee for a gentleman in the railway carriage.’ I said, ‘I told you I was
an officer.’ He replied, ‘Yes, but that was afterwards.’ The first day
of the inquest he said, ‘Mind, I have disclosed nothing.’”

In cross-examination, Mr. Kelly failed to get the witness to say
that when asked about Slough the prisoner said he came from
Berkhampstead, and only led the witness to reiterate that he stated
“that he had not been at Slough that day.”

To Perkins, the inspector of the Eton police, Tawell was
dangerously communicative.

“On the day after I had taken him into custody,” said this witness,
“and brought him to my own house, after he had seen his lawyer, he
said to me, ‘The unfortunate woman once lived in my service, about
two years and a half, or nearly so.’ He asked me if I knew this. I told
him I had heard so. Then Holmes, the other constable, came in, and
he added, ‘She left my service about five years ago.’ I told him
whatever he said I should communicate to the coroner to-morrow.
He said, ‘he would have no objection to that,’ and then continued,
‘she had been in the habit of writing letters to him for money,’ and
that he had been pestered with her; she was a very good servant
when in his service, but a bad principled woman. She wrote to him
that if he did not send her something she would make away with
herself. He came down to her house and told her that he would not
give her any more money. She then asked him if he would not give
her some porter. I then sent for a bottle of stout, and she had a glass
and I had a glass. She then took out a small phial, about the size of a
thimble, and said, “I will, I will,” and poured some into her glass
and drank a part of it—the remainder was thrown into the fire. She
then done herself about and laid down on the hearth-rug; I then went
out. I did not think she was in earnest, otherwise I would have called
somebody.’ I asked him if he had got those letters, and he said, ‘No,
I never keep such letters as those.’ I knew him by person, having
seen him at Aylesbury.”

The cross-examination was unimportant—mainly directed to
the probable inaccuracy of his recollection and to the nature of the
communication he made to the coroner. Holmes, in addition to
confirming Perkins’ report of the prisoner’s statement, was present
when Mrs. Tawell visited her husband, when, in reply to her
question, “what he had been doing,” he replied, “Nothing. I hope
you will forgive me.”

MEDICAL EVIDENCE.

H. Montague Champneys, surgeon at Salthill, sent for a few
minutes before 7 P.M. on January 1st, said—

“I ran, and when I got there saw deceased on the floor, felt her
pulse, but am not certain whether I felt any pulsation. I put my hand
under her clothes over her heart, and could not discover any
pulsation; considered her dead, but still thought it best to open a
vein in her arm, and obtained about an ounce of blood. Next day I
made a post mortem examination with Mr. Norblad and Mr.
Pickering. Having previously examined the external parts, we
opened the body, when I smelt the odour of prussic acid; the lungs
were perfectly healthy, but the coverings had the appearance of
inflammation. Examined stomach and contents. Rather more mucus
than there ought to be; the abdominal viscera perfectly healthy. Put
contents of stomach into a bottle, which I, with Messrs. Norblad and
Pickering, took to Mr. Cooper, in London. The contents were tested
for sulphuric acid, oxalic acid, and some poisonous salts, but
nothing was discovered; afterwards an experiment was tried for
prussic acid. Mr. Cooper tried protosulphate of iron, and also nitrate
of silver, but could not during the experiment discover any prussic
acid; but nevertheless, it is my opinion that she died from the effects
of that poison. On the following Sunday I took the beer and the part
of a bun found on the table to Mr. Cooper, which were tested for
prussic acid, but none discovered. When I stated that in my opinion
the deceased died from the effects of prussic acid I did not know
that the prisoner had bought any. I know Scheele’s prussic acid and
that of the London Pharmacopœia; less than a grain of pure prussic
acid would be a dose; two drams of Scheele’s would contain six
grains. There are cases on record where the smell of prussic acid
could not be discovered in the stomach of a person who had taken it.
A person in Paris died from taking seven-tenths of a grain. Prussic
acid is volatile, and may be carried off by the lungs or absorbed by
the tissues. There is a case in the Lancet of a person dying from

having less than a grain administered to her. After this occurrence I
put thirty grains of Scheele’s acid into a glass of Guinness’s stout,
and the smell was scarcely perceptible. The symptoms would come
on in less than two minutes.”

In the very minute and detailed cross-examination to which this
witness was subjected by Mr. Kelly, he made the following
statements:—

“I have no experience in detecting the odour of prussic acid in a
human subject—should think it may be taken without detection;
should expect to find the odour in the mouth and in the breath, but
there may be exceptions. Neither Mr. Pickering nor Mr. Norblad
smelt it when the body was opened. It was not a conjecture of mine;
I was positive of it. The smell is very peculiar and strong, and easy
to be detected by those acquainted with it. It is more likely to be
detected when exposed as this was to a heat of 212 degrees. At
every heat we tried to smell it, but failed. There was no such smell
in the blood which I drew shortly after death. I am not competent to
say whether epileptic patients die more quickly from prussic acid
than others. It is said to act powerfully on the nervous system. Have
read the case of the seven epileptic patients who died from a dose of
seven-tenths of a grain each in from thirty to forty-five hours. There
was a case in which the French doctors discovered poison eight days
after death.
“This acid exists in a great number of substances, in apples for
instance, and probably in many other substances in which it has
never been discovered. I agree with Dr. Christisön in his opinion (p.
756) in respect of the formation of this acid in various organic
substances and other articles. It is made from the blood, bones, and
horns of animals. It consists of 12 carbon, 14 nitrogen, and 1
hydrogen. Those are its elements. They exist and can be obtained in
great quantities from various substances—cherry-stones, and stones
of various fruits; they are found in the human saliva, but not in the
form of prussic acid. It (the salt) is called sulphocyanide, and when

taken is perceptible in the blood and breath, but most in the
stomach.[10] In apple-pips or other substances the smell would not
be given off until disengaged by some process for that purpose.
“During the experiments for oxalic acid and other poisons,
Messrs. Cooper, Pickering, and Norblad failed to perceive any
smell. One of them then came to the conclusion that there must be
prussic acid.”
Question.—“Did Mr. Cooper then apply a process which would
set free prussic acid from apple-pips and other substances?”
Answer.—“I believe that is the process, but it was not carried to
the full extent. I refer to the heat. When this new process was
applied, the result was that prussic acid was found. I did not smell it,
nor anyone else. Beyond the smell in opening the body, I smelt none
at all.”
“When I first saw the deceased I thought I felt a few beats of the
pulse, but I imagine that I was mistaken. It might have been the
pulse in my own finger. The analogy between animals and human
beings dying of prussic acid is considered doubtful by the best
authorities. The heart would continue to beat for a short time after
the pulse had receded from the arms. The lungs might be considered
slightly congested.”
Mr. Kelly.—“Why then inform my learned friend that they were
sound and healthy?”
Witness.—“The lungs themselves were not diseased.”
Mr. Kelly.—“Is it natural and healthy when the lungs are
congested?”
Witness.—“They contained rather more blood than usual.”
Mr. Kelly.—“Is that a healthy state?”
Witness.—“Not perfectly so.”
Mr. Kelly.—“Is not congested lungs the cause of various modes
of sudden death?”
Witness.—“Yes.”

“I then examined the pericardium, it was empty. The heart had a
natural appearance. I do not recollect that I examined the arteries
proceeding from the aorta. Any disease of the coronary arteries is
likely to cause sudden death. I did not examine the spinal marrow.
The valves of the heart were very clear. Death might suddenly result
from the adhesion of the spinal marrow, if it had existed some time.
A sudden termination also might take place where the disease is
latent. I looked at the gall-bladder, the colour was natural. My
experience teaches me that prussic acid would colour it blue.[11] I
examined the œsophagus to see if there was any foreign substance,
and found none. I opened the trachea, but not the bronchial tubes, so
I could not tell whether there was water in them or not. When I felt
the pulse and heart of the deceased I was satisfied that she was dead,
still I bled her, as I thought it best to try every means to restore
animation. I did not do it to ascertain the cause of death. I then got
no information as to the cause of death. I saw a slight motion of the
jaw as I felt the pulse, and apprehend she died then. I took the
stomach from the body eighteen hours after death. The contents
were turned into a jug or basin, and afterwards into a bottle. I do not
know for what purpose the bottle had been used. I did not wash it
out.” (The bottle was here produced, a large-mouthed one, like a
pickle bottle.) The witness then stated what care he took of it to
prevent its being tampered with before taking it to Mr. Cooper:
—“The exact dose to cause death is still undetermined, also whether
the effect is cumulative or not, also the effect of the same quantity
diluted more or less is unsettled. Scheele’s prussic acid varies in
strength. Prussic acid evaporates by keeping.”
Mr. Kelly, reading from Watson’s “Lectures on Physic.”—“Do
you agree to this—‘A blow, a fall, an electric shock, a teaspoonful
of prussic acid, may cause death and leave no trace on the nervous
system?’”
Witness.—“Yes.”

On his re-examination by Serjt. Byles, the witness said:—

“In the case of the seven epileptic patients two medical men did
not smell the acid, but two chemists did some time afterwards. It
requires an extensive experience readily to detect the smell. Some
may perceive it, some not. Several persons should smell, some not
being so susceptible of the odour as others. I agree with a French
chemist that ‘under a considerable number of circumstances there
must be great practical knowledge to detect smell.’ If a person once
knows the smell, I think he will know it again.”[12]
“I should think that before prussic acid could be obtained from
horns, blood, and bones of animals, a heat of from 400 to 500
degrees would be necessary. All animals, whether human or not, die
if they take prussic acid. There is no difference in its operation upon
man and the inferior animals. There was no appearance of disease in
the heart of the deceased. Had there been any rupture of the
coronary arteries it would have been apparent. I never knew such a
disease of the spinal marrow to cause sudden death. I know only of
the two cases mentioned by Taylor of the gall bladder having a blue
tint. The absence of it is no proof that the person did not die from
prussic acid. The bottle into which I put the contents was perfectly
clean and dry. The ends of the stomach were securely tied up with
string when I moved the contents into the jug, which was also
perfectly dry and clean. I have no doubt the deceased died from
prussic acid.”

After two constables (Hill and Larkin) had proved the finding
of a phial in a cupboard and two others in a jug, one of which
contained hartshorn, the case was adjourned to the following
morning.

SECOND DAY. Thursday, March 13.

SUPPOSED PREVIOUS ATTEMPT TO POISON.

Charlotte Howard, unmarried, a servant, said:—

“I knew Mrs. Hart, and went to see her at Salthill on the 26th
September, 1843. She had a child of mine in her care. I was there
from three to four months, in which time I saw Mr. Tawell there
twice. On the 30th of September he came, and in ten minutes after,
Mrs. Hart sent me out for a bottle of stout, which I got and gave to
her. She took it into the room where he was. Shortly after she came
out and sent me for a sheet of paper, leaving Mr. Tawell in the room
with the stout. When I came back she said to me ‘I am so ill, I shall
be obliged to tell my master to go; I am so sick, my head is so bad.’
She was very sick, and I helped her upstairs to bed. After she got
upstairs she was sick again. She was in very good health when
Tawell came. She said she only drank one glass of porter and felt
sick directly afterwards. I went down again and saw eighteen
sovereigns on the table, which I put into a drawer. There was some
porter in the glasses and in the bottle. That in the glasses I threw
away, and drank that in the bottle, and it did not make me ill. Mrs.
Hart complained of being very giddy, but did not say anything about
her throat.”

ANALYTICAL EVIDENCE.

Mr. Cooper, the Analytical Chemist and Lecturer on Medical
Jurisprudence, was then called and examined by Serjeant Byles.

“On the 3rd of January,” said the witness, “Messrs. Champneys,
Norblad, and Pickering called on me with a carpet bag. The bag
contained a bottle (ordinary one, such as olives are usually sold in)
full or nearly so with the contents of the stomach; a portion of porter
in an ordinary beer-bottle, on which was a paper label signifying
that it contained Guinness’s beer; a glass tumbler, about half full of
what appeared to be a mixture of beer and water; a part of a plum

bun, and a phial containing a few drops (perhaps about half a
drachm) of a nearly colourless fluid; a small piece of pink paper,
such as is generally used by apothecaries for tying over the corks of
medicine phials, and had apparently been used for such purpose;
and the stomach and part of the intestines. The bottle which
contained the contents of the stomach was tied over with a piece of
bladder, and, I think, corked as well, but of the latter I am not
certain; it was opened and smelt strongly of food in the progress of
digestion, it had also the smell of beer. On the application of litmus
paper to the surface of the contents it became red instantly, and so
very red that I was disposed to consider that Mr. Norblad and the
other gentlemen were right in their conjecture as to its containing
oxalic acid. A portion was now taken out of this bottle and put into a
porcelain evaporating basin, to which some distilled water was
added, and stirred well together with a glass rod; the basin with its
contents was then placed on the heated sand bath and kept stirring
until it boiled, and even after it had boiled for some minutes. During
the whole of this operation I was standing over it, and the vapour
that escaped I smelt the whole time, but did not recognise the
slightest odour of prussic acid; the odour was the same as that of the
contents of the bottle, but it was more powerful. The contents of the
basin were then put into a paper filter placed in a glass funnel, and
that which passed through the filter was collected in a glass vessel
placed for its reception. While this operation was going on I directed
my attention to the contents of the beer bottle and the tumbler. I
found them both to have an acid reaction on litmus paper, the
contents of the beer bottle very decidedly so; but on the application
of the usual tests employed for the detection of oxalic acid, not a
trace of it could be found.
“By this time a small quantity of clear liquid from the contents
of the basin had passed the filter; this was removed from the glass
vessel employed to receive it into a test glass, and on the application
of the tests for the detection of oxalic acid not the smallest trace was
indicated. I then felt quite certain that oxalic acid had not been the
cause of death.

“I was then shown the stomach by Messrs. Champneys and
Norblad, and on examining its interior surface it did not appear to
have been acted on by any corrosive substance: nevertheless I
thought it advisable to search for sulphuric acid, and accordingly
applied to a small portion of the liquid, filtered from that which had
been boiled, the test for that substance, but none could be detected.
In like manner I did also apply the tests for the detection of baryta,
opium, arsenic, the salts of mercury, and other metallic poisons, and
could find none of them. I then came to the conclusion that, if the
person had died from the effect of poison, it could be no other than
prussic acid.
“A portion of the contents of the stomach was then taken from
the bottle and put into a tubulated retort, to which was added a very
small quantity of dilute sulphuric acid; the retort with its contents
was placed on the sand bath, a receiver applied and a portion
distilled off. When about two drachms of clear liquid had distilled
over, it was removed from the receiver into a test glass, about a
grain of green sulphate of iron was added, and when this was
dissolved, a small quantity of solution of potassa. These were
allowed to remain a short time together and stirred with a glass rod.
Subsequently muriatic acid was added in sufficient quantity when
instantly Prussian blue appeared, which could not have resulted
unless cyanogen or hydrocyanic acid had been present. But it could
not be recognised by the smell. Although I had no doubt in my own
mind, from the gentle heat that had been employed in the above
detailed process of distillation, that the prussic acid could not have
resulted from any decomposition of the animal matters present in
the contents of the stomach, yet I thought it prudent to conduct the
process of distillation in such a manner as to preclude the possibility
of such occurrence.
“Another and much larger portion of the contents of the stomach
was put into another retort, to which a little dilute sulphuric acid
was added as before, and the retort with its contents placed in a
water bath, to which some common salt was added. The salt-water
bath was heated until it boiled; a receiver was put on to the retort, an

adapter intervening so as to remove the receiver to a greater distance
from the furnace, and the receiver was kept as cool as possible by
folds of blotting paper kept constantly wet applied to its external
surface. In this manner was the distillation slowly conducted, until
about an ounce of clear liquid had distilled over.”
On the removal of this liquid from the receiver it had the same
smell as that contained in the bottle had before distillation, and
neither myself, Mr. Norblad, Mr. Champneys, nor my son could
detect the smell of prussic acid in the slightest degree. In fact the
odour of beer and digesting food was so powerful as to cover or
disguise the smell of the prussic acid in this weak state, but on
applying the same tests as before Prussian blue was found in
considerable quantity.
“The few drops of liquid which were in the phial before
mentioned were now examined: they had no action on litmus paper,
they smelt of camphor and acetate of ammonia. The test for prussic
acid was applied, but it did not show the smallest quantity. The phial
was then washed out, and the distilled liquid, with the precipitated
Prussian blue obtained by the two above-detailed processes was put
into it. It was corked up and taken by Messrs. Norblad and
Champneys to keep in their possession. I also added the same test to
distilled water containing a few drops of prussic acid, for the sake of
comparison and to try the test. This was also taken by Messrs.
Norblad and Champneys, as was also some distilled water with the
same tests applied, to which no prussic acid had been added, and
which was colourless. As far as I can recollect this completed the
first day’s proceedings, it being now nearly dark.
“On the evening of the following day (Saturday) Mr. Pickering
came to me to request I would on the Monday following examine,
by the coroner’s desire, the contents of the glass tumbler, the beer
bottle, and the remainder of the beer, to determine if prussic acid
existed in any of them. On Sunday the 6th, being engaged at Derby
on the Monday, Messrs. Norblad and Champneys came, bringing
with them the whole of the things they took away with them on the
Friday. The beer, the contents of the tumbler, and the remains of the

plum bun we each subjected separately to distillation in the salt-
water bath, and to the liquor obtained by distillation the same tests
for detecting prussic acid were added, but not a trace could be
found.
“I may here observe that, on the intervening Saturday, I
continued the distillation of the larger portion before spoken of for
the purpose of obtaining more of the distilled liquid, and in fact to
continue the distillation until the whole of the prussic acid had been
separated. A part of the distilled liquor had its Prussian blue
precipitated, which was given to Messrs. Norblad and Champneys
on the Sunday, and to another part I added nitrate of silver for the
purpose of separating the hydrocyanic acid, or rather the cyanogen it
contained. I kept it safe from decomposition or change during my
absence, and for the purpose of further experiments on my return,
and at my leisure.
“Accordingly, shortly after my return, I put the cyanide of silver
obtained by the above process, together with some very dilute
muriatic acid, into a small retort, to which a receiver was attached.
The retort was placed over a lamp in order to be heated, and the
receiver was surrounded by cold water. The distillation proceeded
until about a drachm and a half had distilled over. This liquor
possessed the odour of prussic acid, distinctly recognised by myself,
and also by two of my sons.
“It occurred to me that as Messrs. Norblad, Champneys, and
myself had distinctly seen among the contents of the stomach some
undigested apples, that the seeds or pips of the apple might give rise
to the formation of prussic acid by distillation. I therefore
determined on making an experiment to see if any and what quantity
of prussic acid they were capable of producing. Accordingly the
seeds from fifteen apples were bruised and put into a retort with
some distilled water, and about an ounce of liquor was distilled off.
On the application of the tests before spoken of, Prussian blue, in
exceeding small quantity, was produced. On testing the last product
of distillation, no Prussian blue was found. I have the whole of the
Prussian blue thus produced.

“About ten days ago I was applied to and requested to make
more experiments for the purpose (if possible) of discovering the
whole amount of prussic acid originally contained in the contents of
the stomach, or at least of that portion brought to me. I stated that I
had not the means in my possession of doing so, and that Mr.
Norblad or Mr. Champneys possessed almost everything relating to
the matter; but I thought it possible, if I had the remainder of the
contents of the stomach, and that if it were contained in the same
bottle in which it was originally brought, I might be able to do so—
having a distinct recollection of about the height at which the matter
stood in the neck of the bottle. Mr. Champneys, on Saturday, the 8th
of February, delivered, with other matters, into my charge, the
remainder of the contents of the stomach which had not before been
subjected to any operation or experiment, and which, when I gave it
him back, after my former experiments, I requested him to keep in a
cool dark place for further investigation, should it be deemed
requisite. The bottle was tightly corked and securely tied over with a
piece of bladder. Before uncorking it, I made a mark with a file
outside the bottle coincident with the surface of the contents in the
interior. I then emptied the contents into a glass alembic, washed the
bottle out with a little distilled water, and added this to the matter in
the alembic. The head of the alembic was then put on, a condensing
apparatus attached, the alembic placed as before on a salt-water
bath, the bath brought to the boiling point, and distillation
conducted until the whole of the prussic acid was expelled. A
solution of nitrate of silver was put into the recipient for the purpose
of seizing hold of the hydrocyanic acid the moment it reached that
vessel. By this process I succeeded in obtaining 1·455 grains of dry
cyanide of silver, very slightly contaminated with chloride of silver.
The latter did not amount to a quantity which could be collected and
weighed. But if I allow 0·025 grains, and call the quantity of
cyanide of silver produced in reality 1·43 on the quantity operated
on in this instance, it must be very near the truth. But as the quantity
operated on in this instance formed only 51 parts out of the 180 of
the whole volume of the contents of the bottle as it was first brought
to me, the following proportion will show how much was contained

in the whole. For if 51 parts give 1·43 grains of cyanide of silver,
180 parts will give 5·047 grains of cyanide of silver. This quantity
of cyanide of silver is equivalent to 1·002 grains of real hydrocyanic
or prussic acid, which is equal to 50 grains of the prussic acid of the
strength of the London Pharmacopeia. The determination of the
relative quantity operated on, and the original volume of the
contents of the stomach, was ascertained by measuring, with water,
the bottle filled, as near as possible to remember, to that part in the
neck where the contents originally stood, which was 180½ drachms,
and to the mark made by the file 51½ drachms.
“I may also remark that the contents of the stomach, after
distillation, was still strongly acid, occasioned most probably by the
acid in the beer, and also by the acid which is invariably produced
during the process of digestion.”[13]

During his examination, Mr. Cooper produced the bottles
containing the Prussian blue produced from the stomach and from
the apple-pips—the former dark blue in colour, the latter hardly
more than tinged with it. When placed side by side on the front of
the witness-box the marked contrast caused much excitement in
Court.
The cross-examination of this witness by Mr. Kelly was so
important, that though very lengthy it is necessary to give it in
considerable detail.

“Until this case,” said the witness, “I had never examined the
contents of a human stomach where a person had been killed by
prussic acid, or a human stomach containing prussic acid.
Respecting the effect of prussic acid on the stomach and tissues of
the body, my knowledge is only theoretical. Prussic acid, which I
have smelt from its most concentrated to its weakest state, has a
peculiar smell; it affects different persons differently. When I smell
it, it affects spasmodically the back of the throat. But it loses its
smell in combinations. I am not aware what quantity of prussic acid

destroys life. I have no practical knowledge on the subject. The case
I am most familiar with is that of the seven epileptics.
“I began my investigation with the view of seeing if oxalic acid
was present. I recognised the odour of beer more strongly in the
contents of the stomach than anything else. I did not trace the smell
of prussic acid in them, nor feel any spasmodic affection in the
throat in smelling them. I did not come to the conclusion, after
trying for those acids and mercurial poisons, which I did not
discover, that there was prussic acid in the stomach, but I remarked
to those present at that time, ‘Well, if this person has taken poison, it
must be prussic acid.’
“I have no idea how much Prussian blue I obtained from the first
experiment, as it was made in a hurry. (The bottle of dark blue liquid
was here shown again.) I thought the obtaining evidence of its
presence sufficient. I got more Prussian blue in the second
experiment than in the first, and more in the third experiment than
the second. I have not calculated the total amount of Prussian blue
in the bottle.”
As to the contents of the stomach: “There was undigested flesh
and a pulpy mass of which I could make nothing, and some portion
of apple, but no pips either partially digested or undigested with the
apple. I am not prepared to say that the pips of this apple contained
more prussic acid than others. There is a great difference between
bitter and sweet apples—the bitter contain a great deal of prussic
acid, the sweet, I believe, none.”[14]
As to prussic acid being in many substances: “Strictly speaking,
I don’t think it exists in any substance, not even in bitter almonds. I
mean in a free state; it is so extremely volatile that it cannot possibly
exist unless in combination with some other substance. It is my
opinion that prussic acid is a ‘product,’ and not an ‘educt’—that is
to say, in consequence of its great volatility it cannot exist unless in
combination with some other substance; you liberate it by
combination and change. The elements of it exist in a great many
substances. These elements, on taking new arrangements, may
produce prussic acid. Therefore I feel that it is always a ‘product,’

and that it does not exist in any substance in a free state, because if
it did it would be continually evaporating from that substance.”
Question.—“Are not the substances which are already known to
contain the elements of prussic acid, and from which it can be
obtained, very numerous?”
Answer.—“They are very numerous certainly, because all those
compounds which contain carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, and hydrogen,
may, in my opinion, by new changes be made to produce prussic
acid. All animal substances of any kind contain those elements, in
which are contained the elements of prussic acid. I agree, as far as I
know, with Christison, that the distilled seeds of bitter almonds, and
pomaceous seeds, yield prussic acid by distillation.”
Question.—“Is it not found, from time to time, by accident or
experiment, to exist in organic and other matters?”
Answer.—“I believe it is. I was the first person to discover it in
fulminating silver, and perhaps also in apple-pips, from recent
experiments. I am not aware of it ever having been produced by
mere organic changes in the stomach. If the apple-pips on which I
operated had been macerated, I cannot say that I should have
obtained more Prussian blue. I know it is the habit to macerate bitter
almonds, but I also know that without maceration they have
sometimes yielded more prussic acid than with maceration.”
Question.—“I will ask you one question more, ‘Do you agree
with Dr. Taylor that the odour of prussic acid, which is said to be
peculiar, may be found when all tests fail?”
Answer.—“I do not believe it. As far as my experience goes, it
would lead me to the contrary conclusion.”
Question.—“But if I understand you rightly, you do not smell
prussic acid, but feel its effects in another way?”
Answer.—“Sometimes it has produced a spasmodic constriction
about the throat, without my smelling it. At other times I have
distinctly smelt it. It depends very much, I think, on the state of the
nasal organ at the time.”

To Serjeant Byles.—“The same peculiar action at the back of the
throat is, I think, felt by others on putting prussic acid to the nose. I
communicated the nature of my evidence to the solicitor of the
prisoner about a month ago.”
Baron Parke.—“Have you or have you not a doubt upon your
mind from the result of your experiments as to the existence of
prussic acid in the stomach?”
Witness.—“None whatever! I have no doubt that prussic acid
may exist without being smelt.”
Baron Parke.—“If there was an absence of smell, would you
suppose that the prussic acid was present in the shape of a salt, and
that, therefore, you did not smell it?”
Witness.—“Absence of smell may arise from dilution, or from
its being covered by the smell of other substances.”
Baron Parke.—“Do you, in this particular case, ascribe the
absence of smell to the circumstance of the prussic acid being in the
form of a salt?”
Witness.—“No, because it could not exist in the stomach as a
cyanide of potassium, which is a salt, or as a cyanide of soda, when
another and more powerful acid was present; as, for instance,
muriatic acid, which in this case was found in considerable
quantity, it being an acid generated by the process of digestion.”
Baron Parke.—“Do you not believe that there was also acetic
acid present. Is not that a strong acid?”
Witness.—“I have no doubt there was also acetic acid present,
and it would have a greater affinity for soda or potash than prussic
acid. I think prussic acid cannot be formed by putrefaction in the
stomach.”

Mr. Joseph Cooper, a son of the last witness, and his assistant
for four years, deposed to having smelt the ordinary prussic acid at
the time in the process, mentioned by his father.

Mr. Norblad, surgeon and apothecary at Slough for 10 years,
said:

“On January 2 I went to Mrs. Hart’s house and saw her body;
have heard the evidence of Mr. Champneys, and should say that
death was caused by prussic or oxalic acid; do not know of any
other poisons that would produce death so rapidly; was present at
Mr. Cooper’s experiments; have heard and perfectly agree with his
evidence; oxalic acid must have been detected if present; I am quite
of opinion that prussic acid was present in the stomach, and have no
doubt about it; have heard the evidence of the witness Howard, the
symptoms she describes (of supposed former attempt) are precisely
those of prussic acid. That acid acts uniformly upon all animal
subjects, and destroys life in the same way in all cases. Have tried
experiments on dogs, and have seen cats and dogs poisoned by that
acid. On the 18th February I made an experiment on two dogs. Five
hours after feeding them I gave one of them half an ounce and the
other one drachm of Scheele’s acid, administered it at 7 p.m., and
exactly in ten seconds after receiving the smaller dose the dog fell
as if dead, and the other in half the time; I opened their bodies
eighteen hours after and could not discover any odour; I smelt the
mouth of the dog and could not detect it then, nor at any other time;
I opened the stomach of the dog, which smelt intensely of sour beer,
the acid having been administered in beer. I attributed the absence
of smell to the admixture of Guinness’s stout; I should have
expected on opening Mrs. Hart’s body to have discovered the cause
of death.”
By the Court.—“I examined the brain; it was perfectly healthy;
death did not arise from apoplexy.”
By Serjeant Byles.—“Less than a grain of pure prussic acid
would be sufficient to produce death.”

Cross-examined by Mr. Kelly:—

“I have never attended any one who had taken prussic acid
except in the form of medicine. The average dose of Scheele’s is
five minims, and a minim is about a grain. Never heard of prussic
acid being administered externally for varicose veins, and should
think it useless (prescription handed to him). That is a proper
prescription for varicose veins. I agree with Dr. Thompson, of
London, that prussic acid may be applied successfully to diseases of
the skin and cancerous affections to alleviate pain. I consider my
sense of smell very acute. I mixed twelve grains of prussic acid with
a pint of porter, but could not smell it. Some porter dropped on the
table and I did then smell it. I know that prussic acid when
combined with the blood of an animal volatilises very rapidly when
exposed to the air. There is a case in which prussic acid appears to
have allayed irritation of the stomach; it is a useful medicine
sometimes in small doses. I have seen dogs vomit after it. Disease
of the heart would produce death from mental emotion or rupture of
the coronaries of the heart. Forcing water down the throat of a
person in a syncope might cause sudden death. There was no
congestion or gorging of the lungs. I saw but did not examine
specially the coronary arteries.”
Kelly.—“If sudden death had occurred from a disease of the
coronary arteries, what would be the appearance of the lungs?”
Witness.—“The lungs have nothing to do with the coronary
arteries; ossification of them is supposed to cause sudden death. The
blood in the lungs would not be prevented from returning the heart
so as to gorge the lungs. I did not see any symptoms of the coronary
arteries being ossified.”
“I examined the lungs carefully. The lungs have been found
gorged in some persons who have died of prussic acid. I don’t think
that what has been called congestion was always clearly so. In all
cases of paralysis of the heart, the blood has not been returned to the
heart, and remaining in it gorges the lungs. Death by prussic acid
paralyses the heart. In death from prussic acid, death is often
denoted by an involuntary scream. I cannot say that I have heard of
a succession of screams in any case of the kind. When I first saw the

body, my impression was that death had been caused by oxalic acid,
and that impression continued until the tests were applied.
Blackness of the stomach is a symptom. There was a dark spot on
the surface of the stomach. I have not seen a case of poisoning by
oxalic acid.”

Re-examined by Mr. Prendergast.

“There was nothing in the stifled screams described by Mrs.
Ashley yesterday at all inconsistent with poisoning by prussic acid;
on the contrary, the catching of the breath is the last symptom. Less
than one grain of prussic acid will kill a healthy person.”
By the Court.—“I saw nothing on the brain to indicate death by
apoplexy. If a sudden emotion had caused death I don’t think I could
have told that by the brain.”

Mr. Pickering, who had been in practice as a surgeon for nine
years, and was present when Mr. Champneys made the first
incision through the integuments, said he then smelt the odour of
prussic acid,[15] and confirmed the accounts of the previous
witnesses of the experiments in Mr. Cooper’s laboratory. On cross-
examination he admitted that before they examined the body they
were led to suppose that the death had been caused by poison, and
that he had never seen a case of death from poisoning either by
oxalic or prussic acid.
Previous visits of Tawell to Mrs. Hart, were proved by Kesiah
Harding, a washerwoman at Slough, in December, 1844, and
particularly on the Monday week before her death, when he told
the deceased that he wished her to be alone when he next came,
and that he would come on the Tuesday or Saturday week.

PURCHASE OF PRUSSIC ACID BY TAWELL.

This was proved by Henry Thomas, shopman to a Mr. Hughes,
a chemist in Bishopsgate Street, who said,

“On the 1st of January, between twelve and two the prisoner
came to the shop dressed in a great coat and usual quaker garb and
asked for two drachms of Scheele’s Prussic Acid, bringing with him
a ½oz. bottle with a regular label of Scheele’s Acid on it. As I could
not get the stopper out, I gave it him in one of our own bottles.
When about to put on a label, I believe the prisoner said “You need
not,” but I would not swear it. He said he wanted it for an external
application to varicose veins, paid 4d. for it, which was entered in
the book now produced. Next day he came again between ten and
two and asked for the same quantity, and, as he had broken our
bottle, took it in the one he had originally brought. I had seen him
frequently before and might have sold him prussic acid, but am not
certain. He told me, three months before, that he had been a chemist
and apothecary abroad. I do not remember his being in a hurry to
catch the train and my being not able to get the stopper out. It is our
practice to do it. We usually cover our bottles with leather. Attended
at Aylesbury on the 13th of January, and recognised the prisoner the
next morning in gaol.”

The cross-examination of this witness, who was evidently
favourable to the prisoner and in communication with his solicitor,
was directed to three points—the suitability of prussic acid to the
disease in the legs from which the prisoner suffered; the effect of
porter on the odour of prussic acid when mixed with it; and the
amount that can be produced from apple-pips.

“The prisoner,” said the witness, “told me he was suffering from
varicose veins. I judged that he was, from the medicine I sold him.
He rubbed his leg. The prescription now shown me would be a good
external application for the ulceration produced by varicose veins.”
Baron Parke.—“What is that?”
Kelly.—“Scheele’s Acid.”

Witness.—“That prescription is in the handwriting of Dr.
Addison. I do not believe that Scheele’s Prussic Acid could be
mixed with a drink and taken by a person and not smelt after death.
I do not think porter would disguise it. I put about twenty drops of
Scheele’s Prussic Acid down the throat of a parrot with a glass
syringe. Three women were present, and the smell was so strong
and suffocating, that it compelled them to leave the room. The bird
was afterwards stuffed. I mixed thirty drops of this acid with eleven
ounces of porter, and found the odour slightly perceptible. I did not
perceive the difference when the froth was on and when there was
none. It is the property of prussic acid to give out a smell when
volatilising. Apple-pips contain prussic acid. I have assisted at the
extracting it from fifteen small apples. The process was a soft-water
bath, diluted sulphuric acid, and sulphate of iron. Two Grains And
a Quarter of Cyanide of Silver Were Produced. I did this under
the direction of Dr. Lievesley, a lecturer at the London Hospital. In
this process two sweet almonds were used.”[16]

On cross-examination by Serjeant Byles the witness admitted
that he made this experiment on the 9th of March at the request of
the Prisoner’s solicitor, and that he had never made this experiment
before; that he had been with Mr. Hughes only about a year and
half, and was paid £80 a year, and that Dr. Lievesley provided the
London Pharmacopœia acid, and the porter. On being shown a
leather or paper covering of a small bottle that had been found in
the ashes of the grate in Mrs. Hart’s house, the witness declared
that it could not be the covering of the bottle that he had put on, as
it was too small for leather.

HISTORY OF MRS. HART.

Sarah Bateman said that she knew Mrs. Hart six years ago,
when employed to nurse the Prisoner’s first wife, who soon after

died. The witness at that time observed that Mrs. Hart—then
known as Hadler—was with child, and the following statement was
subsequently made by her when at tea with Tawell and the witness.

“I am in the family way, and will vindicate my master in it. He is
going to be married to Sarah Catforth (the present wife), ‘and if it
was to get abroad it would make a great difference to him.’ She
seemed much excited, and Tawell begged her not to excite herself.
‘He was about to be admitted into the Society of Friends,’ he said,
‘and should not like these things to get abroad.’ She said, ‘He could
marry Miss Catforth, and no one, not even her mother, should know
what had become of her.’”

Mary Ann Moss, of Crawford Street, Bryanston Square, with
whom Mrs. Hart came to lodge in 1841, when she was confined of
a girl, remembered Tawell frequently visiting her, as Mrs. Hart
said, “to bring her money from her husband.” From there she
removed to a small house on Paddington Green for the sake of
privacy, where Tawell paid regular visits, and eventually to Salt
Hill, at Tawell’s desire. She represented to this witness that her
husband was Tawell’s son, that Tawell disapproved of the marriage,
and that the girl and a boy of whom she had been subsequently
delivered were his. Mrs. Hart’s mother, Mrs. Hadler, also spoke to
her having not heard of her for several years.
With the proof by a clerk of Barnet’s Bank that Tawell had
drawn a cheque for £14 on the 1st of January, and the identification
of certain letters being in his handwriting, the case for the
prosecution was closed.

THE DEFENCE.

The nature of the defence opened by Mr. Fitzroy Kelly, in his
long and eloquent address to the jury has already been indicated by

his cross-examination of the medical witnesses, and was so fully
commented on by the learned judge in his charge to the jury that it
is needless to reprint it. On its conclusion residents at
Berkhampstead who had known him for several years, testified to
the good character which he had borne for kindness, charity, and
benevolence, and a Mr. Richards, of Dover, and a Captain Dillon,
who had both known him abroad—the latter for nearly thirty years
—gave similar evidence of his kind, charitable, and hospitable
disposition. On the conclusion of this evidence Baron Parke
adjourned the Court to the next morning, when he gave the
following exhaustive charge to the jury.

THE JUDGE’S CHARGE.

After the usual introductory caution to the Jury to be strictly
impartial, Baron Parke said:—

“He would next tell them what the case was, and how it was to
be proved. It was to be proved by circumstantial evidence—the only
sort of evidence that could be obtained in most cases of a similar
nature. The most atrocious crimes were committed in secret, but
Providence had so ordered it that some traces were frequently left
which were sufficient to lead to the discovery of the perpetrators.
The law, therefore, wisely provided that direct proof of crime was
not absolutely necessary; but on the other hand it was equally
necessary that by circumstantial evidence the case should be so fully
made out as to leave no rational doubt of its committal. He should,
therefore, advise them to lay down the rule, that they should first
consider what had been proved to their satisfaction, and then
whether all those facts were consistent with the guilt of the prisoner.
If they thought that they were consistent with his guilt—and there
was nothing inconsistent with it except the prisoner’s previous
character—then they should consider whether they were
inconsistent with his innocence, and they should remember that the

existence of the crime was not inconsistent with the other parts of
the case. Whilst on this part of the case, he should observe that the
counsel for the prisoner had admitted all those facts, but had
asserted that the law required not only that those facts should be
proved, but that it should be shown directly that the deceased had
died from poison, and that a sufficient quantity of poison to cause
death had been found in her stomach. That was not true of the law. It
was not necessary to give direct and positive evidence in every step
of the case. There was no difference between direct and
circumstantial evidence, if the evidence was sufficient to satisfy
their minds that death had ensued from poison. It was not necessary
to prove what quantity of that poison was necessary to produce
death by the testimony of the person who had actually seen death
produced by it; nor was it necessary to prove that such a quantity as
would destroy life was actually found in the body. If they were
satisfied that the prisoner administered poison to the deceased, and
that she died of it, it was not necessary to prove what quantity had
been administered to her. The only positive fact which the law
required to be proved was the finding of the body, where such was
possible. The body of the deceased having been found, it was to be
considered whether the prisoner administered poison to her—
whether it had been administered to her by the prisoner or by
herself. The only allegation that she had done so was that of the
prisoner himself, and if the jury thought the extraordinary story told
by him was worthy of credit, it would agree with the latter mode of
accounting for her death. But if they did not believe it, they had no
other conclusion left than that he had committed the crime imputed
to him.”

The learned judge then proceeded to comment on the evidence
of Mrs. Ashley, and others, who deposed to the perfect health and
good spirits of the deceased up to a few minutes of the discovery of
her lifeless body, and to the medical evidence of the perfect state of
her internal bodily organs, leaving no doubt that she had not died
from natural causes. He then went to the evidence of Messrs.

Champneys and Pickering, the surgeons, who, on opening the body
of the deceased on the day following her death smelt the odour of
the prussic acid.[17] “There, then,” he said, “was evidence at once of
the presence of prussic acid in the stomach on the day following a
sudden death accompanied by appearances, such as would be
symptomatic of sudden death from that powerful poison. Mr.
Cooper, the chemist, analysed the contents of the stomach
subsequently and obtained a quantity of pure Prussian blue from it,
and before he proceeded further with the evidence on this point, he
would observe, that the jury should never lose sight of the conduct
of the prisoner during the whole of the proceedings. He then
proceeded to comment on the evidence of the presence of prussic
acid in the stomach immediately after death, and the allegation of
the Prisoner’s counsel, that it was producible from apples, and that
it might have been produced from natural causes in the stomach,
which contained a quantity of apple pulp. He pointed out that from
all the medical evidence, it was proved that, that acid was
contained not in the apple, but in the pip, and that pips were not
found in the pulp in the deceased’s stomach. It was also proved that
prussic acid had been obtained from the pips themselves only by a
process of distillation, and was not produced by the mere natural
process of digestion.[18] No one would die from eating apple pips,
although a person might be killed by the prussic acid obtained from
them by a chemist. Besides, the action of the acid was sudden and
immediate, and the deceased had died in the manner she would
have done after suddenly swallowing some.”
With respect to the evidence regarding the odour of the acid
being perceptible under this or that circumstance, said the Judge:—

“All that could be inferred was, that though the perception of it
was a positive proof of its presence, the non-perception was no
proof of its not being present. As to the deceased having died from

water having been poured down her throat, it was quite idle to
attribute it to that. At that moment she was not living: death had
already done its work. With regard to the quantity of prussic acid
requisite to kill a human being, it had been proved that less than a
grain would kill in some cases, as appeared by the melancholy cases
so frequently referred to of the seven epileptic patients in Paris; and
Mr. Cooper had proved that more than a grain existed in the
stomach of the deceased. It was said that the experiments were not
satisfactorily conducted—that was a question for the jury.
“In considering the conduct of the prisoner, the jury must couple
it with all the other evidence, in order to judge how far it bore out or
contradicted the inferences that might be derived from it. It
appeared that on the day in question the prisoner had gone to the
Paddington station of the Great Western Railway and taken his place
for Slough. He had left his great coat at the Jerusalem coffee-house,
and told the waiter that he was going to dine at the West End of
town. That was untrue, and he must have made that false statement
for some object or other. He went down to Slough at five o’clock,
and between six and seven Mrs. Ashley went round to the
deceased’s house, in consequence of the noise she heard of stifled
screaming. She met the prisoner in the garden in a state of agitation
—so great that he could not undo the latch of the gate. She opened it
for him. As to the observation she made about fearing that her
neighbour was ill, she could not say that the prisoner heard it, and
therefore it went for nothing. Let that pass. However, after she got in
at the door of the deceased’s house, she turned round and saw the
prisoner looking at her, and such was the effect upon her that she
felt alarmed, and closed and fastened the door. At seven o’clock the
prisoner was seen by a postboy, and he was then making towards the
station. At ten minutes after seven he was at the station. He was next
seen getting into the Eton omnibus, and asking to be set down at
Herschel House. What his intention was in going to Herschel House
does not appear. He was traced back again to the station, and an
alarm having been given, a signal was made by the electric
telegraph, and he was seen to alight from the railway carriage at

Paddington, and was then traced home. When he was taken up next
morning, and told what he was taken for, his answer was, that he
knew no one at Slough. It had been suggested by his counsel that
this was strictly true, as the deceased did not live exactly at Slough,
but a little distance from it. It had also been suggested that he
wished to prevent his wife hearing of his improper connection. It
would be for the jury to say what degree of weight should be given
to these explanations.
“He had told several falsehoods when informed of the nature of
the charge. On the Friday, about one o’clock, the prisoner had an
interview with his legal adviser, and after that, but not until after
that, did he make any attempt at explanation or give any account of
what had taken place; and the account which he then gave was the
extraordinary statement of her self-destruction. Here, then, the
prisoner represented himself as present when the poison was
administered, and as it was found in her stomach, it was for the jury
to say whether the question did not amount to the simple one, of
whether she had destroyed herself or the prisoner had administered
it. If he thought she had been threatening to poison herself, he
should at least have stayed to see what would be the effect upon her.
The jury would next observe, keeping the prisoner’s story in mind,
that no such vial as that described by him was found in the house. It
had been proved by Mr. Thomas, who had sold him the poison in
the morning, that the prisoner had prussic acid in his possession that
day. He (the judge) did not give much weight to the observation that
he would not have gone back the next day to the same shop for
more if he were conscious of guilt, because in cases of murder, and
especially of murder by poison, it was found that great precautions
were not used. The perpetrators did not at all expect to be found out.
As to the medicinal use alleged to have been made by the prisoner
of the deadly poison, he might have had varicose veins; but at all
events it had been shown that he had poison in his possession—he
had the means of doing this act on the day it was committed.”

Coming then to the question of motive the Judge gave a brief
history of the connection between the prisoner and the deceased,
and, after detailing its commencement, commented on it as
showing her extraordinary affection and devotion to the prisoner.

“With striking self-devotion,” said Baron Parke, “she had said,
that, in order not to prevent the union of the prisoner with the lady
to whom he was about to be married, she would go out of the world,
and be dead to the world, even to her own mother, from that day
forth; and the jury had heard from that very mother that from that
time she had never heard of her unfortunate daughter until after her
death. She kept her promise. She did go out of the world, and went
from place to place till she went to reside at Slough. It appeared that
there she received from the prisoner an allowance of £13 a quarter,
and on the day in question it was seen that he was to have taken her
her quarterly allowance. When taken into custody, the sum of £12
10s., besides silver, was found in his pocket; and it was proved that
he had drawn a cheque for £14 that morning. From that fact it might
be inferred that he had gone down with a sort of mixed feeling,
either of paying her the money or, if he had the opportunity of
accomplishing his purpose, of poisoning her. But as to motive for
destroying her, it had been suggested that no man would commit
such a dreadful crime for the sake of getting rid of expense. That, he
should say, was not a matter to be easily judged of.”
His Lordship then touched upon all the evidence regarding his
alleged pecuniary circumstances, and read the letter from his wife,
in which allusion was made to his anxiety to have the papers from
Sydney. “As to the feeling appeal made upon that affectionate letter
by his counsel, it only proved that the prisoner had been very kind
to and enjoyed the affection of his wife, which was not at all
incompatible with the commission of the crime with which he stood
charged towards another woman.”
As to the alleged previous attempt to poison the deceased in
September last, the Judge considered that there was no sufficient
proof that he then administered prussic acid to her. It was, however,

remarkable that after drinking porter with the prisoner on the 30th
September, she should have been so ill, and that after drinking
porter with him on the 1st of January she should have been taken ill
and died. The strong facts against the prisoner, in his opinion, “were
his presence at the woman’s house at the time she died; his
declarations before and after his arrest, and the fact that prussic acid
was found in her stomach.”
The Judge then read over the whole of the material evidence,
and, with the usual caution, left the case in the hands of the jury. On
Mr. Gunning reminding him of the evidence to the prisoner’s
character which had been produced, Baron Parke said—“Such
evidence was admissible in cases of this kind, because it went to
show the general impression of the habits and feelings of a person.
The prisoner was reputed to be a kind-hearted, benevolent man. It
was admitted that he had been transported for some offence, the
nature of which they had not been told, but it was said that it was
not one to affect his character for kindness of disposition.” The
Judge then read over the evidence to character, and left it to the jury
to decide in reference to its value to the prisoner in his present
position.
On the conclusion of the Judge’s charge, which lasted from eight
in the morning until half-past eleven, the Jury retired, and in about
half an hour returned a verdict of Guilty. In a few impressive
sentences, in which he spoke of the hypocrisy that had characterised
the prisoner’s life in the assumption of the garb of a virtuous,
peaceful, benevolent, and religious body of persons, the Judge
passed on him the dread sentence of the law, which he suffered on
the 28th of March. Previously to his execution Tawell handed a
written confession to the jail chaplain, that he committed the murder
for fear that his wife should discover his connection with the
deceased, and that the previous attempt was not made with prussic
acid. He never imagined that Sarah Hart had spoken of him to her
neighbours, to whom he believed that he was personally unknown,
and so more likely to escape detection.

At the Easter Quarter Sessions of the County, held subsequently
to the execution of Tawell, an ineffectual attempt was made by a
section of the magistrates to compel the jail chaplain to deliver to
the visiting justices this written confession, which the chaplain
refused to hand over, on the ground of its having been received
under the seal of confession, and on the promise that it should not
be published. All that was known of it rested on the statement of the
governor of the prison, and the general admission of the chaplain
that it was a full confession of the prisoner’s guilt.
A difficult legal question arose, after Tawell’s death, with
reference to his Australian land, which the Crown re-granted to his
widow and family, after its forfeiture by his conviction; whether this
re-grant should prevail over the claims of a previous purchaser, a
retired auctioneer, who had houses on it, who alleged that he had
purchased it for a bonâ fide consideration, under a sufficient power
of attorney, executed before Tawell’s conviction. “The affixing the
seal of the colony to this grant by Sir W. Denison, created a serious
difference between that governor and his chief minister, Mr.
Cowper. The seal was affixed pursuant to the instructions of the
Secretary of the Colonies, who only acted in the matter in
accordance with the opinion of the Attorney and Solicitor-General
of England. A part of the sworn duty of a colonial governor is to
obey the instructions of the Secretary of State for the Colonies.”[19]
The governor, therefore, sent his private secretary for the great seal
of the colony and himself executed the new deed. On this being
done the owners of the property found the ground cut from under
their feet, and it never came before the law courts, but it is believed
that some compromise was effected with the family of Tawell, and
so the matter ended.

TRIAL OF GEORGE BALL FOR POISONING HIS MOTHER
WITH PRUSSIC ACID.

July, 1860, Home Circuit, Lewes, before Coleridge, Chief Justice of
Common Pleas. Barrow, for the Prosecution. Serjeant Ballantine for

the Defence.

This case, really of misadventure, is reported, briefly, as
showing the carelessness with which dangerous medicines may, no
doubt most unintentionally, be administered even by professional
men, the culpable ignorance in some of those chemists who deal in
such deadly preparations.
The accused, a medical man, but not in regular practice, had for
some time attended his mother, a very ailing old lady, and been in
the habit of giving her small doses of prussic acid, as a remedy for
violent attacks of vomiting to which she was subject. On the 11th
of July in consequence, he purchased of a Mr. Moswell, a chemist
in Lewes, a drachm of Scheele’s prussic acid, equal to 60
“minims,” and gave her a dose of 4 “minims.” The result was
favourable, and the old lady went for a walk. On her return,
however, she again complained, and the accused administered
another dose of prussic acid, evidently from its effects, a deadly
quantity, as she hardly got to her bedroom before she became
insensible, and died almost instantaneously. The accused believed
he had given her only seven drops, the proper quantity to be given.
That he gave her seven drops was not doubted, but that the size of
drops differ under circumstances as much as the strength of
Scheele’s preparation of the acid, will be seen from the following
evidence.
Mr. Scrate, a surgeon at Lewes (who was sent for by the
accused, found the lady dead and the accused apparently in a very
distressed state of mind), said:—

“I asked what was the matter; and the accused said he had given
her seven drops of prussic acid, and witness replied he must have
given her more.”

Chief Justice.—“Would seven drops be sufficient to cause
death?”
Witness.—“Not according to my experience; it was the proper
quantity to be given. The smallest quantity of prussic acid on record
having caused death was of nine-tenths of a grain.”
Chief Justice.—“How many ‘minims’ would a ‘drop’ contain?”
Witness.—“That would depend upon how the drops were
obtained from the bottle. If the cork was partly in, the drop would be
larger than if it was carefully poured from the open neck of the
bottle. Some medical men made use of one method and some of the
other, but it was his practice not to rely on ‘drops,’ but to measure
‘minims.’”
To Mr. Barrow.—“With such a deadly poison as prussic acid I
should say that it was not prudent for any medical man to rely on
‘drops,’ but to measure ‘minims.’ The proper doses, as marked on
all bottles of Scheele’s strength, to be administered were one, two,
or the largest three ‘minims.’ Scheele’s acid was not uniform in
strength: sometimes it contained four, sometimes five, and
sometimes as much as six per cent.”
Chief Justice.—“Would not that amount to almost the difference
between life and death?”
Witness.—“It would make a very great difference certainly.
Taylor and other eminent medical men have recommended that
Scheele’s prussic acid should not be used, on account of the very
great variation of strength. I myself always use that of the
Pharmacopœia. But notwithstanding what has been written upon the
subject by many eminent men, Scheele’s acid is generally used in
the profession.”
Chief Justice.—“Supposing the acid to be of the highest strength
you have mentioned, do you consider seven drops would have been
sufficient to cause death?”
Witness.—“I don’t believe they would.”
To Mr. Barrow.—“Six per cent. is an exceptional strength, but I
should think that it would take seventeen minims of that strength to

cause death.”
Chief Justice.—“What do you say is the difference between a
‘drop’ and a ‘minim’?”
Witness.—“That would depend on the sort of ‘drop.’ The
prisoner afterwards gave me a bottle which contained prussic acid.
He told me he had given his mother four minims, and 2·5 minims
remained. I did not test the strength of what remained, but had no
doubt the deceased died from the effects of prussic acid.”
To Serjeant Ballantine.—“There was a broken cork in the bottle
when the accused gave it to me. In his opinion ‘seventeen minims’
was the smallest dose that would destroy life. It was very easy to
destroy life when dropping the liquid from a bottle. When accused
told him he had given seven drops, he understood that he had given
three and a half minims. He had never heard of any instance in
which the strength of Scheele’s acid had exceeded six per cent.”
Mr. C. H. Moswell (chemist in Lewes).—“On the 11th of July
accused came to his shop and asked for some prussic acid. Gave
him a drachm, which would contain sixty minims. Did not measure
it, but gave what he considered a quarter of the bottle.”
Cross-examined by Serjeant Ballantine.—“As you say you
really did not measure it, can you tell us how much prussic acid you
really did give?”
Witness.—“I cannot say to a drop. I am sure he had fifty drops. I
consider a ‘drop’ and a ‘minim’ synonymous. I gave him about the
quantity, but when prussic acid is dispensed by a medical man, he is,
of course, careful as to the quantity he uses.”
Chief Justice.—“We have been told that a ‘drop’ contains two
‘minims,’ and this witness says he looks upon them as
synonymous.”
Serjeant Ballantine.—“If you were told to give a patient so
many ‘minims,’ should you give him so many ‘drops’?”
Witness.—“Certainly not.”
Serjeant Ballantine.—“Can you tell us the strength of the
prussic acid you sold?”

Witness.—“I don’t know what the strength was—I should
suppose about four per cent.”

Case for the prosecution closed.
The Chief Justice called the attention of the Jury to the
evidence and observed, that the fact of the cork being broken in the
bottle and defective was certainly an important matter for their
consideration, as it admitted the possibility that the prussic acid
might have escaped from the bottle accidentally, and then there was
an absence of evidence that an excessive dose had been
administered by the accused.
The Jury almost immediately returned a verdict of “Not
Guilty.”
If the estimate of the witness Scrate is taken for the difference
between a drop and a minim, and the second witness, Moswell, is
correct in saying that he gave the accused at least 50 drops, equal to
25 minims, as only 2·5 minims were left in the bottle, equal to 4¼
drops; in the two doses the accused must have administered more
than 45 drops, equal to 22½ minims. If the cork was not broken in
the bottle when the first dose was administered, the probability is
that the dose then given did not exceed seven drops of the size that
would make them equal to 3½ minims, thus leaving 19 minims for
the second dose. It is to be regretted that the strength of the prussic
acid was not tested.

NOTE ON TAWELL’S CASE.

In a case of the poisoning at Egglesham, near Glasgow, by
prussic acid, of a young woman, of the name of Agnes

Montgomery, by Peter Walker, a tailor, the symptoms were thus
described by one of the witnesses, as well as the effect of prussic
acid on herself:—

“After we learnt that the moaning came from Aggie’s room, we
came up, got Clarkson’s key, and went in. (As in Tawell’s case, the
prisoner had left the girl’s room only a few minutes before.) Aggie
was sitting on a chair (in which it was probable from other evidence
that she had been placed by her murderer), with her head leaning on
the table. The body was quite still. There was a little froth coming
out of the wicks of her mouth. It was a little coloured with blood;
and we afterwards found she had bit her tongue and her lips. She
threw back at different times, as if in distress. Her right hand was
very firmly closed. I loosed the boot of the left foot, and found it
was swelled and quite stiff. About ten minutes after that was another
groan: the breathing was slow, and with great oppression. She
sighed six times before she died. Her skin was getting quite cold
after we got her. I thought there was a little sweat on her face. We
got hot water to bathe her arms. The eyes were large and staring.
She died about three quarters of an hour after we got her. When we
went into her room, I found a sickening smell. I felt in my nostrils a
kind of nipping, and my throat was dry. I felt it off Aggie the
moment I came forward. I know the smell of almonds, but can’t say
it was exactly like that. On the 5th of November I saw the
superintendent of police, and others, and saw something (it was
prussic acid) put into beer. I smelt the beer; and after some of it was
poured on the floor, I recognised it as the same smell. It affected me
in the same way as before in the nostrils and throat.”—Evidence of
Mrs. M’Donald.

In this case, on a post-mortem examination of the exhumed
body, the presence of prussic acid was clearly detected; and it was
proved on the trial that the prisoner had employed a carrier to get
some prussic acid for him, and that the bottle containing it had been
given to him on the day of the murder; and the fragments of a glass

phial were subsequently discovered, with the key of the girl’s
room, at the root of a tree, at which the prisoner had been seen
stopping, as he returned from going for a doctor. In this case the
poison had been most probably given in beer, as in Tawell’s, a
tumbler in which beer had been being found on the girl’s table.
The fellow, two months afterwards, tried to poison a Mr. Mason
and his wife, with whom he had gone to lodge in Glasgow, with
prussic acid, but happily failed in his attempt.
He confessed his guilt; and at first gave as his motive his desire
to possess himself of the girl’s money, but subsequently said he
could not tell what possessed him to do it. “Following so closely on
the case of Madeleine Smith, the probability is that her case had
had on him the same effect as Palmer’s on Dove—exciting a
morbid desire to tamper with deadly drugs, and that the death of his
victim, and the danger of the others, was as much due to this
feeling as the desire for plunder.” He was discovered to have been
transported for robbery, and to have been guilty of other crimes. He
now confessed that he had murdered a lad, by pushing him into a
quarry hole. He was executed at Paisley, Jan. 14, 1858.—Annual
Register for 1858.

CHAPTER III.

CHEMICAL NOTES.

Note I.—Hydrocyanic or Prussic Acid.

Nature of—Strength of different preparations of, English and foreign—
Where found—Tests, preliminary: (1) Odour—(2) Silver—(3) Prussian
blue—(4) Sulphur—(5) Guaiacum—(6) Uranium—(7) Picric acid—(8)
Cupric sulphate—(9) Cobalt chloride—(10) Mercuric oxide—(11)
Peroxide of hydrogen—(12) Mercurous nitrate. Test apparatus—Salts of
hydrocyanic acid: (1) Potassium cyanide—(2) Mercuric cyanide—(3)
Cyanides of the heavy metals—(4) Double cyanides—(5)
Sulphocyanides—Oil of bitter almonds—Antidotes—Fatal dose—
Symptoms—Post-mortem appearances—Drops and minims—Period
after death at which hydrocyanic acid can be discovered—Formic acid to
be tested for—Processes.

Synonyms.—Cyanhydric or prussic acid, Hydric cyanide,
Hydrogen cyanide, Acidum borussicum, Blausaüre,
Berlinerblausaüre.
Formula HCN, i.e., a compound of single atoms, of hydrogen,
carbon, and nitrogen, in the proportions by weight of 1 + 12 + 14 =

27. In its pure state (anhydrous, or free from water), it is a feebly
acid, colourless, mobile liquid, inflammable and very volatile.
Boiling point 24·5° C. Much lighter than water: sp. gr. ·7058. It has
a characteristic overpowering and oppressive odour, resembling
peach-blossom or laurel-water. But the anhydrous acid, from its
volatility and dangerous character is rarely seen or made. In
commerce it is always found as a dilute aqueous solution, the
varying strengths in real HCN being:—

Per cent. HCN.
Pharmacopœia, British, Swiss, America,
Borussica, London, Norway, 2
Schräders 1·5
Pharmac. Saxony 1·9
” Austria, Baden, Batavia 2·5
” Edinburgh, Dublin 3·3
Vauquelin’s acid 3·3 to 3·5
Pharmac. Bavaria 4
Scheele’s acid 4 to 5
(rarely 6)
Duflos’s acid 9
French Pharmacopœia 10 to 10·5
Riner’s and Pfaff’s acids 10
Hessian Pharmacopœia 18 to 20
Koller’s 25
Robiquet’s 50

In this country, only Scheele’s, and the British Pharmacopœia
(2 per cent.) acid, are usually met with.
These numbers, however, must be regarded merely as rough
approximations for two reasons; first, on account of the extreme
volatility of the acid—if loosely stoppered, or frequently opened, it
rapidly loses strength—second, both the anhydrous acid and its
aqueous solution are decomposed by light, with formation of a
brown matter. This change is supposed to be retarded by a trace of
mineral acid, hence a little hydrochloric or sulphuric acid is
frequently added to the commercial solution with this object. But
the acid may even be stronger than supposed, as the methods of
preparation are somewhat various, and the one adopted may have
been carelessly carried out. Scheele’s acid is said to be the most
popular among medical men; samples of it obtained from different
large firms and examined by the author showed very irregular
strengths, the lowest being 2, and the highest 8 per cent. The latter
was purchased at the shop of a chemist who said he had made it
himself, and could guarantee it was of full strength. He had
evidently made allowance for deterioration. Woodman and Tidy
found 16 samples sold in one neighbourhood as B.P. acid to contain
0·6 to 3·2 per cent. of HCN; others have found 0·25 per cent. not
infrequent. It follows that if, in a poison case, a bottle has been
found of a hydrocyanic preparation of a definite name, or even with
a certain strength or dose marked on it, it will not be safe to trust to
such figures without actually determining the amount. In Ball’s
trial (Lewes, 1860), the judge asked whether this variation in
strength would not make the difference between a medicinal and a
poisonous dose? It would not, as the maximum medicinal dose, 4
grains, of even the abnormally strong (8 per cent.) Scheele’s acid
mentioned above, would only contain 0·32 grain of anhydrous
HCN, and it requires at least half a grain to cause death, while

about 1 grain is the usual fatal quantity. And a medical man would
not even give the maximum medicinal dose as a beginning, and
without precaution.

ACIDUM HYDROCYANICUM DILUTUM, PHARMACOPŒIA
BRITANNICA.

We shall use the abbreviation “B. P. 2 per cent.” for this acid,
which has the characteristic odour, a sp. gr. of ·997, and a taste “at
first bland and sweet, ultimately pungent and acrid” (Thomson),
“hot and bitter” (Taylor), “cooling, with pungent bitter aftertaste”
(Watts). If pure, it only slightly and transiently reddens litmus; if
other acids have been added to keep it, it may have a stronger
reddening effect. Also, if pure, it leaves no residue on platinum,
and gives no precipitate with barium chloride, but with silver
nitrate it gives an immediate white curdy precipitate of silver
cyanide, not blackening in daylight as the chloride does, soluble in
ammonia, insoluble in dilute, but soluble in hot concentrated nitric
acid. It dissolves mercuric oxide, giving a mercuric cyanide which
may be obtained in white crystals on evaporation. The vapour is
said to be more deadly than the fluid acid. The weaker the acid, the
more permanent it is. Glycerine increases its stability (J. Williams);
this might be useful if suspected substances had to be kept a long
time.
Occurrence.—Hydrocyanic acid itself has never been found as
a natural constituent of the body, although a compound of
cyanogen occurs in the saliva (see Sulphocyanides). Hydrocyanic
acid is not formed during putrefaction, nor by heating organic
substances with chemical reagents at temperatures up to 212° F., as
in testing for poisons. The only way in which it may be generated
from animal matter is by heating with alkalies to a red heat;[20] this

cannot, of course, happen in the ordinary process of testing for
prussic acid, though it must be remembered that cyanide might thus
be formed in an ash (by burning), without having been present in
the original substance.
It is rather frequent, however, in the vegetable kingdom, and
consequently in a poisoning case the defence often sets up the
theory that it has been ingested in the food (Tawell’s Trial, &c.). It
is necessary, therefore, to examine in what kind of food, and to
what amount, it may be taken.
Its principal source is the seeds, leaves, and flowers, and
sometimes the bark, of most of the species of the sub-orders
Amygdaleæ and Pomeæ of the natural order Rosaceæ. It does not
occur in them ready-formed. There is a substance called
Amygdalin, a white bitterish crystalline body, which may be
extracted by alcohol from these plants. Amygdalin when dissolved
by itself in water does not produce HCN, and is probably harmless,
but there exists by its side in the plant a species of ferment called
Emulsin or Synaptase, which has the power, when macerated in
water with amygdalin, of breaking up the latter into glucose (so-
called grape-sugar), benzoyl hydride (oil of bitter almonds), and
hydrocyanic acid. In the plant the amygdalin apparently exists in
cells apart from the emulsin, but by crushing in water, or
masticating in the mouth, the change is very rapidly effected. By
long soaking the same result may happen, as in cherry brandy; here
the diluted spirit dissolves the amygdalin, and the emulsin then
may act. But if, in the stomach, the apple-pips or cherry-stones
should be found whole, it is almost impossible that the amygdalin
should be decomposed, protected as it is by its horny or stony
envelope. Stones and pips, in fact, pass through the body intact, and
are found in the fæces.

Yet as amygdalin and its decomposition may be much
mentioned by the defence, the following account may be useful.
100 parts of amygdalin yield 6 parts HCN.
It has been found in the species of Rosaceæ given below,
generally in fruit, flowers, leaves, sometimes bark, rarely root.
Pyrus malus (apple pips), domesticus (pear).
Prunus spinosa (sloe), avium (bird cherry), padus (wild
service), Virginiana or serotina (wild black cherry), capricida,
insititia (bullace), domestica (plum, damson, &c.).
Amygdalus communis (almond), Persica (peach), lævis
(nectarine).
Armeniaca vulgaris (apricot).
Cerasus communis (cherry), acida, laurocerasus (cherry-laurel),
Lusitanica (Portugal laurel).
Cydonia vulgaris (quince).
Sorbus aucuparia (mountain ash), torminalis, hybrida.
Cratægus oxyacantha (hawthorn, young branches).
Spiræa aruncus, sorbifolia, japonica (not in herbaceous
species).
Hydrocyanic acid, ready formed, has been found in the roots of
the bitter and sweet cassava (Jatropha manihot).
If the poisonous dose of the B. P. (2 per cent.) acid be at least
30 minims (Royle’s Mat. Med., Dr. Harley, 6th ed.) the following
table shows the amount of some of the above which is needed.

Equal Amount
Percentage to required
Substance. of HCN for Observer.
amygdalin. per poisonous
cent. dose.
Cherry kernels 3 0·18 333 grains Gieseler.
C.G.
Pips of sweet apples 0·45 0·027 2222 ”
Stewart.
Pips of bitter apples 0·85 0·051 1176 ” ”
Wild service kernels 1·5 0·08 750 ” Hermann
Flowers, fruit, and
1·0 0·06 1000 ” Riegel.
bark of do.
Bitter almond pulp 4·25 0·25 240 ” Allen.
Sweet Cassava 0·017 3500 ” Francis.
Bitter do. 0·027 2222 ” ”

Sweet almonds contain emulsin, but no amygdalin, hence give
no HCN (see Tawell’s Trial, p. 40).
According to my own experiments, 837 sweet apples (apples
weighing 135 pounds, pips about 5 oz.), would be required for a
poisonous dose of HCN; whereas 130 bitter apples, weighing 18
pounds, and the pips about 2½ oz., would suffice. The pips of bitter
apples are bigger, more numerous, and weigh about three times as
much as those of sweet apples.
Among substances containing much more HCN, and actually
poisonous on that account, are:—

HCN.
Crude bitter almond oil 8 to 15 per cent.
Bitter almond water ¼ to 1 ”
Cherry laurel oil 2 to 3 ”

” ” water[21] ¼ to ¾ ”
Cluster cherry oil 9 to 10 ”

(Allen, Comm. Org. Anal.) It is obvious that of fruits an
impossibly large quantity must be eaten to produce any
considerable amount of HCN. In Tawell’s trial, Mr. Cooper, the
analyst, deposed that the seeds from 15 apples gave him an
exceedingly small quantity of Prussian blue. Whereas, Henry
Thomas, a druggist’s assistant, stated that “15 small apples gave 2¼
grains of silver cyanide” [equal to 0·46, or nearly ½ a grain, of
anhydrous HCN, corresponding to 25 minims of B. P. acid, nearly a
poisonous dose!] “This was done under the direction of a lecturer at
the London Hospital.” A fair sample of the erroneous and
bewildering evidence that is frequently offered in courts of justice.
Mr. Cooper also stated “there is a great difference between
bitter and sweet apples; the bitter contain a great deal of prussic
acid, the sweet, I believe, none at all!” This statement is
misleading; no apples contain prussic acid, but all that I have met
with will yield it by maceration, as all contain amygdalin. The
highest class of eating apples, such as Newtown pippins, Ribstones,
and Blenheims, contain only a minute trace. These have very few
pips, 3 to 5 to each apple, while the bitter varieties, such as
“winesours,” have 9 to 13 pips.
In the arts, cyanides are used in photography, dyeing, cleaning
lace and metals, electro-plating, removing silver stains, &c. Their
solutions may cause accidental poisoning, either by the fumes or by
absorption through the skin, especially if the latter is abraded.
Hydrocyanic acid is also formed (1) in the preparation of
nitrous ether (sweet spirit of nitre), (2) by distilling albumen, fibrin,
casein, or gelatin, with sulphuric acid and bichromate of potash, or
manganese peroxide, (3) by the dry distillation of albuminous

bodies. It is hardly necessary to say that these formations could not
occur in the ordinary methods of testing.
Tests: Preliminary.—It cannot be too strongly insisted that all
operations for the detection of HCN should be carried out as soon
after death as possible, on account of the loss from volatility, or
from secondary changes. (See Sulphocyanides.)
Allen asserts (Commercial Organic Analysis, 1879), that
detection in the body is rarely possible more than twenty-four
hours after death; but Taylor (Med. Juris., 1873, p. 368) has found
it in the stomach twelve days after, saying, however, that “after the
stomach had been exposed a few days longer, all had disappeared.”
In a dog’s stomach he found it, after twenty-four hours’ exposure,
and washing with water. In a human stomach, success was
achieved seven days after death, where no odour was perceptible;
in another case, after twenty-two days in the stomach, and after two
months in the spleen. It may be found in the stomach, and not in
the tissues; but in most cases it is easily detected, soon after death,
in the blood, organs, &c. The vapour of HCN will traverse paper,
wet or dry bladder, &c., in a few minutes (Taylor), and few
stoppers are close enough to retain it. Hence care should be taken
to shut up the suspected matters at once in glass bottles accurately
stoppered; bad stoppers are worse than corks.
The stomach should be first examined entire, to ascertain
odour, &c., noticing whether alkaline or acid, then cut in pieces,
under distilled water sufficient to cover it, the whole measured, and
one-half (acidulated with tartaric acid, if alkaline), placed in a
capacious retort, and distilled in a bath of water saturated with salt
to raise the boiling point. The condenser should be well supplied
with cold water, the receiver attached airtight, with a mercury valve
(a narrow glass U-tube, containing mercury), to prevent undue
pressure. A little distilled water, about ½ oz., should be placed in

the receiver. The distillation should be continued till one-third to
one-half of the original liquid has passed over. The tests may then
be applied to the distillate.
Allen recommends us to distil with water alone about one-half.
If there is no result on testing the distillate, continue with addition
of tartaric acid. Finally, add a considerable excess of moderately
dilute sulphuric and hydrochloric acid, and carry the distillation
nearly to dryness. In the last stage sulpho-, ferro-and ferricyanides
and mercuric cyanide are decomposed, and give HCN. The original
should be tested for ferrocyanide, &c. This seems a process
calculated to give the clearest idea of the form in which the HCN is
present, but is open to the objection that it is protracted, and may
hence cause loss.
Sokoloff. (Chem. Centr., 1876, 603) advises a much more
heroic treatment. “Strongly acidify with sulphuric acid, and distil
over a water bath for two or three days, replenishing the water as
evaporated. The longer the distillation, the more accurate the
result.” He adds, that the muscles contain the greater part of the
HCN. He quotes figures in support of his results, but I have not
found such prolongation necessary; and we must remember that
HCN is decomposed by heating with moderately strong mineral
acids.
The following modification, proposed by the author, may be
advantageous, as diminishing the risk of loss, and also effecting
concentration:—Prepare exactly equivalent solutions of silver
nitrate, and hydrochloric acid: the silver solution may contain 17
grammes of silver nitrate, the hydrochloric solution 3·65 grammes
of hydric chloride, per litre. Place in the receiver 100 cubic
centimetres of the silver solution (= 1·70 gramme silver nitrate)
before distillation. This is allowing large excess, to provide for
exceptional quantities of HCN. If any quantity of HCN be present,

the liquid in the receiver will become milky; if it does not, there
cannot be more than a minute trace. Transfer the distillate and
washings to a retort, provided with a thistle-funnel, and boil down
to one-third of its bulk; then add, through the funnel, 100 cubic
centimetres of the hydric chloride solution, which will precipitate
all the silver as chloride, and liberate the HCN. Distill with the
same precautions as before: the first 25 cubic centimetres will
contain probably all the HCN. If doubted, a further quantity may be
collected and tested. The 25 cubic centimetres of distillate may
now be subjected to the following tests, taking care that each
portion is measured before being examined, in order that the idea
of the quantity present may be definite. For instance, in the
Prussian blue, and sulphocyanide tests, the resulting colour may be
imitated by standard solutions: in the silver test, a standard silver
solution should also be used, and thus a triply-confirmed
knowledge of the quantity present may be attained; and little
bottles, containing the results, should be preserved, to show in the
courts of justice.
I. Odour.—All tests involving odour are affected seriously by
the remarkable differences between different people as to their
sense of smell. We hear much of “colour-blindness;” but the
analogous olfactory defect has almost escaped remark. Yet “smell-
blindness,” as I have formerly christened it, or “anozism,” if a
Greek word be required, is exceedingly common, and chemists and
medical men are frequently afflicted with it. I have known an artist,
who could not smell strong ammonia, yet delighted in the odour of
new paint, which he compared to roses. Many laboratory students
can neither smell acetic acid, arseniuretted hydrogen, nor
cyanogen. An assistant was so fond of sulphuretted hydrogen, that
he was once found insensible beside the apparatus, having
narcotized himself with the gas (he recovered); and many more

such eccentricities. In the case of prussic acid these diversities are
enormous. Some are so sensitive, that the least trace in a room
becomes rapidly unbearable, causing headache and nausea; others
are like photographers, and can work in a heavily-cyanogened
atmosphere. Such idiosyncrasies become of great importance in
evidence; for example:—
In Tawell’s trial, Mr. Champneys, surgeon, testified as follows:
“Have no experience in detecting odour of prussic acid in a human
subject. Should think it may be taken without detection. Should
expect it in the mouth and breath, but there may be exceptions.
There was no odour in her [the deceased’s] breath; but, on opening
the body, I was positive I smelt prussic acid. The other two
surgeons could not smell it.” Afterwards, when the contents of the
stomach were transferred to a jar, neither the three surgeons, nor
Mr. Cooper, the analyst, could perceive the least odour of prussic
acid, even when the contents were boiled. Nor was it smelt in the
blood. Mr. Cooper subsequently stated: “I have no doubt that
prussic acid may exist without being smelt: absence of smell may
arise from dilution, or from its being covered by the smell of other
substances. When I smell it, it affects spasmodically the back of the
throat. Sometimes it has produced a spasmodic constriction about
the throat without my smelling it.” Here was a well-marked case of
intermittent smell-blindness.
There were also several questions as to whether prussic acid
might have existed in the form of an inodorous salt. Mr.
Champneys further stated that he put ½ drachm of prussic acid into
a tumbler filled with Guinness’s porter, and the smell was scarcely
perceptible. Mr. Norblad, surgeon, deposed that he mixed 12 grains
of prussic acid with a pint of porter, but could not then smell it.
“Some of the porter dropped on the table, and I did then smell it.”
In the same trial, Henry Thomas, druggist’s assistant, mixed 30

drops of B.P. prussic acid with 11 oz. of porter, and found the odour
of the acid slightly perceptible; yet, when he was pouring Scheele’s
acid from a bottle, three women had to leave the room to avoid
suffocation!
In a case of suicide by cyanide of potassium (Chem. News,
1861, p. 261), the smell of prussic acid was not perceived by the
surgeon, either immediately after death or at the post-mortem
examination, nor by the analyst until the contents had been distilled
with dilute sulphuric acid.
To help in elucidating this matter I have made some
experiments as to the detection of the odour of prussic acid. An
acid of 2 per cent. strength (B.P.) was used.
1. From a bottle of Guinness’s stout, freshly opened, 3 samples
of 1 fluid oz. each were measured. To the first 1 drop of the acid
was added, to the second 2 drops, the third being left untouched.
This was done out of my sight in another room. They were then
privately marked by an assistant, and brought in; when myself and
two others, one of them entirely inexperienced, independently and
at once classified them without hesitation correctly as to the
relative amounts of prussic acid. The odour was so distinct as to
produce, when inhaled, a feeling of oppression, and to quite
overpower the odour of the beer.

1 drop in 1 fl. 0·23 per cent. of the dilute (B.P.)
=
oz. acid.
·0046 per cent. of real anhydrous
” =
HCN.

About 1/30 of a poisonous dose. Hence if a poisonous dose were
put into a pint and a half of stout, the odour would be distinct.

2. One drop of the dilute (2 per cent.) acid was added to 6 oz.
stout: there resulted a slight but distinct odour of prussic acid.
Hence a poisonous dose in nine pints would be smelt. Covered by a
watch-glass, with a drop of yellow ammonium sulphide on it, it
was warmed; the drop, on evaporation, gave a distinct red
sulphocyanide reaction with ferric chloride. Exposed to the air for
twenty-four hours, all the above samples had lost their odour, and
failed to give the sulphocyanide reaction.
3. Two samples of urine, measuring ½ pint each, were treated
respectively with 1 and 2 drops of B.P. acid (strength in this case
1·18 per cent. HCN), and a third ½ pint left untouched, the same
precautions being used as with the above beers. Three independent
witnesses again classified them without difficulty as to relative
amounts of the poison. This is 2 drops of an exceptionally weak
acid to the pint.
4. The contents of a human stomach, very fetid from
decomposition, were divided into two portions of about 2 oz. each:
one was left untouched; to the other 1 grain of mercuric cyanide
was added, and then about 5 drops of hydrochloric acid, and a little
zinc dust. The whole was well stirred, and shut up close. Next day
the odour of HCN was very prominent in the one to which the
cyanide had been added, in spite of the strong original smell of
both.
5. I cannot agree with Taylor that either peppermint or tobacco
mask the odour appreciably.
The odour of nitrobenzol, being similar to that of bitter
almonds, might lead to a suspicion of prussic acid without due
caution (Woodman and Tidy).
In putrefying, organic matters often develope ammonium
sulphide, becoming alkaline. The ammonium sulphide would
combine with the HCN to form sulphocyanide of ammonium,

which is inodorous, but, by distillation with acids, gives HCN.
Sulphocyanide, however, could not be produced unless the original
matters were alkaline. In Tawell’s, and most other trials, the
stomach contents were acid, as they always are naturally from the
gastric juice.
Taylor (Med. Jurisprudence, 1873, vol. i., p. 364) mentions a
case where the blood had a strong odour of prussic acid, and the
mucous membrane of the stomach, even after it had been washed
three times with water, also exhaled a strong odour. In another case
(Med. Gaz., vol. xxxvi., p. 104), where 20 grains of Scheele’s acid
had been taken with ultimate recovery, the vomited matters had no
odour, “showing that, if not concealed by other odours, the whole
of the acid must have been absorbed.” Many other instances might
be quoted where nothing was smelt, and yet the tests revealed
prussic acid.
As to the question about the salts of prussic acid, it may be
generally said that all poisonous cyanides would smell in the
stomach, except, perhaps, mercuric cyanide. See “Properties of the
Salts,” p. 73. Possibly the formation of mercuric cyanide may have
accounted for the absence of odour in some of the above cases, as I
do not find that mercury was tested for, though its compounds are
common medicines. Otherwise it is hardly possible that
hydrocyanic poisoning should have been effected, and the acid be
still there, without its very characteristic odour being perceptible to
an observer with an acute olfactory sense. I have entered at some
length into the question of odour, as much importance has been
attached to it in the trials, and I still consider it as one of the most
delicate and positive of tests.
II. Silver Test.—When silver nitrate is added to a solution
containing HCN or a cyanide acidulated with nitric acid, a white
precipitate falls of silver cyanide, soluble in ammonia, insoluble in

dilute, but soluble in hot concentrated nitric acid, and not
blackened by light. This reaction is rendered quantitative according
to Liebig’s volumetric method. The original solution is made
slightly alkaline by potash, and a standard solution containing 1·7
grammes of silver nitrate per litre (1 cub. centimetre = ·0017 grm.
AgNO3) is added until a permanent white turbidity is produced,
seen best over a sheet of black paper or a black book. Then each
cub. centimetre used is equivalent to a double quantity or ·00054
grammes of HCN. Formic acid, or chlorides, do not interfere; in
fact, it is advantageous to have a little chloride present.
The silver cyanide may be also estimated gravimetrically by
adding excess of silver nitrate, collecting the precipitate on a
weighed filter, washing, drying, and weighing. Silver cyanide
corresponds to two-tenths of its weight of HCN (134 gives 27). If
chlorides be present, the mixed precipitate of silver cyanide and
chloride is weighed, treated with dilute hydrochloric acid, and
weighed again. The HCN is thus displaced, and passes into the
filtrate; the silver precipitate, now all as chloride, is weighed again:
then the increase of weight multiplied by 27 and divided by 9·5
(the difference between the equivalent weights of silver chloride
and cyanide) is equal to the weight of HCN present. But the
volumetric process is quite as accurate, and more expeditious.
In poisoning cases advantage is taken of the opacity of silver
cyanide thus: A drop of moderately dilute silver nitrate is placed on
a watch-glass over the substance, which may be gently warmed,
taking care that the steam condensed does not cause the drop to
fall. If HCN be present, the drop will become opaque-white from
formation of silver cyanide. 1/100 grain of HCN, equal to ¼ grain of
B.P. acid, will give this reaction (Taylor). If there is only a small
amount, and the action is gradual, the drop on drying in the air may
exhibit crystals of silver cyanide, recognizable under the

microscope as minute prisms obliquely truncated. Of course the
silver nitrate itself may give crystals, but they will be very soluble
in water.
Cyanide of silver is decomposed by (1) hydrochloric acid,
giving silver chloride; (2) dilute sulphuric acid and zinc, giving
silver; (3) sulphuretted hydrogen, giving silver sulphide; in each
case HCN is liberated and may be distilled off: then the other tests
may be applied.
If sulphuretted hydrogen be present, it will give a black with
silver nitrate. The liquid should in this case be previously shaken
with just enough carbonate of lead to remove the sulphuretted
hydrogen. The latter, however, does not interfere with the Prussian
blue or sulphur tests.
When sufficient in quantity, the cyanide of silver, thoroughly
dried in a water-bath, may be transferred to a small bulb-tube and
heated, the end being closed with the finger. It breaks up into
cyanogen gas, silver, and paracyanide of silver, a peculiar glow and
effervescence occurring as it decomposes. The cyanogen will have
the characteristic bitter almond odour, and, on removing the finger,
will burn with a flame violet on the margin and rosy in the centre.
III. Prussian Blue (Scheele).—Add to the solution or distillate
caustic potash in excess, then a drop or two of fresh ferrous
sulphate (protosulphate of iron), and a little ferric chloride
(perchloride of iron—the tinct. ferri perchlor. of the Pharmacopœia
will do), warm gently for a few minutes, add dilute hydrochloric
acid in slight excess: if much HCN be present, a deep blue
precipitate (Prussian blue) will remain; if only a trace, the liquid
will be greenish, and on standing till the next day a blue deposit
will form.[22] This is the only blue iron precipitate which is
insoluble in dilute hydrochloric acid.[23]

Remarks.—Sulphuretted hydrogen does not interfere with this
test, as the black ferrous sulphide dissolves in hydrochloric acid.
The amount of iron salts added should have some relation to the
amount of HCN present, an idea of which will have been attained
by the silver test. Moderate excess of potash must be present all the
time till the hydrochloric acid is added. A large amount of iron salt
is objectionable, as the yellow colour interferes with the final green
tint with traces of HCN. The test may be made quantitative by
imitating the tint with a weak standard solution of potassium
ferrocyanide treated with a drop of hydrochloric acid and a drop of
ferric chloride, on the same principle as “Nesslerizing” (see
Wanklyn’s Water Analysis). Finally the precipitate of Prussian blue
should be preserved to exhibit at the trial, as this is the most
positive, though not the most delicate, test.
IV. Sulphur Test (Liebig).—The liquid to be examined is
placed in a somewhat shallow glass dish or beaker, covered almost
airtight with a watch-glass, moistened on the under surface with a
drop or two of yellow ammonium sulphide. [The ordinary sulphide
is commonly yellow enough for the purpose, or, if not, can be made
so by warming with a little flowers of sulphur.] After warming
gently for a short time (the periods recommended by different
authorities vary from half a minute to ten minutes), great care being
taken that the steam does not condense and cause the solution on
the watch-glass to drop back into the liquid, the cover is removed,
dried on a water bath to drive off any excess of ammonium
sulphide, treated with a drop or two of water, and a drop of not too
acid ferric chloride free from nitric acid and diluted till nearly free
from colour. If HCN be present, it will have formed sulphocyanide
with the ammonium sulphide, and will therefore generate a blood-
red colour with the ferric chloride. If a colour be produced,
continue the addition of ferric chloride till no further deepening

occurs. The reaction is made quantitative by comparing the tint
with that produced by a known quantity of sulphocyanide and
ferric solution (Herapath). But there are difficulties in making it
exact.
This is the most delicate test for HCN, detecting 1/7930th of a
grain of HCN in a very dilute liquid, whereas Prussian blue does
not discover less than 1/780th of a grain (Taylor, Ann. Ch. Pharm.
lxv., 263). Salts of acetic, formic, and meconic acids give red
colours with ferric chloride, but (1) meconic acid is not volatile; (2)
the red from acetic and formic acids is at once removed by a slight
excess of dilute hydrochloric acid, sulphocyanide is not; (3)
sulphocyanide-red is destroyed by solution of mercuric chloride,
the others are not.
The above tests are sufficient, but the following additional ones
have been at different times proposed.
V. Guaiacum Test.—Paper dipped in fresh tincture of
guaiacum, containing about 3 per cent. of the resin, then dried, then
moistened with dilute cupric sulphate solution (2 per cent.),
becomes blue in HCN vapour. But the same effect is produced
without HCN by almost all oxydants, such as chlorine, bromine, or
iodine, ferric chloride, nitric and nitrous acids, chromic acid,
peroxide of hydrogen, ozone (Mohr’s Toxicologie), also by
ammonia, hypochlorous acid, soluble chromates, &c. (Blyth).
VI. Uranium Test.—A grain or two of pure ferrous salt
(ammonio-ferrous sulphate will do), and the same quantity of
uranium nitrate, are dissolved in half an ounce of water. Two or
three drops of this are placed on a white plate, and a drop of the
suspected liquid added. A purple precipitate, or a greyish purple
colour in weak solutions, indicates HCN. Cobalt nitrate may be
used instead of the uranium salt, and is nearly as delicate. (Carey
Lea, American J. of Science [3] ix., 121.)

VII. A hot solution of potassium cyanide mixed with picric acid
gives a deep blood-red —“picrocyanic” acid). Free HCN does not
give this reaction, and therefore must first be neutralized by an
alkali. Said to be more delicate than the iron tests. (C. D. Braun,
Zeitschr. f. anal. Ch. iii., 464.)
VIII. Slightly alkalize the distillate with potash, add a few
drops of cupric sulphate, and afterwards just enough hydrochloric
acid to dissolve the excess of cupric hydrate: white cuprous
cyanide will remain undissolved. “This test will detect 1/20000 of
HCN in solution.” (Lassaigne, Ann. de Chimie, xxvii., 200.) But a
similar effect is produced by hydriodic acid, and potassium iodide
might have been administered.
IX. Mix the HCN with excess of alkali, add cobalt chloride and
tartaric acid: on exposure to air a deep brown-red colour will be
produced. (C. D. Braun, loc. cit.).
X. If to a solution of HCN, potash be added in excess, and then
a little very finely pulverised, or precipitated, mercuric oxide, the
latter will dissolve. Mercuric oxide is soluble in alkaline fluids only
in presence of HCN. (Fresenius, Qual. Anal.).
XI. “With peroxide of hydrogen, natural blood gives
effervescence from escape of oxygen, but no discoloration. Blood
containing HCN gives a brown colour, the spectroscopic bands
disappearing, and no effervescence.” (Schönbein.)
Hæmatocrystallin, the colouring matter of the blood corpuscles,
combines, in fact, with HCN, giving a dark coloured compound
which appears to be crystallizable and definite in composition
(Hoppe Seyler), does not act as a carrier of oxygen like the natural
hæmatocrystallin, and possesses a distinct spectrum (see
Thudichum, Chem. Physiology). The blue masses in the blood
described by Ralph (Journ. Microsc. Science, Oct. 24, 1866) have
not been found by others.

XII. Mercurous nitrate gives at once with HCN solutions, a
black deposit of metallic mercury, and a solution of mercuric
cyanide. With calomel, a similar reaction takes place according to
Allen, but I have found that the solution is not deodorized even by
large excess of calomel, the odour becoming stronger and more
pungent than the original HCN. On evaporating, mercuric chloride
is left. Probably some cyanogen chloride is formed. The odour is so
much intensified that it might be of use as a test. In view of the
possible administration of calomel, the reaction is interesting.
Of course it will not be necessary to employ all these methods.
The odour, and the silver, Prussian blue, and “sulphur” tests will be
sufficient. I would suggest a form of apparatus by which all the
latter could be obtained from the original substance without
distillation in a retort.
A shallow beaker or glass jar is closed by an india-rubber
stopper, through two holes in which are passed glass rods ending in
glass spoon bowls bent at right angles, so as to be horizontal when
mounted. The bowls should be one inch in diameter, and will have
to be specially made. In the first bowl a few drops of silver nitrate
are placed, in the second a little potash. The apparatus is put in a
warm place for six or eight hours, then the two rods are removed, a
third rod substituted, its bowl containing a drop or two of yellow
ammonium sulphide, the other hole plugged, and the apparatus put
back in the warm place for two or three hours more. The first bowl
will have the silver cyanide, the second should be treated with
ferric and ferrous salt and hydrochloric acid for Prussian blue
(vide), the third evaporated and ferric chloride added for the
sulphocyanide test. This arrangement prevents loss of HCN by
volatilization, and also, with a little care, avoids any danger of the
reagent dropping back into the solution. The three rods cannot

safely be placed in together, as the sulphide vapour would blacken
the silver.
For the modifications in testing necessitated by the presence of
mercury, &c., see under the different Salts.

SALTS.

Hydrocyanic acid combines with bases to form the cyanides,
which may be thus grouped:—
A. Cyanides of the Alkalies (potassium, sodium, ammonium),
and of the Alkaline Earths (barium, strontium, calcium,
magnesium). These are all soluble in water, are alkaline to test
paper, and are decomposed by all acids, even carbonic, hence they
exhale an odour of HCN, and are nearly as poisonous as prussic
acid itself. If they are present, the stomach contents must be
alkaline. The only member of this group likely to be met with is
Potassium Cyanide, KCN. Broken opaque white lumps, or
small crystals, deliquescent, smelling strongly of HCN, soapy to
the feel, often containing much carbonate, and therefore
effervescing with acids, easily fused by heat to a clear liquid, very
soluble in water, less in alcohol. Used for removing silver stains in
the form of “cyanogen soap,” but very dangerous, as a cut or
scratch may cause absorption, and even the unbroken skin,
according to Allen, may absorb enough to cause symptoms. Its
aqueous solution decomposes spontaneously into formiate of
potassium, ammonia, and a brown substance. Its taste is bitter and
acrid, causing constriction and a burning heat in the throat. It is
very strongly alkaline. Distilled with dilute acids it gives off all its
HCN. It easily responds to the other tests. In a case of poisoning
investigated by Dr. Bernays, a piece of potassium cyanide was
found in the deceased’s mouth, which was much inflamed by its

acridity. The alkali being strong, and the acid weak, cyanide of
potassium has most of the effects of an alkaline irritant.
The potassium may be found by incinerating a portion of the
substance and testing for it in the ash. Taylor (Med. Jurisprudence)
improperly says that the salt itself (cyanide of potassium) may be
recovered from the organs by incinerating them in close vessels and
treating the ash with water. I have already mentioned that cyanide
would be formed in this way from the organic matters themselves,
even if not originally present.
B. Mercuric Cyanide, Hg(CN)2. Of all metals mercury has
most affinity for HCN, mercuric oxide decomposing other
cyanides, even Prussian blue, and dissolving readily, as we have
seen, in free HCN, or in alkaline cyanides. Hence if a compound of
mercury have been given medicinally, the prussic acid will be
found in the stomach as mercuric cyanide, which is easily soluble
in water, neutral to test paper, quite inodorous, and extremely
poisonous. It is not officially recognised in any Pharmacopœia,
except the French; has been occasionally used in medicine instead
of mercuric chloride, which it resembles in action, but has the
advantage of not being incompatible with alkalies and organic
matters (Royle’s Mat. Med., 6th ed.). It crystallizes in anhydrous
four-sided obliquely-truncated white opaque prisms, with a
disagreeable metallic taste, is permanent in the air, easily soluble in
water, less in alcohol. It fails to respond to the silver nitrate
(partially) or Prussian blue tests, and gives the sulphur test with
difficulty. It is decomposed by distillation with hydrochloric acid,
but only ⅔rds of the HCN pass over into the distillate, unless
ammonium chloride be added (Roscoe and Schorlemmer’s
Chemistry). Whenever HCN is looked for, it is safer to examine
also for mercury, and, if found, to add a little hydrochloric acid and
sulphuretted hydrogen to the original liquid, thereby precipitating

mercuric sulphide (black) and liberating the HCN, which may be
distilled off. If, however, excess of sulphuretted hydrogen has been
inadvertently added, it would blacken silver nitrate, and hence the
silver test would not be available, unless the solution was
previously shaken with lead carbonate to remove the sulphide. But
it would not affect the Prussian blue or sulphur tests, as sulphide of
iron is soluble in hydrochloric acid. Mercuric cyanide also gives off
all its HCN when distilled with iron filings or zinc dust, sulphuric
acid, and water. This seems a better method.
Mercuric cyanide is said to be an irritant poison, and to be
similar in its action to corrosive sublimate. Combination with
mercury seems to mask the physiological action of HCN, just as it
does its chemical action. The medicinal dose is 1/16th grain
gradually increased to ½ grain, in pills or solution (Royle). 10
grains have proved fatal. By heat, when dry, it is broken up like
silver cyanide into mercury and cyanogen.
C. Cyanides of the Heavy Metals, as zinc, lead, copper, &c.
Silver cyanide has already been described. These are insoluble in
water, inodorous, and probably, while intact, not poisonous. But
they are decomposed by mineral acids, and, as the gastric juice is
acid, they would more or less readily yield free HCN, with its usual
odour and effects. The influence of the metal has also to be
considered.
D. Double Cyanides, derived from iron, cobalt, manganese,
chromium, platinum, &c., are inodorous. Those of the alkalies and
alkaline earths are alone soluble. The only common ones are ferro-
and ferricyanide of potassium, the so-called yellow and red
prussiates of potash. They are said to be merely purgative, not
poisonous, but, from the comparative facility with which they yield
HCN by acids, they cannot be considered safe. Soluble
ferrocyanides give, with pure ferrous sulphate, a white precipitate

turning blue in air; with ferric chloride a precipitate of Prussian
blue; with cupric sulphate a maroon precipitate. Ferricyanide
solutions give with ferrous salts a deep blue precipitate; with ferric
salts a dark-brown coloration. These reactions would be applied to
a filtered portion of the stomach contents. Prussian blue is ferric
ferrocyanide mainly, but varies in composition: it is supposed to be
inert.
Almen states (Chem. Centr. 1872, 439) that potassium
ferrocyanide in solution decomposes at ordinary temperatures,
especially if a little free acid be present, HCN being formed.
Prussian blue only decomposes when warmed to 40° or 50° C.
(therefore not in the body, C. G. S.), “hence the presence of HCN,
if accompanied by ferrocyanide, is not a proof of poisoning.” But
ferrocyanide is not in any Pharmacopœia, and is not administered
medicinally. Yet, to answer a possible question, a known fraction of
the original substance might be extracted with water, and tested as
above. The same observations apply to ferricyanide.
When ferro-or ferricyanides are distilled with moderately
strong sulphuric acid, a portion of the contained HCN passes over;
in fact, this is the common process for preparing prussic acid. The
iron remains behind in the retort, in combination with potassium
and the rest of the cyanogen. If ferric hydrate —“ferri peroxidum
humidum”), or ferrous sulphate and potash, have been administered
as antidotes to HCN, Prussian blue might be formed in the
stomach. It would then show a blue colour, either by itself or on
addition of an acid, and blue particles under the microscope, if in
sufficient quantity. In this case the HCN left in the stomach would
have been rendered innocuous, and the prussic acid which had
actually caused the death would be found free in the blood, &c. The
stomach contents might then show no HCN, either by odour or
distillation, as Prussian blue is inodorous, and not easily

decomposed by dilute acids. With alkalies it turns brown, giving
ferric hydrate and an alkaline ferrocyanide.
Ludwig and Maushner (Chem. Centr. 1881, 43), in a case of
poisoning, discovered a quantity of potassium ferrocyanide in the
body. This was removed by slightly acidulating and carefully
precipitating by ferric chloride. The filtrate, distilled with tartaric
acid, yielded much HCN. The sample of cyanide of potassium,
which had probably caused death, was afterwards found to contain
a large proportion of ferrocyanide.
E. Sulphoncyanides (Thiocyanates). Those of the alkalies and
alkaline earths are soluble and colourless; ferric sulphocyanide is
soluble, and intense blood-red (sulphur test); other sulphocyanides
are mostly insoluble. They are all inodorous, poisonous in
moderate quantities, and are not officinal in any Pharmacopœia.
Distilled with acids they break up, HCN being found in the
distillate. It has been mentioned already that ammonium sulphide,
produced by putrefaction, may combine with any HCN present to
form ammonium sulphocyanide; therefore, if the matters to be
examined are alkaline, and putrefaction has commenced, Allen
(Commerc. Org. Anal., 1879, art. HCN) recommends us to digest
with alcohol, filter, evaporate to dryness on a water bath, redissolve
in a little water, filter again, and test the filtrate with ferric chloride
after just acidulating with hydrochloric acid: the well-known
blood-red colour will result (see “Sulphur Test”). But the ordinary
distillation with tartaric or sulphuric acid would in this case also
detect the HCN, though the whole might not pass into the distillate.
Sulphocyanide of mercury is the toy called “Pharaoh’s
Serpent.” A case of poisoning by it is recorded.
It is important to notice that traces of sulphocyanide are
naturally present in the saliva. If this salt be found, the question
will occur, how much could be accounted for by the saliva?

Carpenter (Princ. of Human Physiol.) quotes Harley to the effect
that the average daily secretion from the salivary glands is 1 or 2
pounds: other observers have stated that it varies greatly. The
secretion itself is said to contain, in 1000 parts, one part
(Frehrichs), or 0·6 part (Jacubowitsch), or even 0·3 part (Oehl), of
potassium sulphocyanide; that is, 4·2 to 7 grains per pound,
equivalent to from 1 to 2 grains of HCN, or 2 to 4 grains if 2
pounds of saliva were secreted. This would be a serious matter but
for the fact that, whether from decomposition by the gastric juice or
otherwise, or from its passing out of the stomach as it passes in, it
is certain that no such quantity is ever found naturally in the
stomach, not more than a minute trace being ever given by the
processes, unless hydrocyanic acid, in one of its forms, has actually
been administered.
Cyanide of cadmium, and some of its double salts, are sparingly
soluble. Double cyanide of silver and potassium is soluble and
crystallizable. It is the salt used in electro-plating, and, as
commonly met with, smells strongly of potassium cyanide. Zinc-
potassium cyanide has been used medicinally: it occurs in beautiful
crystals, inodorous when dry, but having a faint odour of HCN in
solution.
The other cyanides are rare, and their physiological action is
unrecorded. Cyanic acid and cyanates are said not to be poisonous.
Oil of Bitter Almonds.—The crude oil contains, as we have
seen, 8 to 15 per cent, of HCN. Dissolved in spirit it forms
“essence of almonds,” and is exceedingly poisonous, having caused
thirty-one deaths in four years (Taylor). Two drachms of the oil has
killed a man in seventeen minutes (Lancet, 1868, p. 447), two
ounces caused death immediately. The odour of almonds is always
distinct in the stomach.

The oil can be freed from HCN, but then does not keep so well,
and is much more costly. Its sp. gr. is 1·049; it boils at 356° F. The
crude oil is yellow: with concentrated sulphuric acid it gives a
crimson-red colour, and on diluting a yellow emulsion. We may
estimate the amount of HCN in it by shaking with water,
separating, adding dilute potash to the aqueous liquid, and testing it
with standard silver solution as described under “Silver Test.” The
other tests may also be used to prove the presence of HCN; the
guaiacum and copper paper being specially convenient.
A case of poisoning by bitter almonds is reported in the “South
Australian Register” for August 6th, 1879. A female child (whose
age is not stated) ate a dozen of them, freshly taken from the tree,
and died in three hours. The symptoms described are pain, coma,
and convulsions.
Antidotes to HCN are generally useless since the death is so
sudden. A moderately dilute solution of an alkali, such as potash,
lime or washing soda, along with a little ferrous sulphate, would
render harmless so much of the poison as was still in the stomach
unabsorbed. As already mentioned, this would cause a little
difficulty in the chemical analysis. Ammonia acts as an antidote by
opposing the depressant action of HCN. Chlorine water has been
used: this converts the HCN into ammonium chloride, carbon
monoxide and dioxide, and a little cyanogen chloride.
Medicinal uses.—Its primary action is on the cerebrospinal
nerves. It is employed externally, largely diluted, to allay neuralgia
and itching of the skin, and to relieve earache (not more than two
drops of B. P. acid at a time)[24]: it must not come in contact with
abrasions, or it might be absorbed and produce poisoning
symptoms. Internally, it allays dyspepsia and the irritant effects of
capsicum, &c. (Royle). Safe dose internally two to six minims of

the B. P. 2 per cent. acid, suspended if there is any constriction of
the throat (Farquharson’s Therapeutics).
Fatal dose.—Smallest recorded (Med. Gaz. 35, p. 896); twenty
grains of Scheele’s acid, fatal in twenty minutes, equal to fifty
grains of B. P. 2 per cent. acid, equal to one grain of anhydrous
prussic acid. Largest dose with recovery (Lancet, 1854, January
14), one drachm (sixty grains) of Scheele’s acid, but in this case
energetic remedies were at once applied. Average fatal dose of 2
per cent. acid, thirty minims (Royle’s Mat. Med., Dr. Harley, 6th
ed.).
Symptoms.—These vary with the dose, &c. A large quantity
kills in two to five minutes, though insensibility may ensue in a few
seconds. But patients may survive for twenty minutes, or even for
an hour; and may continue in imminent danger for several hours,
and yet recover (Guy and Ferrier, Forens. Med., 1881). Many cases
have occurred of voluntary acts, such as concealing or throwing
away the bottle, having been performed after fatal doses had been
swallowed (Ibid, p. 600). In animals, according to Mr. Nunneley,
there is usually a peculiar plaintive cry, but not in man, though
there may be a call for assistance. Convulsions, and involuntary
evacuation of fæces or urine, may or may not occur. Large doses
kill by cardiac syncope; smaller ones by paralysis of the respiratory
centre, or, if gradual, by impeded oxidation of the blood
(Farquharson’s Therapeutics). Other symptoms are, dilatation of
pupils, muscular prostration, deep convulsive breathing at long
intervals, quick feeble irregular pulse, spasmodic closure of the
jaws and clenching of the hands (Taylor). Breathing sometimes
stertorous (Christison, Ed. Month. Journal, February, 1850, p. 97.
Reg. v. Burroughs, Cent. Crim. Court, February, 1857). Vomiting
occasional, or foaming at the mouth.

Post-mortem appearances.—Not characteristic (Farquharson;
Guy and Ferrier). Putrefaction not accelerated (Taylor). The veins
contain dark fluid blood: the right side of the heart is gorged
(Harley). There may or may not be congestion and reddening of
stomach and intestines, or of the brain. On the whole, the
appearances are those of asphyxia.[25] The odour should be sought
for in all parts, and as soon as possible the organs should be shut
up in stoppered jars, or well-corked and sealed bottles, and sent at
once for analysis.
The symptoms and post-mortem appearances of poisoning by
Cyanide of Potassium are the same as those of prussic acid, except
that:—
1. Convulsions are more common.
2. Owing to the irritant action of the alkali, the stomach is
reddened.
3. The contents are alkaline.
The fatal dose is less than five grains, but Taylor mentions a
case of recovery after nearly one ounce of the commercial cyanide,
which may, however, have contained much carbonate.
Hydrocyanic acid is not, in the strict sense, a cumulative
poison; “but doses that exceed the proper medicinal limit may
happen to prove fatal though similar previous ones have appeared
to be harmless, in consequence of a change in the body itself.”
(Guy and Ferrier’s Forensic Medicine, 1881, p. 606.)
In the trial of George Ball for poisoning his mother with prussic
acid, at Lewes, July, 1860 (previously reported), the question arose
as to the difference between minims and drops. A minim of water is
supposed to weigh a grain: if the fluid is heavier than water, it
weighs more than a grain; if lighter, it weighs less. But a drop is
quite an indefinite quantity: it is affected, not only by the specific

gravity, but by the cohesion of the fluid, by the shape and size of
the vessel, the manner of pouring, and the temperature. I have
made some experiments which show the irregularity. (See also
Woodman and Tidy’s Forensic Medicine, p. 456.)

Measured
No. of
Capacity of Bottle. Liquid. in
Drops.
Minims.
(Stoppered) 6 fluid oz. Water 117 180
Do. (another observer) Do. 90 120
1½ fluid oz. Do. 47 100
(Corked) 6 do. Do. 36 100
Same capacity, dropped with the
Do. 37 to 41 100
cork
Rectified
(Stoppered) 6 fluid oz. 243 120
Spirit

Proving that while a drop may be estimated at about 1½ to 2
minims (a good deal more than the usual supposition, the two terms
being often regarded as synonymous), yet the inconstancy is so
great that it is absolutely imperative, in using powerful medicines,
to prescribe exact measurement, and not such a precarious process
as dropping.
As to the period after death during which HCN may be
detected, Allen (Comm. Org. Anal.) asserts that its detection is
rarely possible after more than twenty-four hours. This is
astonishing, as Casper separated more than 18 milligrammes from
a body eight days after death; Sokoloff detected it in hounds sixty
days after; Dragendorff after four weeks in a dog, after eight or ten
days in man. Reichardt (Arch. Pharm. 3, 19, 204) found it in a body
two months after death—in the organs, but not in the urine. In the
Tawell trial, also, the interval was considerable.

Casper states in his Handbook (vol. iii., illustrative cases of
HCN) that Schauenstein (one of the Prussian official chemists),
twenty-six hours after death, found no HCN in the stomach, but a
considerable amount of formic acid, the result of its
metamorphosis. We know that strong HCN, exposed to light,
decomposes into formate of ammonium, which, by distillation with
a dilute acid, would give formic acid in the distillate. That such a
change should occur so rapidly in a dilute solution, and in the
darkness of the body, is improbable. It would be well, however, that
formic acid should be looked for in the distillate thus:—
Carefully neutralize a measured portion with pure soda or
potash; evaporate on the water-bath to dryness. The alkaline
formate will be left in white crystals if present, together with the
cyanide, which will not crystallize, but remain as a deliquescent
mass. Dissolve in a little water, and divide into three equal
portions.
(1.) To the first add silver nitrate in slight excess. Cyanide of
silver will precipitate, formate will remain in solution, if not too
concentrated. Filter, if possible. On boiling, if any blackening
happens from reduction of the silver, formic acid is probably
present. Acetic acid does not reduce silver nitrate.
(2.) To the second add dilute neutral ferric chloride (a solution
of iron-alum answers admirably). A red-brown colour, removed by
a drop of hydrochloric acid, indicates either acetic or formic acid.
(3.) Evaporate the third portion to dryness, and ignite gently in
a closed crucible. Formate and acetate will be turned into
carbonate, while cyanide will remain unchanged if air be excluded.
If then effervescence take place on treating the residue with a little
hydrochloric acid, it is a confirmation of the presence of formic or
acetic acid. The first test will have revealed which it is.

Many animal substances, when distilled with strong acids, do
give acetic and formic acids, but they do not act thus with dilute
acids. Yet a stomach will usually yield a little acetic acid from the
food having turned sour.
If formic acid be present, it will probably have proceeded from
the decomposition of HCN. Then the reduced silver obtained in the
first test should be weighed, and calculated into formic acid, and
also into hydrocyanic acid (108 parts of silver = 46 parts formic
acid, or 27 parts HCN). The result may be stated thus:—
“Hydrocyanic acid actually found,—— grains. Formic acid
found,—— grains. If this had proceeded from the decomposition of
hydrocyanic acid, it would correspond to an additional amount of
—— grains of hydrocyanic acid.”
It is needless to observe that the mere finding of formic acid
would be no proof of the administration of HCN, unless strong
corroborative evidence were at hand.
On the whole, we must always try, and we may often hope, to
find HCN if given, either free, as cyanide, or as sulphocyanide,
even after months have elapsed.

CHAPTER IV.

TRIALS FOR POISONING BY STRYCHNIA.
PALMER, DOVE, AND BARLOW.

Three cases are reported in this chapter. (1) That of William
Palmer, for the poisoning of John Parsons Cook, at Rugeley, in
Staffordshire, which, in consequence of the prejudice existing
against him in that county, was transferred by Act of Parliament to
the Central Criminal Court in the City of London,[26] and taken
before Lord Chief Justice Campbell, on the 14th, and eleven
following days, of May, 1856. (2) That of William Dove, for the
murder of his wife, Harriet, at Leeds, tried at York, July 16th, 1856,
before Baron Bramwell. (3) That of Silas Barlow, for the murder of
his mistress, Eliza Soper, at Vauxhall, tried at the Central Criminal
Court, November, 1876, before Mr. Justice Denman.
The first of these trials is remarkable for the conflict of the
medico-scientific evidence, the most eminent men among our
physicians and analysts being called on either side, and the most
contradictory testimony as to the possibility of detecting strychnia
being given by them. The second trial shows the dangerous effect
of hasty newspaper reports in such cases—the murder of his wife

by Dove having been clearly suggested by the popular report to
which some of the journals of the day gave circulation, that Dr.
Taylor, the eminent analyst, had stated, in connection with Palmer’s
case, that strychnia could not be detected by analysis. This case is
also interesting from the nature of the insanity which was set up by
the defence. The last trial, that of Silas Barlow, exposes the danger
of the sale of the “Vermin Killers,” so popular with all
householders, most, if not all, of which contain a large proportion
of strychnia, and thus offer a ready means for murder or suicide,
especially as the purchase of them would not be attributed to an
evil intention. It is but a poor consolation to know that, when the
mischief has been done, the punishment of the actor can be secured
by the skill of the analyst.

THE RUGELEY POISONINGS.

TRIAL OF WILLIAM PALMER, May 14, and following days,
1856.[27]

Before Lord Chief Justice Campbell, Baron Alderson, and Mr. Justice
Cresswell, at the Central Criminal Court.

For the Prosecution: The Attorney-General (Sir A. Cockburn),
Mr. Edwin James, Q.C., Mr. Bodkin, Mr. Welsby, and Mr.
Huddlestone.
For the Defence: Mr. Serjeant Shee, Mr. Grove, Q.C., Mr. Gray,
and Mr. Kenealy.
William Palmer, surgeon, of Rugeley, Staffordshire, aged 31,
was indicted for the wilful murder of John Parsons Cook.

HISTORY OF THE CASE.

Connection between Cook and Palmer.

Mr. Cook, having been originally brought up as a solicitor, on
coming into a fortune of from £12,000 to £13,000, abandoned his
profession, and took to the turf, where he became acquainted with
the prisoner, who had for some years kept racehorses. Originally in
good local practice, Palmer had of late transferred the majority of
his patients to a Mr. Thirlby, who had previously been his assistant,
retaining only two or three more immediately connected with him
or his family. His father, originally a working sawyer, had, by his
industry, gradually risen to be a timber merchant in a large way of
business, and, on his sudden death in 1837, left a fortune of
£70,000. As he died intestate, the eldest son executed a deed by
which each of the children took £7,000, and the remainder was left
to the widow. Of these children, seven in number, the prisoner was
the fourth. As a child he was known for his amiability and
kindness, but also for his shy and underhand manner, and his
partiality for trying experiments of a cruel nature on animals. “He
was just and generous,” said one of his early friends, “when he
grew up, and he never forgot an old face.”[28] Originally
apprenticed to a firm of druggists in Liverpool, he had to leave
them in consequence of a scandal in money matters; was then put
with Mr. Tylecote, a surgeon, near Rugeley; walked the London
hospitals, living the gay life of so many of that class of students;
passed his examinations; married the illegitimate daughter of an
Indian officer, who left her a small property; and set up in Rugeley
as a surgeon. Of his five children only the first, a son, was living at
the time of his trial, the others all dying suddenly of convulsions
within a few weeks after their birth. He was an indulgent husband,
a kind father, a regular attendant at church, and apparently a
religious man.

On his marriage, Palmer commenced to live in a handsome
style, keeping his carriage, and soon after began training and
breeding racehorses, and occupying himself on the turf. As his
wife’s fortune was only for her life, in 1854 he insured her life for
£13,000, the premiums on which exceeded the income he derived
from her, further insurances of a greater amount being declined by
other offices. Within nine months after this, his wife was dead, and
the insurance money received, relieving Palmer from difficulties
that were already pressing on him. Again, within three months after
his wife’s death, Palmer was endeavouring to effect insurances on
the life of his brother Walter, a confirmed drunkard, to the
enormous extent of £80,000. Only one of these policies, that in the
Prince of Wales’ office, was accepted, the other offices being put on
their guard by the hint that “his wife had died after the first
payment of the premium had been made.” Pressed by his pecuniary
difficulties, he then tried to effect an insurance for £10,000 on the
life of one George Bate, a decayed farmer, whom he employed as a
kind of farm bailiff, and represented as a gentleman and an esquire,
with a famous cellar of wine, but the insurance offices were now
thoroughly awake; a detective was sent to interview the esquire,
whom he found hoeing turnips, and the scheme fell through.[29]
Since 1854, Palmer had been in the hands of the bill
discounters, and especially of a money-lending attorney in Mayfair
of the name of Pratt, with whom he from time to time discounted
what purported to be the acceptances of his mother, some of which
were renewed on partial payment, others cleared off by the money
received from the insurance of his wife’s life.

“This,” said the Attorney-General, “brings us to the close of
1854. In the course of that year he effected another insurance in his
brother’s name, but Palmer was the real party, and corresponded
with Mr. Pratt on the subject of effecting it, and the policy for

£13,000 was assigned to Palmer. On the strength of that policy,
which remained in the hands of Pratt, who paid the first premium
out of a bill he discounted for Palmer at 60 per cent., they proceeded
to discount further bills, this policy being kept as a collateral
security. The bills, in the whole, discounted in the course of that
year, amounted to £12,500—two in June, which were held over
from month to month to keep them alive—two of £2000 each in
March, 1855, with the proceeds of which Palmer bought two
racehorses, Nettle and Chicken. These bills were renewed from time
to time, and eventually came due in January, 1856. Another bill for
£2000 was discounted in April, 1855, renewed like the others, and
became due on the 25th of October. On the 9th of July another bill
for £2000 was discounted, renewed, and became due on the 12th of
January. On the 27th of September another bill for £1000 was
discounted to pay for the renewal of the bills due and then coming
due. So that when the Shrewsbury races took place in November,
1855, bills were due or rapidly maturing to the extent of £11,500,
every one of which bore the forged acceptance of the prisoner’s
mother. You will therefore understand the pressure which naturally
and necessarily arose upon him; the pressure of the liabilities for
£11,500 which he had not a shilling in the world to meet, and the
still greater pressure which arose from the consciousness that the
moment he could go on no longer, his mother would be resorted to
for payment. The fact of his having committed these forgeries
would be known, and would bring on him the penalty of the law for
that crime so committed. The insurance company having refused to
pay the policy effected on his brother’s life, no assistance could be
derived from that source.”

Already, in May, 1855, Cook, with whom he had become
intimately acquainted in racing transactions, had lent him his
acceptance for £200 to meet a small claim, and had had to pay it on
Palmer’s default. In August of that year, Palmer again asked the
money-lending attorney of Mayfair to discount a bill of Cook’s for
£500, representing that Cook required the money. It was, however,

declined without further security, and then Cook assigned two of
his racehorses—Polestar, the subsequent winner at Shrewsbury, and
Sirius—as a collateral security, and obtained only £375 in money,
and a wine warrant for £65, the rest being swallowed up in discount
and expenses. This money and warrant Cook never got, Palmer
asking Pratt to send it to the post-office at Doncaster, whence he
obtained it; and as it was made “to order,” and bore a receipt stamp,
Palmer, it was alleged, forged the name “John Parsons Cook,” and
took the cheque and the warrant, and appropriated the proceeds.
That bill would be due on the day of Cook’s death. In the same
month it was that he attempted to effect the insurance on Bate’s life
and failed; and though Cook had, at Palmer’s request, attested this
proposal, which referred to Palmer as the usual medical attendant,
beyond that he had nothing to do with this attempt.
Such was the desperate position of the prisoner at this time. It,
however, rapidly grew worse. On the 6th of November a writ for
£2000 against Palmer, and another for the same sum against his
mother, were issued, but held over by Pratt in order that Palmer
might make some arrangement. This he did to the amount of £800,
and in consequence, after allowing for an exorbitant discount, £600
was taken off the bill, leaving £1400 to be met. The Prince of
Wales office had refused to pay on Walter Palmer’s life, and Mr.
Pratt would not wait any longer. On the 13th of November, Pratt
wrote him that all the bills, £11,500 in amount, must be met—a
letter which Palmer must have received the next day—the day after
that on which Cook’s horse, Polestar, won at the Shrewsbury races.
After the race, Cook had between £700 and £800 in his pocket
from bets paid on the course, and from the stakes and his other bets
would be entitled on the week after to receive more than a thousand
pounds at Tattersal’s. Before that day Cook was dead, his pocket-
book empty, and his betting-book not to be found.

Cook, though slightly disposed to pulmonary complaints, was a
hale and hearty young man, at the time of his fatal illness suffering
only from debility.[30] It was only natural that his victory should
excite him, and that with some friends he should celebrate it with
two or three bottles of champagne at the “Raven Hotel” on his
return from the course. He was, however, generally abstemious. He
went to bed with nothing the matter with him, got up the next day
and went on the course as usual. That night his illness began.
Late on the evening of the 14th of November, a betting agent of
Cook’s, of the name of Fisher, who was staying at the “Raven,”
was invited by Cook to come into the room where he, Palmer, and
one Myatt were, and take some brandy and water.

“They were drinking grog,” says Fisher; “the deceased had some
brandy and water before him. He asked me to sit down, and I did so.
Cook asked the prisoner to have some more brandy and water, and
he said he would not until Cook had drunk his. Cook then took up
his glass, and drank almost all the liquor that was in it, and, within a
minute, he exclaimed, ‘There is something in it; it burns my throat
dreadfully.’ Upon his saying this, Palmer took up the glass, and
sipped what remained in it, and said, ‘There is nothing in it.’ There
was a very small quantity in the glass when the prisoner took it up.
At this time a person of the name of Reid came in, and the prisoner
handed the glass to him, and asked if he thought there was anything
in it, and handed it to me also, and we said there was nothing we
could recognize, as the glass was empty. I said, however, that there
was a strong scent upon it, but I could not detect anything but
brandy. Cook went out of the room, and when he returned he called
me out. I went with him into my sitting-room. He appeared very ill,
and he told me he had been very sick and asked me to take his
money. He said he thought Palmer had been dosing him. He gave
me £700. He did not say what I was to do with the money. He was
very sick again after he had given me the money, and asked me to
go into his bedroom with him. I did so. Another person named Jones

went with us; the deceased vomited violently in his bedroom in our
presence. He was so ill I recommended him to send for Dr. Gibson,
who attended and gave him some medicine. He was certainly not
drunk; there was nothing about him approaching to drunkenness. He
appeared very ill the next morning, but a good deal better than the
previous night, and I returned him his money.”[31]

Mr. Gibson, who saw Cook during this attack, confirmed
Fisher’s and Reed’s account, stating that his tongue was perfectly
clean, his pulse good, but his stomach appeared distended, that he
only administered simple remedies. Cook told him he thought he
had been poisoned. He seemed a little excited, but not drunk. A
Mrs. Brooks, who also attends races, added the following evidence
on this incident:—

“I went to the ‘Raven’ to see Palmer about half-past ten at night
on Wednesday the 15th. I went upstairs, and asked a servant to tell
Palmer that I wished to speak to him. She said he was there. At the
top of the stairs are two passages, one facing, the other to the left. I
turned to the left. I saw Palmer standing by a small table in the
passage. He had a tumbler-glass in his hand in which there appeared
to be a small quantity of water. I did not see him put anything into it.
There was a light between me and him, and he held it up to the light.
He said to me, ‘I will be with you presently.’ He saw me the
moment I got to the top of the stairs. He stood at the table a minute
or two longer with the glass in his hand, holding it up to the light
and shaking it. The door of a sitting-room was partially open, and he
went into it, taking the glass with him. In two or three minutes he
came out again with the glass. What was in it was still of the colour
of water. He then went into his own sitting-room, and the door was
shut.”

Some brandy and water, which Palmer afterwards brought to
Mrs. Brooks, proved harmless to her; but she admitted that on the

previous day a great number of the racing men at Shrewsbury were
affected with sickness and purging, and that there was a talk in the
town of the water being poisoned.[32] With the return of Cook from
Shrewsbury to Rugeley with Palmer, on the day after this
suspicious attack, the summary of the case ends, it being necessary
to detail the subsequent events in the words of the leading
witnesses.

THE SYMPTOMS.

In the evening of the 15th of November, Cook returned from
Shrewsbury with Palmer to the “Talbot Arms,” at Rugeley, an inn
situated immediately opposite Palmer’s own house. He said he had
been ill at Shrewsbury, went to bed early, dined with Palmer the
next day, and returned to the inn at night, apparently none the
worse, and quite sober.

“On the following morning,” said Mills, the chambermaid,
“Palmer came to see him, and asked me for a cup of coffee for him,
which I procured, and I think I gave it to the deceased, and left the
room. I did not see him drink the coffee; but when I went into the
room shortly afterwards, I found it had been vomited in the utensil. I
did not observe a jug of toast-and-water in the bedroom; but a jug
that did not belong to the bedroom was sent down at night, for me to
make some fresh toast-and-water in it. The prisoner was in
deceased’s bedroom four or five times on this day, and I heard him
tell Cook that he would send him over some soup. I afterwards saw
some broth in the kitchen, which I knew had not been made in the
Talbot Arms; and the waitress took this broth to the deceased’s
bedroom. I saw the prisoner after this, and he asked me if Mr. Cook
had had his broth; and the waitress said she had taken it to him, but
he refused to take it, and said that it would not stay on his stomach.
The prisoner then told me to fetch the broth, as Mr. Cook must have
it, and I did so, and left it in deceased’s bedroom, and shortly

afterwards I saw that it had been vomited. The same evening some
barley water was made for the deceased, and also some arrowroot,
but I cannot say whether they remained on his stomach or not. Mr.
Bamford, the doctor, was called in after this. On the Sunday after
the deceased came to the Talbot Arms, I saw him in his bedroom
about eight o’clock in the morning, and he said he had slept well
since twelve o’clock, and he felt pretty comfortable. A large
breakfast cup of broth was brought from the prisoner’s house
between twelve and one o’clock on the Sunday, and I took it up to
the deceased’s bedroom. I tasted the broth, and very soon afterwards
I was sick. I drunk about two tablespoonfuls. I vomited violently all
the afternoon, and was obliged to go to bed. I was quite well up to
the time of my drinking the broth. I saw the deceased on Sunday
evening, and he seemed in good spirits, and not to be any worse. I
saw the deceased on the Monday morning between seven and eight
o’clock, when I took him a cup of coffee for his breakfast. He did
not vomit the coffee. Palmer had seen him before this, but he did not
come again until ten o’clock at night. The deceased got up about
one o’clock, and he shaved and dressed himself, and appeared a
great deal better, but said that he was exceedingly weak. Ashmall,
the jockey, came to see him on the Monday, and also Mr. Saunders,
the trainer. Soon after one o’clock, the deceased took some
arrowroot, and it remained on his stomach. The deceased went to
bed at four o’clock, and between nine and ten the prisoner went into
his room, and I left him there. Some pills were sent by Dr. Bamford
for the deceased, about eight o’clock, and I took them into his room,
and placed them on the dressing-table, and they were there when the
prisoner went into the room. I went to bed between ten and eleven,
and I was called up about twelve. I then heard violent screams from
the deceased’s bedroom, and upon entering it I saw the deceased
sitting up in bed, and he desired me to fetch the prisoner directly. I
told him he had been sent for, and I then walked to the bedside and
found one of the pillows was upon the floor. I picked it up and asked
Mr. Cook if he would lay his head down. At this time he was beating
the bedclothes apparently in great agony, and he told me he could
not lie down, and he should be suffocated if he did; and he then, in a

loud tone, asked me again to send for Mr. Palmer. There was a sort
of jumping or jerking about his head and neck and body all this
time, and his breathing was very much affected. He screamed three
or four times while I was in the room, and twice he called out,
‘Murder.’ He asked me to rub one of his hands, and I found it quite
stiff. It was the left hand. The fingers were all stretched out and
there was no motion in them, and they twitched while I was rubbing
the hand. Palmer came into the room while this was going on, and
the deceased recognized him, and said, ‘Oh, Palmer,’ or ‘Oh, doctor,
I shall die.’ The prisoner replied, ‘Oh, my lad, you won’t;’ and after
remaining a minute or two in the room he told me to stay there, and
went out. He returned in a very few minutes, and he then produced
some pills, and he gave the deceased a draught in a wine-glass, after
he had given him the pills. Cook said that the pills stuck in his
throat, and the prisoner told me to give him some toast-and-water,
and I did so in a teaspoon. His head and body continued jerking,
and he seized the spoon fast between his teeth and seemed to bite it
very hard. The deceased shortly after swallowed the toast-and-water
and the pills, and the prisoner then handed him the draught. It had a
thick heavy appearance. The deceased snapped at the glass in the
same way he did at the spoon, and he appeared unable to control
himself. As soon as he had swallowed the draught, he vomited it
immediately, and it appeared to me to smell like opium. The prisoner
then made the remark that he hoped the pills had stayed, and he
searched the utensil in which the deceased had vomited with a quill,
and said that he could not find them; and he told me to take the
utensil away and empty it carefully, and I did so, but could not see
any trace of the pills. After this the deceased seemed a little more
easy. The attack lasted altogether about half an hour, and during the
whole of the time he was quite conscious. When he was composed
he asked the prisoner to feel how his heart beat; and Palmer went to
his bedside, and put his hand either to his heart, or the side of his
face, and he said it was all right. I left the deceased about three
o’clock in the morning, and at this time the prisoner was sitting in
the easy chair, and I believe he was asleep. About six o’clock the
same morning I saw the deceased again, and he told me that Mr.

Palmer had left him about a quarter past five o’clock. I asked him
how he was, and he replied that he was no worse; and he then asked
me if I had ever seen any one in such agony as he was the night
before, and I told him I never had. He then said he was sure I should
never like to see anyone in such agony again, and I inquired what
he thought was the cause. He replied that it was through some pills
that Palmer had given him about half-past ten. The deceased was
quite composed and quiet at this time, and there was no jerking or
convulsion about him, but his eyes looked very wild. About twelve
o’clock the deceased desired me to send the Boots over to Mr.
Palmer to know whether he might have a cup of coffee. A message
was brought back that he might, and Mr. Palmer would be over
immediately. When I took up the coffee the prisoner was in the
room, and I gave him the coffee, and he tasted it to see that it was
not too strong. Mr. Jones came to the inn about three o’clock, and I
saw him in the deceased’s room, and the prisoner after this told me
that Cook had vomited the coffee. I saw Cook several times after
this, and he appeared in very good spirits, and talked about getting
up the next morning, and wished the barber to be sent for to shave
him. I did not see the deceased later than half-past ten o’clock on the
Tuesday night, and the prisoner was then in his bedroom, and I gave
him some toast-and-water for the deceased, and the prisoner said he
did not want anything more. I sat up in the kitchen on purpose to see
how Mr. Cook went on, and I heard the bell of his room ring
violently about ten minutes before twelve, and went up immediately.
I found the deceased sitting up, and Mr. Jones had his arm round his
shoulders, apparently supporting him. The deceased when he saw
me, told me to fetch Palmer directly. I went over to his house, and
rang the surgery bell, and the prisoner came to the window almost in
an instant, and opened a small casement, and I told him to come
over to Mr. Cook, as he was in much the same state as he was the
night before. He made some reply, and I returned at once to the
‘Talbot Arms,’ and in a minute or two the prisoner came into Mr.
Cook’s room. The first thing he said was that he did not think he had
ever dressed so quickly before in his life. At this time Mr. Jones was
supporting the deceased. I went out into the landing about a minute

or two, and the prisoner came out, and I observed to him that Mr.
Cook appeared in the same state as the night before, and he replied,
‘Not so ill by a fiftieth part.’ He then went to his own house, and
returned in a very short time to the deceased’s bedroom. I then
heard the deceased ask to be turned on his right side, and I then
shortly after heard that he was dead.”

The cross-examination of Elizabeth Mills was mainly directed
to three points—(1.) The fact of Mr. Cook complaining of sore
throat, but not of difficulty in swallowing, in May, 1855, when the
witness said all that he did was to use a gargle sent by Dr. Bamford.
(2.) Her omission to tell the coroner that the broth had made her
sick; that Cook had said he became ill on taking the pills sent by
Palmer; that he beat the bedclothes, called “Murder!” and
“twitched” when she rubbed his hands. These omissions the
witness accounted for by the fact that the coroner did not ask her to
detail all the symptoms she saw, but merely required her to answer
such questions as he put. On her depositions being read, the
Attorney-General proposed to call evidence to prove the negligence
and misconduct of the coroner, but the court ruled that it was
inadmissible.[33] (3.) That the witness had had several interviews
with Cook’s stepfather, Stevens, his attorney, and the chief
constable, before giving evidence—the defence imputing that they
had instructed her in the symptoms. She denied, however, any such
conduct on their part. She had heard of Dove’s case, but not read it,
and Mr. Stevens had never given her any money. An attempt to
injure her moral character in reference to a man of the name of
Dutton entirely failed, and her evidence remained substantially
uncontradicted.
Lavinia Barnes, the waitress at the “Talbot Arms,” remembered
Cook coming there on Monday, the 12th, on his way to the races,
and not complaining of illness, and she saw him when he returned

on Thursday, the 15th, and after he came from dining at Palmer’s,
on the Friday evening, when he spoke to her, and was sober.

“On the Saturday,” continued this witness, “I saw him twice.
Some broth was sent over and taken up to him by me. He could not
take it; he was too sick. I carried it down, and put it in the kitchen. I
afterwards saw Palmer, and told him Cook was too sick to take it; he
said he must have it. Elizabeth Mills afterwards took it up again.
Mills was taken ill with violent vomiting on the Sunday between
twelve and one o’clock. She went to bed, and did not come
downstairs till four or five o’clock. I saw some broth that day in the
kitchen; it was in a sick cup, with two handles, not belonging to the
house. I did not see it brought; it was taken back to Palmer’s. On
Monday morning (19th) I saw Palmer, and he told Mills he was
going to London. I saw Cook during that day. Saunders came to see
him, and took him up some brandy-and-water. I slept that night in
the next room to Cook’s. Palmer came between eight and nine in the
evening, but I did not see if he went up to Cook’s room. (According
to Mills, Palmer had seen Cook in the morning, and saw him again
at ten at night.) About twelve o’clock I was in the kitchen, when
Cook’s bell rang violently. I went upstairs. Cook was very ill, and
asked me to send for Palmer. He screamed out ‘’Murder!’ He
exclaimed that he was in violent pain—that he was suffocating. His
eyes were wild-looking, standing a great way out of his head. He
was beating his bed with his arms. He cried out, ‘Christ, have mercy
on my soul!’ I never saw a person in such a state. Having called up
Mills, I left to send ‘Boots’ for Palmer, who came, and I again went
into Cook’s room. Cook was then more composed. He said, ‘Oh,
doctor, I shall die!’ Palmer replied, ‘Don’t be alarmed, my lad.’ I
saw Cook drink a dark mixture out of a glass, but do not know who
gave it him. I both heard and saw him snap at the glass. He brought
up the draught. I left him between twelve and one, when he was
more composed. On Tuesday he seemed a little better. At night, a
little before twelve, the bell rang again. I was in the kitchen. Mills
went upstairs, and I followed her, and heard Cook screaming, but

did not go into the room. I stood outside the door, and saw Palmer
come. He had been fetched. I said, as he passed me, ‘Mr. Cook is ill
again.’ He said, ‘Oh, is he?’ and went into the room. He was dressed
in his usual manner, and wore a black coat and a cap.[34] She also
heard him make the observation to Mills before reported. She went
to the room, but came out before Cook died.”

MEDICAL EVIDENCE.

In consequence of his severe illness, the following deposition
of Dr. Bamford (an aged local practitioner) before the coroner was
read:—
“I attended the late Mr. Cook, at the request of William Palmer,
and first saw him about three o’clock on Saturday, the 17th of
November, when he was suffering from violent vomiting, the
stomach being in that irritable state, that it would not contain a
teaspoonful of milk. There was perfect moisture of the skin, and he
was quite sensible. I prescribed medicine for him; and Mr. Palmer
went up to my house and waited until I had made it up, and then
took it away. I prescribed a saline draught, to be taken in an
effervescing state. Between seven and eight in the evening Mr.
Palmer again requested me to visit Mr. Cook. The sickness still
continued, everything he took being ejected from his stomach. I gave
him two small pills as an opiate. Palmer took the pills from my
house. I did not accompany, nor do I know what became of the pills.
On the following morning (Sunday) Palmer again called, and asked
me to accompany him. Mr. Cook’s sickness still continued. I
remained about ten minutes. Everything he took that morning was
ejected from his stomach. Everything he threw up was as clear as
water, except some coffee that he had taken. Palmer had
administered some pills before I saw Mr. Cook on Saturday, which
had purged him several times. Between six and seven in the evening
I again visited the deceased, accompanied by Palmer. The sickness
still continued. I went on Monday morning between eight and nine,

and changed his medicine. I sent him a draught, which relieved his
sickness, and gave him ease. I did not see him again until Tuesday
night, when Palmer called for me. I examined Mr. Cook, in the
presence of Mr. Jones and Mr. Palmer, and I observed a change in
him. He was irritable and troubled in his mind. His pulse was firm,
but tremulous, and between 80° and 90°. He threw himself down on
the bed, and turned his face away. He said he would have no more
pills, nor take any medicine. After they had left the room, Palmer
asked me to make two more pills, similar to those on the previous
night, which I did, and he then asked me to write the directions on a
slip of paper, and I gave the pills to Palmer. The effervescing
mixture contained 20 grains of carbonate of potash, 2 drachms of
compound tincture of cardamine, and 2 drachms of simple syrup,
together with 15 grains of tartaric acid for each powder. I never gave
Mr. Cook a grain of antimony. I did not see the preparations after
they were taken away. His skin was moist, and there was not the
least fever about him. I considered death to have been the result of
congestion of the brain, when the post-mortem examination was
made, and I do not see any reason to alter that opinion. Palmer said
he was of the same opinion with respect to the death of the
deceased. I never knew apoplexy produce rigidity of the limbs.
Drowsiness is a prelude to apoplexy. I attribute the sickness on the
first two days to a disordered stomach.” When called in the sixth
day of the trial, after his recovery, the witness said—speaking of the
last visit to Mr. Cook—“Having seen Cook, I left the room with
Jones and Palmer: the latter said he rather wished Cook to have his
pills again (I had prepared the same pills on Saturday, Sunday, and
Monday), and he would walk up with me for them. He did so, and
stood by me in the surgery while I prepared them. I had strychnia in
a cupboard in my private room. I put the pills in a box, and
addressed it ‘Night pills, John Parsons Cook, Esq.’ I wrote that
direction all four nights. On the Tuesday night Palmer requested me
to put on a direction. After that I did not see Cook alive. It was, as
near as could be, twenty minutes past twelve, at midnight, when I
saw Cook dead. I understood he was alive when they came for me,
and I could not have been more than five or ten minutes in going up.

My house is about two hundred yards from Palmer. I found the body
stretched out, resting on the heels and the back of the head, as
straight as possible, and stiff. The arms were extended down each
side of the body, and the hands clenched. I certified it was
apoplexy.”

Mr. William Henry Jones, a surgeon at Lutterworth, and
intimate friend of Cook’s for the last five years, was written to by
Palmer on the Monday, the 19th, stating that “Cook was taken ill at
Shrewsbury, and obliged to call in a medical man;” that “since then
he had been confined to his bed with a very serious bilious attack,
combined with diarrhœa,” and that Palmer “thought it advisable
that his friend should come and see him.” Illness prevented this
before about half-past three in the afternoon of Tuesday, the day
before Cook died.
“On my arrival at Rugeley,” said the witness, “I went up to
Cook’s room. He said he was very comfortable, but had been very
ill at Shrewsbury. He did not detail the symptoms, but said he had
had to call in a doctor. Palmer came in. I examined Cook in his
presence. He had a natural pulse. I looked at his tongue; it was
clean. I said it was hardly the tongue of a bilious, diarrhœa attack.
Palmer replied, ‘You should have seen it before.’ I did not then
prescribe for Cook. In the course of the afternoon I visited him
several times. He changed for the better. His spirits and pulse both
improved. I gave him, at his request, some toast and water, and he
vomited. There was no diarrhœa. The toast and water was in the
room. Mr. Bamford came in the evening, about 7 o’clock, and
expressed his opinion that Cook was going on very satisfactorily.
We were talking about what he was to have, and Cook objected to
the pills of the previous night. Palmer was there all the time. Cook
said the pills made him ill. I do not remember to whom he addressed
this observation. We three (Palmer, Bamford, and myself) went out
upon the landing. Palmer proposed that Mr. Bamford should make
up some morphine pills as before, at the same time requesting me

not to mention to Cook what they contained, as he objected to the
morphine so much. Mr. Bamford agreed to this, and he went away. I
went back to Cook’s room, and Palmer went with me. During the
evening I was several times in Cook’s room. He seemed very
comfortable all the evening. There was no more vomiting nor any
diarrhœa, but there was a natural motion in the bowels. I observed
no bilious symptoms about Cook.”
By Lord Campbell.—“Did he appear to have recently suffered
from a bilious attack?”
Answer.—“No.”
Examination resumed.—“Palmer and I went to his house about
eight o’clock. I remained there about half-an-hour, and then returned
to Cook. I next saw Palmer in Cook’s room at nearly eleven o’clock.
He had brought with him a box of pills. He opened the paper on
which the direction was written in my presence. That paper was
round the box. He called my attention to the paper, saying, ‘What an
excellent handwriting for an old man!’ I did not read the direction,
but looked at the writing, which was very good. Palmer proposed to
Cook that he should take the pills. Cook protested very much
against it, because they had made him so ill on the previous night.
Palmer repeated the request several times, and at last Cook
complied with it, and took the pills. The moment he took them he
vomited into the utensil. Palmer and myself (at Palmer’s request)
searched in it for the pills, to see whether they were returned. We
found nothing but toast-and-water. I do not know when Cook had
drunk the toast-and-water, but it was standing by the bedside all the
evening. The vomiting could not have been caused by the contents
of the pills, nor by the act of swallowing. After vomiting Cook laid
down and appeared quiet. Before Palmer came Cook had got up and
sat in a chair. His spirits were very good; he was laughing and
joking, talking of what he should do with himself during the winter.
After he had taken the pills I went downstairs to my supper, and
returned to his room at nearly twelve o’clock. His room was double-
bedded, and it had been arranged that I should sleep in it that night.
I talked to Cook for a few minutes, and then went to bed. When I

last talked to him he was rather sleepy, but quite as well as he had
been during the evening. There was nothing about him to excite any
apprehensions. I had been in bed about ten minutes, and had not got
to sleep, when he suddenly started up in bed, and called out,
‘Doctor, get up, I am going to be ill! Ring the bell and send for
Palmer.’ I rang the bell. The chambermaid came, and Cook called
out to her, ‘Fetch Mr. Palmer.’ He asked me to give him something.
I declined, and said, ‘Palmer will be here directly.’ Cook was then
sitting up in bed. The room was rather dark, and I did not observe
anything particular in his countenance. He asked me to rub the back
of his neck. I did so. I supported him with my arm. There was a
stiffness about the muscles of his neck. Palmer soon came in; two or
three minutes at the utmost after the chambermaid went for him. He
said, ‘I never dressed so quickly in my life.’ I did not observe how
he was dressed. He gave Cook two pills, which he told me were
ammonia pills. Cook swallowed them. Directly he did so he uttered
loud screams, threw himself back in the bed, and was dreadfully
convulsed. That could not have been the result of the pills last taken.
He said, ‘Raise me up; I shall be suffocated.’ That was at the
commencement of the convulsions, which lasted five or ten minutes.
The convulsions affected every muscle of the body, and were
accompanied by stiffening of the limbs. I endeavoured to raise Cook
with the assistance of Palmer, but found it quite impossible, owing
to the rigidity of the limbs. When Cook found we could not raise him
up, he asked to be turned over. He was then quite sensible. I turned
him on his side. I listened to the action of the heart. I found it
gradually weakened, and asked Palmer to fetch some spirits of
ammonia, to be used as a stimulant. He went to his house and
fetched a bottle. He was away a very short time. When he returned
the pulsations of the heart were gradually ceasing, and life was
almost extinct. He died very quietly a short time afterwards.
“From the time he called to me to the time of his death there
elapsed about ten minutes or a quarter of an hour. He died of
tetanus, which is a spasmodic affection of the muscles of the whole
body. It causes death by stopping the action of the heart. The sense

of suffocation is caused by the contraction of the respiratory
muscles. The room was so dark that I could not observe the outward
appearance of Cook’s body after death. When he threw himself back
in bed he clenched his teeth, and they remained clenched after his
death. When I was rubbing his neck, his head and neck were
unnaturally bent back by the spasmodic action of the muscles. After
his death his body was so twisted or bowed that if I had placed it
upon the back it would have rested on the head and feet.”
By Lord Campbell.—“When did you first observe the bowing
and twisting?”
Witness.—“When Cook threw himself back on the bed. The jaw
was affected by the spasmodic action.”

The cross-examination of this witness was directed to the
previous health of the deceased, and to his fears that he was still
suffering from a former attack of venereal disease, which Mr. Jones
decidedly negatived; to his having been in pecuniary difficulties
from his racing ventures, which the witness said he was steadily
redeeming; to Cook’s objection to take morphia; to the question
whether, when before the coroner, the witness had used the word
“tetanus,” which it was evident from the original depositions had
been scratched out by the clerk, probably from ignorance of its
meaning, and to whether he agreed with Dr. Bamford that Cook
had died in an apoplectic fit, or rather, as the witness at the time
thought, of one of an epileptic character. In re-examination, he said
that “he was satisfied that Cook’s death did not arise from epilepsy,
as in that disease consciousness is lost, but there is no rigidity or
convulsive spasm of the muscles, and the symptoms quite different.
He was equally certain that it did not arise from apoplexy.” Dr.
Savage, of Gloucester Place, London, who had attended Cook for
four years, also negatived the suggestion that he was suffering from
syphilitic symptoms, or that he had any venereal taint about him.
He was timid, no doubt, about his throat, and had had two small

ulcers on his tongue due to two bad teeth, but by the end of May
they had gradually disappeared, and were quite well.
The woman who laid out the body noticed that “though it was
quite warm, the hands and arms were cold; the body lying on the
back, straight down the bed,[35] the arms crossed upon the chest,
and the head ‘lying a little turned on one side.’” She had never
seen so stiff a corpse before. “We,” she continued, “had difficulty
in straightening the arms. We could not keep them straight down to
the body. I passed a piece of tape under the back, and tied it round
the wrists, to fasten the arms down. The right foot turned on one
side outwards. We were obliged to tie both feet together. The eyes
were open. We were a considerable time before we could close
them, because the eyelids were so stiff. The hands were closed, and
were very stiff. I have never known them so stiff as in this case.”
Mr. Stevens, Cook’s stepfather, who saw the body three days after
death, also noted that the right hand was clenched, and, as he
looked across the body, that the left was clenched in the same way.
What passed between Mr. Stevens and Palmer at their interview
at Rugeley on the Friday after Cook’s death, and the reasons why
he eventually insisted on a post-mortem examination and a
chemical analysis of the corpse, belong rather to the section
relating to the conduct of the prisoner. It will be sufficient here to
note that on the 26th of November the post-mortem examination
was held with the following results by Dr. Harland, of Stafford,
assisted by Mr. Devonshire, of the London University, and Mr.
Newton, of Rugeley, in the presence of Dr. Bamford, Palmer, and
several other persons.

POST-MORTEM EXAMINATION.

Dr. John Thomas Harland, physician, of Stafford, arrived at
Rugeley at ten in the morning of the 26th, called at Dr. Bamford’s
on his way to the hotel where the examination was to be conducted,
and on his road met Palmer, whom he had previously known. “I am
glad,” said Palmer, “that you are come to make a post-mortem
examination. Someone might have been sent whom I did not
know.” “What is the case?” replied Harland; “I hear there is a
suspicion of poisoning.” “Oh no,” said Palmer; “he had an
epileptic fit on Monday and Tuesday last, and you will find old
disease in the heart and head.” Such was not the result of the post-
mortem. They “found the body much stiffer than bodies usually are
five or six days after death—the muscles strongly contracted and
thrown out, and the hands stiff and firmly closed.” According to a
report which Dr. Harland sent to Mr. Stevens, and which at the
suggestion of the judge was read in full, the various internal organs
were perfectly healthy and natural, as described in detail in the
following examination, subsequent to reading the report:—

“The abdominal viscera were in a perfectly healthy state. They
were taken out of the body. We examined the liver. It was healthy.
The lungs were healthy, but contained a good deal of blood; not
more than would be accounted for by gravitation after death. We
examined the head. The brain was quite healthy. There was no
extravasation of blood, and no serum. There was nothing which, in
my judgment, could cause pressure. The heart was contracted, and
contained no blood. That was the result, not of disease, but of
spasmodic action. At the larger end of the stomach there were
numerous small yellowish-white spots, about the size of mustard
seeds. They would not at all account for death. I doubt whether they
would have any effect upon the health. I think they were mucous
follicles. The kidneys were full of blood which had gravitated there.
They had no appearance of disease. The blood was in a fluid state.
That was not usual. It is found so in some cases of sudden death,
which are of rare occurrence. The lower part of the spinal cord was

not very closely examined. We examined the upper part of that cord.
It presented a perfectly natural appearance. On a subsequent day, I
think the 25th of January, it was thought right to exhume the body,
that the spinal cord might be more carefully examined. I was present
at that examination. The lower part of the spinal cord was then
minutely examined. A report was made of that examination.”
This report was put in, and was read by the witness. It described
minutely the appearance and condition of the spinal cord and its
envelopes, and concluded with this statement:—“There is nothing in
the condition of the spinal cord or its envelopes to account for
death; nothing but the most normal and healthy state, allowance
being made for the lapse of time since the death of the deceased.”
Examination resumed.—“I am still of opinion that there was
nothing in the appearance of the spine to account for the death of the
deceased, and nothing of an unusual kind which might not be
referred to changes after death. When the stomach and intestines
were removed from the body on the occasion of the first
examination they were separately emptied into a jar, and were
afterwards placed in it. Mr. Devonshire and Mr. Newton removed
them from the body. They were the only two who operated. At the
time the prisoner was standing on the right of Mr. Newton. While
Mr. Devonshire was opening the stomach a push was given by
Palmer, which sent Mr. Newton against Mr. Devonshire, and shook
some of the contents of the stomach into the body. I thought a joke
was passing among them, and said, ‘Don’t do that.’”
By Lord Campbell.—“Might not Palmer have been impelled by
some one outside him?”
Answer.—“There was no one who could have impelled him.”
Question.—“What did you observe Palmer do?”
Answer.—“I saw Mr. Newton and Mr. Devonshire pushed
together, and Palmer was over them. He was smiling at the time.”
Examination continued.—“After this interruption the opening of
the stomach was pursued. The stomach contained about three
ounces of a brownish fluid. There was nothing particular in that.

Palmer was looking on, and said, ‘They won’t hang us yet.’ He said
that to Mr. Bamford in a loud whisper. That remark was made upon
his own observation of the stomach. The stomach after being
emptied, was put into the jar. The intestines were then examined, but
nothing particular was found in them. They were contracted and
very small. The viscera, with their contents, as taken from the body,
were placed in the jar, which was then covered over with two
bladders, which were tied and sealed. I tied and sealed them. After I
had done so I placed the jar upon the table by the body. Palmer was
then moving about the room. In a few minutes I missed the jar from
where I had placed it. During that time my attention had been
withdrawn by the examination. On missing the jar I called out,
‘Where’s the jar?’ and Palmer from the other end of the room, said,
‘It is here; I thought it would be more convenient for you to take
away.’ There was a door at the end of the room where he was. He
was within a yard or two of that door, and about twenty-four feet
from the table on which the body was lying.” (Before making this
last statement the witness referred to a plan of the room which was
put in by the Attorney-General.) “The other door near which Palmer
was standing was not the one by which he entered the room. I called
to Palmer, ‘Will you bring it here?’ I went from the table and met
Palmer half-way coming with the jar. Since I last saw it it had been
cut through both bladders. The cut was hardly an inch long, done
with a sharp instrument. I examined the jar. The edges were quite
clean; no part of the contents could have passed through it. Finding
this cut, I said, ‘Here is a cut! who has done it?’ Palmer, Devonshire,
and Newton, all said they had not done it, and nothing more was
said. When I was about to remove the jar from the room, the
prisoner asked me what I was going to do with it. I said I should
take it to Mr. Frere’s (a neighbouring surgeon). He said, ‘I would
rather you would take it to Stafford than take it there.’ I made no
answer that I remember. On finding the slit, I cut the strings, and
altered the bladder, so that the slits were not over the top. I took it to
Mr. Frere’s, and left it in his hall, tied and sealed. Afterwards when I
went for my carriage, whilst waiting in the yard, the prisoner came
and asked me what would be done with it, and I said, ‘Sent either to

Birmingham or London for examination.’ When I recovered the jar,
I tied each corner separately and resealed it with my own seal.
During the first post-mortem examination, there were several
Rugeley persons present, but, I believe, no one on behalf of the
prisoner. At the second examination there was some one on behalf
of Palmer (Mr. Pemberton and Mr. Bolton).”

On cross-examination, after stating that Palmer’s words, “they
won’t hang us yet,” were addressed to Bamford in a loud whisper,
and afterwards repeated to several persons, and that his original
notes in pencil were destroyed, a more formal report being written
by him on getting home, Dr. Harland said—
“At the base of the tongue of the deceased I observed some
enlarged mucous follicles; they were not pustules containing matter,
but enlarged mucous follicles of long standing. There were a good
many of them, but I do not suppose that they would occasion much
inconvenience. They might cause some degree of pain, but it would
be slight. I do not believe they were enlarged glands. I should not
say that the deceased’s lungs were diseased, although they were not
in their normal state. The lungs were full of blood and the heart
empty. I had no lens at the post-mortem examination, but I made an
examination which was satisfactory without one. The brain was
carefully taken out; the membranes and external parts were first
examined, and thin slices about a quarter of an inch in thickness
were taken off and subjected to separate examination. I think that by
that means we should have discovered disease if any had existed;
and if there had been any indication of disease I should have
examined it more carefully. I examined the spinal cord as far down
as possible, and if there had been any appearance of disease, I
should have opened the canal. There was no appearance of disease,
however. We opened down to the first vertebra. If we had found a
softening of the spinal cord, I do not think that it would have been
sufficient to have caused Mr. Cook’s death; certainly not. A
softening of the spinal cord would not produce tetanus; it might

produce paralysis. I do not think, as a medical man investigating the
cause of death, that it was necessary carefully to examine the spinal
cord. I do not know who suggested that there should be an
examination of the spinal cord two months after death. There were
some appearances of decomposition when we examined the spinal
cord, but I do not think that there was sufficient to interfere with our
examination.[36] I examined the body to ascertain if there was any
trace of venereal disease. I did find certain indications of that
description, and the marks of an old excoriation, which was
cicatrized over.”
Re-examined by the Attorney-General.—“There were no
indications of wounds or sores such as could by possibility produce
tetanus. There was no disease of the lungs to account for death. The
heart was healthy, and its emptiness I attribute to spasmodic action.
The heart being empty, of course death ensued. The convulsive
spasmodic action of the muscles of the body, which was deposed to
yesterday by Mr. Jones, would, in my judgment occasion the
emptiness of the heart. There was nothing whatever in the brain to
indicate the presence of any disease of any sort; but if there had
been, I never heard or read of any disease of the brain ever
producing tetanus. There was no relaxation of the spinal cord which
would account for the symptoms accompanying Mr. Cook’s death as
they have been described. In fact, there was no relaxation of the
spinal cord at all, and there is no disease of the spinal cord with
which I am acquainted which would produce tetanus.”

Dr. Monckton, a physician at Rugeley, made a separate
examination of the spinal marrow of the deceased on the 28th of
January, when he said that the body was in such a condition as to
enable him to do so satisfactorily, and when had there been any
disease of a normal character on the spine he should have had no
difficulty in discovering it. All that he found were certain granules,
the origin of which it was difficult to account for, though frequently
found in persons of an advanced age, but which he never knew to

occasion sudden death. He agreed entirely with the evidence of Dr.
Harland.[37]

EVIDENCE OF MEDICAL EXPERTS.

We come next to a remarkable body of evidence given by men
of such eminence in their profession as Mr. Curling, Dr. Todd, Sir
Benjamin Brodie, and others of nearly equal mark, negativing the
idea that had been suggested in the previous cross-examinations
that the death was due to one of the two forms of true tetanus, and
affirming that the symptoms which had been detailed were those of
the action of strychnia. Not only were these opinions closely
questioned in cross-examination, but as many medical men, several
of them of not less eminence than these witnesses, were
subsequently called for the defence to contradict them; and thus the
most extraordinary conflict of scientific evidence raised that had
hitherto been witnessed in a criminal court. Subsequently, as we
shall see, a similar dispute between the medical giants of the day
was roused in the case of Dr. Smethurst, but with, in the end, a very
different result. In reading the following statements for the
prosecution, it will help to make them more clear, if it is borne in
mind that tetanus is of two kinds—(1), Idiopathic, or self-
generated, and the other (2), Traumatic, the result of a wound or a
sore; that the former may arise from exposure to cold or damp, or
even from the irritation of worms in the alimentary canal, but in
temperate climates is by no means a frequent disease; whilst the
latter, from the various accidents to which human beings are liable,
is of more frequent occurrence. Another point to be remembered is,
that it is a moot point in medical practice whether a syphilitic sore,
unless of course of a most aggravated character, will produce
tetanus, and that the difference between the symptoms and progress

of true tetanus and of that due to poison is, in the opinion of these
experts, very marked. Dr. James Blizard Curling, surgeon to the
London Hospital, was first called, and after describing the two
kinds of tetanus and their causes, and speaking of the very
numerous cases of the “traumatic” kind which he had seen, he thus
detailed the symptoms:—

“The disease first manifests itself about the jaws and neck.
Rigidity of the muscles of the abdomen afterwards sets in. A
dragging pain at the pit of the stomach is almost a constant
attendant. In many instances the muscles of the back are extensively
affected. These symptoms, though continuous, are liable to
aggravations into paroxysms. As the disease goes on these
paroxysms become more frequent and more severe. When they
occur the body is drawn backwards; in some instances, though less
frequent, it is bent forward. A difficulty in swallowing is a very
common symptom, and also a difficulty of breathing during the
paroxysms. The disease may, if fatal, end in two ways. The patient
may die somewhat suddenly, from suffocation, owing to the closure
of the opening of the windpipe; or he may be worn out by the severe
and painful spasms, the muscles may relax, and the patient
gradually sink. The disease is generally fatal. The locking of the jaw
is an almost constant symptom attending ‘traumatic tetanus;’ I may
say a constant symptom. It is not always marked, but generally so. It
is an early symptom. Another symptom is a peculiar expression of
countenance. I believe this is not peculiar to ‘traumatic tetanus,’ but
my observation is from such cases. There is a contraction of the
eyelids, a raising of the angles of the mouth, and contraction of the
brow. In ‘traumatic tetanus’ the lower extremities are sometimes
affected, and sometimes, but rarely, the upper ones. When the
muscles of the extremities are affected, the time at which that occurs
varies. If there is no wound in the arms or legs, the extremities are
generally not affected until late in the progress of the disease. I
never knew of tetanus being produced by a sore throat or a chancre.
In my opinion a syphilitic sore would not produce tetanus. I know of

no instance in which one has led to tetanus. I think it a very unlikely
cause. The time within which ‘traumatic tetanus’ causes death
varies from twenty-four hours to two or three days or longer. The
shortest time to my knowledge was eight to ten hours. When once
commenced, the disease is continuous.”
Question.—“Did you ever hear of a case in which a man was
attacked one day, had twenty-four hours’ respite, and was then
attacked the next day?”
Witness.—“Never. Such a case could not occur.”
Question.—“You have heard Mr. Jones’s account of the death of
the deceased. Were the symptoms there consistent with any forms of
traumatic tetanus?”
Witness.—“No.”
Question.—“What distinguishes it from such causes?”
Witness.—“The sudden onset of the disease. In all cases that
have come under my observation the disease was preceded by the
milder symptoms of tetanus, gradually proceeding to the complete
development.”
Question.—“Were the symptoms described by Mills those of
tetanus?”
Witness.—“No. Not of tetanus of disease.”
Question.—“Assuming tetanus to be synonymous with
convulsive or spasmodic action of the muscles, was there, in that
sense, tetanus on Monday night?”
Witness.—“No doubt there was spasmodic action of the
muscles, but not idiopathic or traumatic tetanus, because the sudden
onset of the spasms, and their rapid subsidence, are consistent with
neither of the two forms of tetanus.”
Question.—“Is there not hysteric tetanus?”
Witness.—“Yes: it is rather hysteria combined with spasms, but
it is sometimes called hysteric tetanus. I have known no instance of
its proving fatal, or of it occurring to a man. Some poisons will
produce tetanus. Nux vomica, acting through its poisons, strychnia

and brucia, poisons of a cognate character, produce that effect. I
never saw human or animal life destroyed by strychnia.”

In his cross-examination, Mr. Curling admitted that irritation of
the spinal cord, or of the nerves proceeding to it, might produce
tetanus, and the correctness of Dr. Watson’s statements in his
Lectures, that, in four cases out of five, the disease begins with
lockjaw, and that all the symptoms of tetanic convulsions may arise
from very trivial blows; but he denied that there was any well
authenticated instance of “traumatic tetanus” occurring within a
quarter of an hour after the reception of the injury, or that it was
very likely that the irritation of a syphilitic sore by wet, cold, drink,
mercury, or mental excitement, might lead to tetanic symptoms.

“The irritation,” said Mr. Curling, “which is likely to produce
tetanus is the sore being exposed to friction, to which syphilitic
sores in the throat are not exposed. I should class tetanus arising
from the irritation of a sore as traumatic. Cases very rarely occur
which it is difficult to class as either traumatic or idiopathic. I
should class tetanus arising from irritation of the intestines as
idiopathic. The character of the spasms of epilepsy are not tetanic.”
Serjeant Shee.—“Not of the spasms; but are not the contractions
of epilepsy sometimes continuous, so that the body may be twisted
into various forms, and remain rigidly in them?”
Answer.—“Not continuously.”
Question.—“For five or ten minutes together?”
Answer.—“I think not.”
Question.—“Does it not frequently happen that general
convulsions, no cause or trace of which in the form of disease or
lesion is to be found in the body after death, occur in the most
violent and spastic way so as to exhibit appearances of tetanic
convulsions?”

Answer.—“No instance of the kind has come under my
observation.”[38]
Question.—“Do you agree with this opinion of Dr. Copland,
expressed in his Dictionary of Practical Medicine, under the head of
‘General Convulsions,’ ‘The abnormal contraction of the muscles is
in some cases of the most violent and spastic nature, and frequently
of some continuance, the relaxations being of brief duration or
scarcely observable, and in others nearly or altogether approaching
to tetanic?’”
Answer.—“I would rather speak from my own observation. I
have not observed anything of the kind.”
Question.—“Does it not happen that a patient dies of
convulsions, spasmodic in the sense of their being tumultuous and
alternating, and chronic in the sense of exhibiting continuous
rigidity, yet after death no disease is found?”
Answer.—“It does not often happen to adults.”
Question.—“Does it sometimes?”
Answer.—“I do not know, nor have I read of such a case. I have
no hesitation in saying that people may die from tetanus and other
diseases without the appearance of morbid symptoms after death.”
Question.—“Are not convulsions, not, strictly speaking, tetanic,
constantly preceded by retching, distention of the stomach,
flatulence of the stomach and bowels, and other dyspeptic
symptoms?”
Answer.—“Such cases do not come under my observation as a
hospital surgeon. I think it is very probable that general convulsions
are accompanied by yelling. I don’t know that they frequently
terminate fatally, and that the proximate cause of death is spasm of
the respiratory muscles, inducing asphyxia.”
Re-examined by the Attorney-General.—“These convulsions are
easily distinguished from tetanus, because in them there is an entire
loss of consciousness.”
Question.—“Is it one of the characteristic features of tetanus
that the consciousness is not affected?”

Answer.—“It is.”

Dr. Todd, for twenty-one years physician to King’s College
Hospital, well known for his lectures on Tetanus and the diseases of
the Nervous System, and who had seen only two cases of what
appeared to him to be idiopathic tetanus, so rare are they in this
country, gave the following evidence:[39]—
“In my opinion the term tetanus ought not to be applied to
disease produced by poisons, but I should call the symptoms tetanic
in order to distinguish the character of the convulsions. I have
observed cases of traumatic tetanus. Except that in all such cases
there is some lesion the symptoms are precisely the same as those of
idiopathic tetanus. The disease begins with stiffness about the jaw.
The symptoms gradually develope themselves and extend to the
muscles of the trunk.”
Question.—“When the disease has begun is there any
intermission?”
Answer.—“There are remissions, but they are not complete; only
diminutions of the severity of the symptoms, not a total subsidence.
The patient does not express himself as completely well, quite
comfortable. I speak from my own experience.”
Question.—“What is the usual period that elapses between the
commencement and the termination of the disease?”
Answer.—“The cases may be divided into two classes. Acute
cases will terminate in three or four days, chronic cases will go on
as long as from nineteen to twenty-two or twenty-three days, and
perhaps longer. I do not think that I have known a case in which
death occurred within four days. Cases are reported in which it
occurred in a shorter period. In tetanus the extremities are affected,
but not so much as the trunk. Their affection is a late symptom. The
locking of the jaw is an early one. Sometimes the convulsions of
epilepsy assume somewhat of a tetanic character, but they are
essentially distinct from tetanus. In epilepsy the patient always loses

consciousness. Apoplexy never produces tetanic convulsions.
Perhaps I may be allowed to say that when there is an effusion of
blood upon the brain, and a particular portion of the brain is
involved, the muscles may be thrown into short tetanic convulsions.
In such a case the consciousness would be destroyed. Having heard
described the symptoms attending the death of the deceased, and the
post-mortem examination, I am of opinion that in this case there
was neither apoplexy nor epilepsy.”

The deposition of Dr. Bamford, before reported, was here read,
his inability to attend from illness having been proved.
The examination of Dr. Todd by the Attorney-General was then
proceeded with as follows:—
“Having heard the deposition of Dr. Bamford read, I do not
believe that the deceased died from apoplexy or from epilepsy. I
never knew tetanus arise either from syphilitic sores or from sore
throat. There are poisons which will produce tetanic convulsions.
The principal of these poisons are nux vomica and those which
contain as their active ingredients strychnia and brucia. I have never
seen human life destroyed by strychnia, but I have seen animals
destroyed by it frequently. The poison is usually given in a largish
dose in those cases, so as to put an end to the sufferings and destroy
life as soon as possible. I should not like to give a human subject a
quarter of a grain. I think that it is not unlikely that half a grain
might destroy life; and I believe that a grain certainly would. I think
that half a grain would kill a cat. The symptoms which would ensue
upon the administration of strychnine when given in solution—and I
believe that poisons of that nature act more rapidly in a state of
solution than in any other form—would develope themselves in ten
minutes after it was taken, if the dose was a large one; if not so
large, they might be half an hour or an hour before they appeared.
Those symptoms would be tetanic convulsions of the muscles—more
especially those of the spine and neck; the head and back would be
bent back, and the trunk would be bowed in a marked manner; the
extremities also would be stiffened and jerked out. The stiffness,

once set in, would never entirely disappear; but fresh paroxysms
would set in, and the jerking would reappear, and death would
probably ensue in a quarter of an hour or so. The difference
between tetanus produced by strychnia and other tetanus is very
marked. In the former case the duration of the symptoms is very
short, and instead of being continuous in their development, they
will subside if the dose has not been strong enough to produce
death, and will be renewed in fresh paroxysms: whereas in other
descriptions of tetanus the symptoms commence in a mild form, and
become stronger and more violent as the disease progresses. The
difficulty experienced in breathing is common alike to tetanus
properly so called, and to tetanic convulsions occasioned by
strychnia, arising from the pressure on the respiratory muscles. I
think it is remarkable that the deceased was able to swallow, and
that there was no fixing of the jaw, which would have been the case
with tetanus proper, resulting either from a wound or from disease.
From all the evidence that I have heard, I think that the symptoms
which presented themselves in the case of Mr. Cook arose from
tetanus produced by strychnia.”
Cross-examined by Mr. Grove, Q.C.—“There are cases sloping
into each other, as it were, of every grade and degree, from mild
convulsions to tetanic spasms. I have published some lectures upon
diseases of the brain, and I adhere to the opinion there expressed,
that the state of a person suffering from tetanus is identical with that
which strychnia is capable of producing. In a pathological point of
view, an examination of the spinal cord shortly after death, in
investigating supposed deaths from strychnia, is important. The
signs of decomposition, however, could be easily distinguished from
the evidence of disease which existed previously to death, but it
would be difficult to distinguish in such a case whether mere
softening resulted from decomposition or from pre-existing disease.
There is nothing in the post-mortem examination that leads me to
think that the deceased died from tetanus proper. I think that
granules upon the spinal cord, such as I have heard described,
would not be likely to cause tetanus. In animals to which strychnia

has been administered I cannot say that I have observed what you
call an intolerance of touch, but by touching them spasms are apt to
be excited. That sensibility to touch continues as long as the
operation of the poison continues. I have examined the interior of
animals that have been killed by strychnia, but I have not observed
in such cases that the right side of the heart was usually full of
blood. It is some years since I made such an examination, but I am
able, nevertheless, to speak positively as to the state of the heart. It
is usually empty on both sides. I do not agree with Dr. Taylor, or
other authorities, that, in cases of tetanus, animals died asphyxiated.
If they did, we should invariably have the right side of the heart full
of blood, which is not the case. I think the term asphyxiated is
sometimes very loosely used. I know, from my reading, that
morphia sometimes produces convulsions, but believe they would be
of an epileptic character. I think that the symptoms of morphia
would be longer deferred in making their appearance than from
strychnia, but cannot speak positively on the point. Morphia, like
strychnia, is a vegetable poison. I have not observed in animals the
jaw fixed after the administration of strychnia.”
Re-examined by the Attorney-General.—“Whatever may be the
true theory as to the emptiness of the heart after strychnia, I should
say that the heart is more ordinarily empty than filled after tetanus,
and more contracted after strychnia, than in ordinary tetanus. I do
not believe that a medical practitioner would have any difficulty in
distinguishing between ordinary convulsions and tetanic
convulsions. I have heard the evidence of the gentlemen who made
the post-mortem examination, and I apprehend that there was
nothing to prevent the discovery of disease in the spinal cord had
any existed previously to death.”

Sir Benjamin Brodie’s evidence, which follows, was given
“with great clearness, slowly, audibly, and distinctly,” and produced
a marked effect.

Sir Benjamin Brodie, examined by Mr. James, Q.C.—“I have
been for many years senior surgeon to St. George’s Hospital, and
have had considerable experience as a surgeon. In the course of my
practice I have had under my care many cases of death from tetanus.
Death from idiopathic tetanus is, according to my experience, very
rare in this country. The ordinary tetanus in this country is traumatic
tetanus. I have heard the symptoms which accompanied the death of
Mr. Cook, and I am of opinion that so far as there was a general
contraction of the muscles they resembled those of traumatic
tetanus; but, as to the course those symptoms took, they were
entirely different. I have attended to the detailed description of the
attack suffered by Mr. Cook on the Monday night, its ceasing on
Tuesday, and its renewal on the Tuesday night. The symptoms of
traumatic tetanus always begin, so far as I have seen, very
gradually, the stiffness of the lower jaw being, I believe, invariably,
the symptom first complained of—at least, so it has been in my
experience. The contraction of the muscles of the back is always a
later symptom—generally much later. The muscles of the
extremities are affected in a much less degree than those of the neck
and trunk, except in some cases where the injury has been in a limb,
and an early symptom has been spasmodic contraction of the
muscles of that limb. I do not myself recollect a case of ordinary
tetanus in which occurred that contraction in the muscles of the
hand which I understand was stated to have taken place in this
instance. Again, ordinary tetanus rarely runs its course in less than
two or three days, and often is protracted to a much longer period. I
knew one case only in which the disease was said to have
terminated in so short a time as twelve hours; but probably in that
case the early symptoms had been overlooked. Again, I never knew
the symptoms of ordinary tetanus to last for a few minutes, then
subside, and then come on again after twenty-four hours. I think that
these are the principal points of difference which I perceived
between the symptoms of ordinary tetanus and those which I have
heard described in this case. I have not witnessed tetanic
convulsions from strychnia on animal life. I do not believe that
death in the case of Mr. Cook arose from what we ordinarily call

tetanus—either idiopathic or traumatic. I never knew tetanus result
from sore throat or from a chancre, or from any other form of
syphilitic disease. The symptoms were not the result either of
apoplexy or of epilepsy. Perhaps I had better say at once that I
never saw a case in which the symptoms that I have heard described
here rose from any disease. (Sensation.) When I say that, of course I
refer not to particular symptoms, but to the general course which
the symptoms took.”
Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant Shee.—“I believe I remember
one case in the physician’s ward of St. George’s Hospital, which
was shown to me as a case of idiopathic tetanus, but I doubted
whether it was tetanus at all. It was a slight case, and I do not
remember the particulars.”
Question.—“Considering how rare cases of tetanus are, do you
think that the description given by a chambermaid and a provincial
medical man, who had never seen but one case, is sufficient to
enable you to form an opinion as to the nature of the case?”
Answer.—“I must say I thought that the description was very
clearly given.”
Question.—“Supposing that they differed in their description,
which would you rely upon—the medical man or the
chambermaid?”
Lord Campbell.—“That is hardly a proper question.”
Baron Alderson.—“It may be a very proper observation for you
to make.”
Cross-examination continued.—“I never knew syphilitic poison
produce tetanic convulsions, except in cases where there was
disease of the bones of the head.”

Two other surgeons, Dr. Daniell, late surgeon to the British
Hospital, and Mr. Samuel Solly, of St. Thomas’s Hospital,
confirmed in every respect the views of the previous medical
witnesses, that the circumstances attending Cook’s death were
clearly distinguishable from those attendant on ordinary tetanus.

They relied on the fact that ordinary tetanus was always
progressive, and that it is never intermittent to the extent witnessed
in Cook’s case, and seldom endured less than from thirty to forty
hours. Mr. Solly alluded to the peculiar grin—“the risus
Sardonicus, as the first symptom of true tetanus, which is not
common to all convulsions, and which having once seen,” he said,
“you cannot forget.” He distinguished between tetanus with
convulsions and death from epileptic convulsions by the fact that
“the first seldom leaves any trace behind it, whilst the latter does
leave its trace in the shape of a slight effusion of blood on the
brain, and a congestion of the vessels.” The syphilitic theory was
finally overthrown by the testimony of Mr. Henry Lee, surgeon to
the Lock Hospital, which is exclusively devoted to syphilitic cases.
Though he saw there nearly 3000 cases a year, he had never known
one resulting in tetanus, or read of a case of primary or secondary
symptoms having that result.
In addition to these experts, on the sixth day important evidence
was given by Dr. Jackson, who had had twenty-five years’
experience of tetanus in India, on the difference of the symptoms
observed in the idiopathic and traumatic kinds; the former being
much more frequent in India than in other climates, affording him
in his practice as many as forty cases.

“It is as equally fatal,” said Dr. Jackson, “according to my
experience, as traumatic. It is frequently found, in India, in children,
both natives and Europeans, and generally takes place the third day
after birth. It will also be occasioned by cold in that climate. In
infants there is a more marked symptom of lockjaw in idiopathic
tetanus. In adults there is no difference in the symptoms from
traumatic. I have always seen the idiopathic form preceded by
premonitory symptoms, such as a peculiar expression of the
countenance, stiffness of the muscles of the throat and of the jaw.
The usual period from the attack to death in infants is forty-eight

hours; in adults, when arising from cold, it is of longer duration, and
may continue for many days, going through the same grades as the
traumatic forms.”
Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant Shee.—“The patient always
appears to be very uncomfortable shortly before an attack of
idiopathic tetanus. His appetite would not be affected, but he would
chiefly complain of the muscles of the neck. He might entertain a
desire for food, and take it as usual within twelve hours of the
attack. I never heard a patient complain of want of appetite. Within
the twelve hours I should say that the patient’s attention would be
more directed to the stiffness of his mouth and neck. I have known
cases of idiopathic tetanus, where the first paroxysm was in bed.
Difficulty of swallowing is another premonitory symptom.”
Re-examined by the Attorney-General.—“In the case of a child
not more than six hours would elapse between the premonitory
symptoms and the tetanic convulsions; in an adult the period would
not be greater than twenty-four hours. The duration of the disease
generally varies from three to ten days, but death has occurred as
early as two days. The traumatic and idiopathic cases are alike in
these respects. Both forms of the disorder are much more common
in India than they are in this country. The symptoms are not more
severe. In all my experience I never saw a case in which the disease
ran its course in twenty minutes.”

LATE EXAMPLES OF DEATH BY STRYCHNIA.

Four cases of undoubted poisoning by strychnia were brought
forward by the prosecution, in each of which the symptoms had
been observed by medical men, as well as by the attendants on the
several patients. In the first case, that of Agnes Sennett, or French,
a patient in the Glasgow Infirmary, in September, 1845, for a sore
skin, from thoughtlessness apparently, she took one of two
strychnia pills prepared for a paralytic patient, and then went and
sat by the ward fire. “In three quarters of an hour,” said Kelly,

another patient, “she was taken ill and fell back on the floor. I went
for the nurse; we took her to bed, and sent for the doctor; we were
obliged to cut her clothes off first because she never moved. She
was like a poker. She never spoke till she died.” Each pill,
according to the prescription, contained a quarter of a grain of
strychnia. When the medical clerk of the hospital saw her in bed,
the symptoms were—

“A strong retraction of the mouth; the face much suffused and
red; the pupils of the eyes dilated; the head bent back; the spine
curved, and the muscles rigid and hard as a board; the arms
stretched out; the hands clinched; and there were severe paroxysms
occurring in about a quarter of an hour. She died in about an hour
and a quarter. When I was called the paroxysms did not last so long;
but they increased in severity.” “The retraction of the mouth was
continuous, but worse at times. I do not think I observed it after
death. The hands were not clinched after death; they were semi-
bent. The symptoms appeared about thirty minutes after taking the
pills. I tried to make her vomit with a feather. She only vomited
partially after I had given her an emetic. There was spasmodic
action and grinding of the teeth. She could open her mouth and
swallow. There was no lockjaw or ordinary tetanus.”[40]

Dr. Watson, the surgeon to the infirmary, who was called in
within a quarter of an hour of the patient being taken ill, said, “She
was in violent convulsions, and her arms stretched out and rigid;
they were kept quiet by rigidity. She did not breathe, the muscles
being kept still by tetanic rigidity. That paroxysm subsided, and
fresh ones came on after a short interval. She died in about half an
hour. She was perfectly conscious. Her body was opened. The heart
was found distended and stiff. The cavities of it were empty. The
spinal cord was healthy.”

The second case, also of accidental poisoning, by the error of a
local chemist, who substituted strychnia for salicine (willow bark),
of which there ought to have been nine grains in the bottle of
medicine, was that of a Mrs. Sergeantson Smyth, residing near
Romsey. On the 30th of October, 1848, she took half a wine-glass
of the mixture, equal to a third of the whole, containing three grains
of strychnia. The effect was of course immediate. The symptoms
were identical with Cook’s.

“I left the room,” said Hickson, the lady’s maid, “when I had
given it her. Five or ten minutes afterwards I was alarmed by the
ringing of her bell. I went into her room and found her out of bed
leaning upon a chair in her night-dress. I thought she had fainted.
She appeared to suffer from what I thought were spasms. I ran and
sent the coachman for Dr. Taylor, and returned to her. Some of the
other servants were there assisting her. She was lying on the floor.
She screamed loudly, and her teeth were clinched. She asked to have
her arms and legs held straight. I took hold of them; they were very
much drawn up. She still screamed and was in great agony. She
requested that water should be thrown over her, and I threw some. I
put a bottle of hot water to her feet, but it did not relax them. Shortly
before she died she said she felt easier. The last words she uttered
were, ‘Turn me over.’ She died very quietly. She was quite conscious,
and knew me during the whole time. About an hour and a quarter
after I gave her the medicine she died.”
Cross-examined by Mr. Grove, Q.C.—“She could not sit up from
the time I went to her till she died. It was when she was in a
paroxysm that I tried to straighten her limbs. The effect of the cold
water was to throw her into a paroxysm. It was a continually
recurring attack, lasting about an hour and a quarter. Her teeth were
clinched the whole time.”
Re-examined.—“She was stiff all the time till within a few
minutes of her death. She was conscious all the time.”

Mr. Francis Taylor, of Romsey, found her dead on his arrival.
“Her body was on the floor by the bed; the hands very much bent;
the feet contracted and turned inwards; the soles of the feet
hollowed up and the toes contracted, apparently from recent
spasmodic action; the inner edge of each foot was turned; there
was a remarkable rigidity about the limbs; the body was warm, and
the eyelids almost adherent to the eyeballs.” Three days afterwards
the witness made a post-mortem examination, with the following
results:—

“The contraction of the feet continued, but it had gone off
somewhat from the rest of the body. I found no disease in the body.
The heart was contracted, and perfectly empty, as were all the large
arteries leading from it. I analysed the medicine she had taken with
another medical man. It contained a large quantity of strychnia. It
had originally contained nine grains; she had taken a third—three
grains. I made a very casual examination of the stomach and
bowels, as we had plenty of proof that poison had been taken,
without the use of tests.”
Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant Shee.—“In cases of death from
ordinary causes the body is much distorted. It does not generally
remain in the same position. If the body is not laid out immediately,
probably it is stiffened by the rigor mortis. The ankles were tied by
a bandage to keep them together. I commenced to open the body by
the thorax and abdomen. The head also was opened.”

The third case was that of a Mr. Clutterbuck, a gentleman
suffering from paralysis, on whom, with Dr. Chambers, Mr. E. D.
Moore, who detailed the case, had attended some fifteen years
before.

“We had been giving him,” said the witness, “small doses of
strychnia, when he went to Brighton. On his return he told us he had
taken larger doses of it, and we in consequence gave him a stronger

dose. I made up three draughts of a quarter of a grain each. He took
one in my presence. I remained with him a little time, and he said he
felt quite comfortable. About three quarters of an hour afterwards I
was summoned to him. I found him stiffened in every limb, and the
head drawn back. He was desirous we should move him, and turn
him and rub him. We tried to give him ammonia in a spoon, and he
snapped at it. He was suffering, I should say, more than three hours.
Sedatives were given to him. He survived the attack. He was
conscious all the time.”
Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant Shee.—“The spasms ceased in
about three hours, but the rigidity of the muscles remained till the
next day. His hands were at first drawn back, and he was much
easier when we got them round clinched together. His paralysis was
better after the attack.”
Re-examined by the Attorney-General.—“Strychnia stimulates
the nerves which act upon the voluntary muscles, and therefore acts
beneficially in cases of paralysis.”

The fourth case of poisoning by strychnia, though at this time
given anonymously, as it had not as yet been brought to a public
trial, was that of Mrs. Dove, of Leeds, more fully related in the next
report. In this case, Mrs. Witham, who had been in attendance on
the deceased, described how, after taking the medicine given to her,
“She complained first of her back; her head was thrown back; her
body stretched out; that she twitched, her eyes were drawn aside,
staring, and that when the witness put her hands on the patient’s
limbs they did not relax.” In this case the illness commenced on the
25th of February; attacks came on the 27th, 28th, and 29th (the last
a very slight one), and then again, about a quarter past eight, on the
1st of March, and the person died about twenty minutes to eleven
on that night. “She principally complained of prickings in the legs,
twitchings in the muscles and in the hands, which she said she
could compare to nothing else than a galvanic shock. Between the

attacks, she was composed. She wished her husband to rub her legs
and arms. She was dead when the doctor came.”
On cross-examination, the witness said that the sufferer “could
not bear to have her legs touched when the spasms were strong
upon her. Her limbs were rigidly extended when she asked to be
rubbed between the intervals of the spasms. Touching her then
brought on the spasms. Her body was stiff immediately after
death,” but how long it continued so the witness could not say, as
she did not stay long. She was sensible from half an hour to an
hour, from a quarter past eight till after nine, and the witness
supposed she was insensible the remainder of the time; she did not
speak. On the Saturday before she died the symptoms were the
same as on the other days—not more violent.”
Mr. Morley, the surgeon who had attended this case, and whose
opinion as to the symptoms being identical with those in the
present inquiry, was directly opposed by Mr. Nunneley, of Leeds,
who had then assisted him in the post-mortem examination, not
only detailed the symptoms he then saw, but also the method and
results of his subsequent examination of the body.

“I had attended,” said Mr. Morley, “on the lady to whom the last
witness has alluded for about two months before her death. On the
Monday before she died she was in her bed, apparently comfortable,
when I observed (as I stood by her side) several slight convulsive
twitchings of her arms. I supposed they arose from hysteria, and
ordered medicine in consequence. The same symptoms appeared on
the following Wednesday and Thursday. I saw her on Saturday, the
day she died. She was apparently better and quite composed in the
middle of the day. She complained of an attack she had had at night.
She spoke of pain and spasms in her back and neck, and of shocks. I
and another medical man were sent for hastily on Saturday night.
We were met by an announcement that the lady was dead. On the
Monday I accompanied another medical gentleman (Nunneley) to

the post-mortem examination. We found no disease in any part of
the body which would account for death. There was no emaciation,
wound, or sore. There was a peculiar expression of anxiety in the
countenance. The hands were bent and the fingers curved. The feet
were strongly arched. We carefully examined the stomach and its
contents for poison. We applied several tests—nitric acid, followed
by protochloride of tin,[41] sulphuric acid, followed by bichromate
of potash in a liquid and also in a solid state. They are the best tests
to detect strychnia. In each case we found appearances characteristic
of strychnia. We administered the strychnia taken from the stomach
to animals by inoculation—to two mice, two rabbits, and a guinea-
pig, having first separated it by chemical analysis. We observed in
each of the animals more or less of the effects produced by
strychnia, namely—general uneasiness, difficult breathing,
convulsions of a tetanic kind, muscular rigidity, arching backwards
of the head and neck, violent stretching out of the legs. These
symptoms appeared in some of the animals in four or five minutes,
in others in less than an hour. The guinea-pig suffered but slightly at
first, and was left, and was dead next day. The symptoms were
strongly marked in the rabbits. After death there was an interval of
flaccidity, after which rigidity commenced, more than if it had been
occasioned by the rigor mortis. I afterwards made numerous
experiments on animals with exactly similar results, the poison
being administered in a fluid form.”
Cross-examined by Mr. Grove.—“I did not see the patient during
a severe attack. I have observed in animals that spasms are brought
on by touch. That is a very marked symptom. The spasm is like a
galvanic shock. The patient was not at all insensible during the time
I saw her, and she was able to swallow, but I did not see her during a
severe attack. After death we found the lungs very much congested.
There was a small quantity of bloody serum found in the
pericardium. The muscles of the whole body were dark and soft.
There was a decided quantity of effusion in the brain. There was
also a quantity of serum tinged with blood in the membranes of the
spinal cord. The membranes of the spinal marrow were congested to

a considerable extent. We opened the head first, and there was a
good deal of blood flowing out. Part of the blood may have flowed
from the heart. That might partially empty the heart, and would
make it uncertain whether the heart was full or empty at the time of
death. I have often examined the hearts of animals poisoned by
strychnia. The right side of the heart is generally full. In some cases
I think that the symptoms did not appear for an hour after the
administration of the poison. I have made the experiments in
conjunction with Mr. Nunneley. We have made experiments upon
frogs, but they are different in many respects from warm-blooded
animals. I have in almost all cases found the strychnia where it was
known to have been administered. In one case it was doubtful. We
were sure the strychnia had been administered in that case, but we
doubted whether it had reached the stomach. There were
appearances which might lead one to infer the presence of strychnia,
but they were not satisfactory. I have detected strychnia in the
stomach nearly two months after death, when decomposition has
proceeded to a considerable extent.”
Re-examined by the Attorney-General.—“From half a grain to a
grain has been administered to cats, rabbits, and dogs. From one to
two grains is quite sufficient to kill a dog.”
Question.—“How does the strychnia act? Is it taken up by the
absorbents, and carried into the system?”
Answer.—“I think it acts upon the nerves, but a part may be
taken into the blood and act through the blood. We generally
examined the stomach of the animals when the poison had been
administered internally. Sometimes we examined the skin. The
poison found in the stomach would be in excess of that absorbed
into the system.”
Question.—“Are you then of opinion that, a portion of the
poison being taken into the system and a portion being left in the
stomach, the portion taken into the system would produce tetanic
symptoms and death?”
Mr. Serjeant Shee objected to a question which suggested a
theory.

The Attorney-General.—“What would be the operation of that
portion of the poison which is taken into the system?”
Answer.—“It would destroy life.”
Mr. Baron Alderson.—“And yet leave an excess in the
stomach?”
Answer.—“That is my opinion.”
The Attorney-General.—“Would the excess remaining in the
stomach produce no effect?”
Answer.—“I am not sure that strychnia could lie in the stomach
without acting prejudicially.”
Question.—“Suppose that a minimum quantity is administered,
which, being absorbed into the system, destroys life, should you
expect to find any in the stomach?”
Answer.—“I should expect sometimes to fail in discovering it.”
Question.—“If death resulted from a series of minimum doses
spread over several days, would the appearance of the body be
different from that of one whose death had been caused by one
dose?”
Answer.—“I should connect the appearance of the body with the
final struggle of the last day.”
Question.—“Would you expect a different set of phenomena in
cases where death had taken place after a brief struggle, and in cases
where the struggle had been protracted?”
Answer.—“Certainly. At the post-mortem examination of which
I have spoken we found fluid blood in the veins.”
Mr. Serjeant Shee.—“Is it your theory that in the action of
poisoning the poison becomes absorbed and ceases to exist as
poison?”
Answer.—“I have thought much upon that question, and have
not formed a decided opinion, but I am inclined to think that it is so.
A part may be absorbed and a part remain in the stomach
unchanged.”

Mr. Serjeant Shee.—“What chymical reason can you give for
your opinion that strychnia, after having effected the operation of
poisoning, ceases to be strychnia in the blood?”
Answer.—“My opinion rests upon the general principle that, in
acting upon living bodies, organic substances—such as food and
medicine—are generally changed in their composition.”
Mr. Serjeant Shee.—“What are the component parts of
strychnia?”
Mr. Baron Alderson.—“You will find that in any cyclopædia,
brother Shee.”
Mr. Serjeant Shee.—“Have you any reason to believe that
strychnia can be decomposed by any sort of putrefying or
fermenting process?”
Witness.—“I doubt whether it can.”[42]

ANALYTICAL EVIDENCE.

On the fifth day, the late Doctor Alfred Swaine Taylor, the well-
known Analytical Chemist and Author of “Medical Jurisprudence”
(the text-book of the legal profession in all criminal investigations),
Doctor Owen Rees, now one of the physicians extraordinary to her
Majesty, and the late Professor Brande, of the Royal Institution,
were called as witnesses. By the two first, the analytical
examination of the various parts of Mr. Cook’s body had been
conducted, and they had made a joint report of the results. By the
last, that report had been carefully examined, and he had also heard
all the evidence as to symptoms previously given in the case. No
inconsiderable portion of the cross-examination of Dr. Taylor was
occupied by questions connected with the publication, in the
Illustrated Times, by Mr. Augustus Mayhew, of what professed to
be statements as to the details of their analysis by Dr. Taylor and
Dr. Rees, in which, if correctly reported, the former had committed

himself somewhat prematurely to opinions on the case, and had
used expressions towards the prisoner which, to say the least, were
not discreet. Dr. Taylor, however, stoutly maintained that he had
not used many of the expressions objected to; that the opportunity
of interviewing him, after the American fashion, had been unfairly
obtained, and the pretended report published not only without, but
contrary to, his expressed wish. Except, however, as throwing a
shade of partisanship over his conduct, and so far lessening the
value of his evidence, the whole episode was useless to the defence
—perhaps, to a certain extent, injurious. Dr. Taylor had been hasty
and injudicious, and undoubtedly taken at an advantage by the
energetic reporter, who certainly obtained his interview with him
by pretences not strictly true.[43] With these remarks, due to Dr.
Taylor’s reputation and abilities, we proceed to give his evidence.

Dr. Alfred Swaine Taylor, examined by the Attorney-General.
—“I am a fellow of the College of Physicians, lecturer on medical
jurisprudence at Guy’s Hospital, and the author of the well-known
treatise on poisons and on medical jurisprudence. I have made the
poison called strychnia the subject of my attention. It is the produce
of the nux vomica, which also contains brucia, a poison of an
analogous character. Brucia is variously estimated at from one-sixth
to one-twelfth the strength of strychnia. Most varieties of impure
strychnia that are sold contain more or less brucia. Unless, therefore,
you are certain as to the purity of the article, you may be misled as
to its strength. I have performed a variety of experiments with
strychnia on animal life. I have never witnessed its action on a
human subject. I have tried its effects upon animal life—upon
rabbits—in ten or twelve instances. The symptoms are, on the
whole, very uniform. The quantity I have given has varied from half
a grain to two grains. Half a grain is sufficient to destroy a rabbit. I
have given it both in a solid and liquid state. When given in a fluid
state it produces its effects in a very few minutes; when in a solid
state, as a sort of pill or bolus, in about six to eleven minutes. The

time varies according to the strength of the dose, and also to the
strength of the animal.”
Question.—“In what way does it operate, in your opinion?”
Answer.—“It is first absorbed into the blood, then circulated
through the body, and especially acts on the spinal cord, from which
proceed the nerves acting on the voluntary muscles.”
Question.—“Supposing the poison has been absorbed, what time
would you give for the circulating process?”
Answer.—“The circulation of the blood through the whole
system is considered to take place about once in four minutes. The
circulation in animals is quicker. The absorption of the poison by
rabbits is therefore quicker. The time would also depend on the state
of the stomach,—whether it contained much food or not, whether
the poison came into immediate contact with the inner surface of the
stomach.”
Question.—“In your opinion, does the poison act immediately
on the nervous system, or must it first be absorbed?”
Answer.—“It must first be absorbed.”
Question.—“The symptoms, you say, are uniform. Will you
describe them?”
Answer.—“The animal for about five or six minutes does not
appear to suffer, but moves about gently; when the poison begins to
act it suddenly falls on its side; there is a trembling, a quivering
motion of the whole of the muscles of the body, arising from the
poison producing violent and involuntary contraction. There is then
a sudden paroxysm or fit, the fore legs and the hind legs are
stretched out, the head and the tail are drawn back in the form of a
bow, the jaws are spasmodically closed, the eyes are prominent;
after a short time there is a slight remission of the symptoms, and
the animal appears to lie quiet, but the slightest noise or touch
reproduces another convulsive paroxysm; sometimes there is a
scream, or a sort of shriek, as if the animal suffered from pain; the
heart beats violently during the fit, and after a succession of these
fits the animal dies quietly. Sometimes, however, the animal dies

during a spasm, and I only know that death has occurred from
holding my hand over the heart. The appearances after death differ.
In some instances the rigidity continues. In one case the muscles
were so strongly contracted for a week afterwards, that it was
possible to hold the body by its hind legs stretched out horizontally.
In an animal killed the other day the body was flaccid at the time of
death, but became rigid about five minutes afterwards. I have
opened the bodies of animals thus destroyed.”
Question.—“Could you detect any injury in the stomach?”
Answer.—“No. I have found in some cases congestion of the
membranes of the spinal cord to a greater extent than would be
accounted for by the gravitation of the blood. In other cases I have
found no departure from the ordinary state of the spinal cord and the
brain. I ascribe congestion to the succession of fits before death. In a
majority of instances, three out of five, I found no change in the
abnormal condition of the spine. In all cases the heart has been
congested, especially the right side. I saw a case of ordinary tetanus
in the human subject years ago, but I have not had much experience
of such cases. I saw one case last Thursday week at St.
Bartholomew’s Hospital. The patient recovered.”
Question.—“You have heard the description given by the
witnesses of the symptoms and appearances which accompanied
Cook’s attacks?”
Answer.—“I have.”
Question.—“Were those symptoms and appearances the same as
those you have observed in the animals to which you administered
strychnia?”
Answer.—“They were. Death has taken place in the animals
more rapidly when the poison has been administered in a fluid than
in a solid form. They have died at various periods after the
administration of the poison. The experiments I have performed
lately have been entirely in reference to solid strychnia. In the first
case the symptoms began in seven minutes, and the animal died
(including those seven) in thirteen minutes. In the second case the
symptoms appeared in nine minutes, and the animal died in

seventeen. In the third case the symptoms appeared in ten minutes,
and the animal died in eighteen. In the fourth case the symptoms
appeared in five minutes, and death took place in twenty-two. In the
fifth case the symptoms appeared in twelve minutes, and death
occurred in twenty-three. If the poison were taken by the human
subject in pills it would take a longer time to act, because the
structure of the pill must be broken up in order to bring the poison
in contact with the mucous membrane of the stomach. I have
administered it to rabbits in pills.”
Question.—“Would poison given in pills take a longer period to
operate on a human subject than on a rabbit?”
Answer.—“I do not think we can draw any inference from a
comparison of the rapidity of death in a human subject and in a
rabbit. The circulation and absorption are different in the two cases.
There is also a difference between one human subject and another.
The strength of the dose, too, would make a difference, as a large
dose would produce a more rapid effect than a small one. I have
experimented upon the intestines of animals, in order to reproduce
the strychnia. The process consists in putting the stomach and its
contents in alcohol, with a small quantity of acid which dissolves
the strychnia, and produces sulphate of strychnia in the stomach.
The liquid is then filtered, gently evaporated, and an alkali added—
carbonate of potash, which combines with the sulphuric acid, and
precipitates the strychnia. Tests are applied to the strychnia, or
supposed strychnia, when extracted. Strychnia has a peculiar
strongly bitter taste. It is not soluble in water, but it is in acids and in
alcohol. The colour tests are applied to the dry residue after
evaporation. Change of colour is produced by a mixture of sulphuric
acid and bichromate of potash. It produces a blue colour, changing
to violet and purple, and passing to red; but colouring tests are very
fallacious, with this exception,—when we have strychnia separated
in its crystallised state we can recognise the crystals by their form
and their chemical properties, and, above all, by the tetanic
symptoms and death when administered through a wound in the
skin of animals.”[44]

Question.—“Are there other vegetable substances from which, if
these colouring tests were applied, similar colours could be
obtained?”
Answer.—“There are a variety of mixtures which produce
similar colours;[45] one of them also has a bitter taste like
strychnine.[46] Vegetable poisons are more difficult of detection than
mineral: the tests are far more fallacious. I have endeavoured to
discover the presence of strychnine in animals I have poisoned in
four cases, assisted by Dr. Rees. I have applied the process I first
described. I have applied the tests of colouring and taste. In one case
I discovered some by the colour test. In a second case there was a
bitter taste, but no other indication of strychnine. In the other two
cases there were no indications at all. In the case where it had been
discovered by the colour test, two grains had been administered; and
in the second case, where there was a bitter taste, one grain. In one
of the cases where we failed to detect it, one grain, and, in the other,
half a grain had been given. I account for the absence of any
indication, because it is absorbed in the blood, and is no longer in
the stomach. It is in a great part changed in the blood. When
administered in large doses there is a retention of some in excess of
what is required for the destruction of life.”
Question.—“Supposing a minimum dose, which will destroy
life, has been given, could you find any?”
Answer.—“No. It is taken up by absorption, and is no longer
discoverable in the stomach. The smallest quantity by which I have
destroyed an animal is half a grain. There is no process with which I
am acquainted by which it can be discovered in the tissue.[47] As far
as I know, a small quantity cannot be discovered.”
Question.—“Suppose half a grain to be absorbed into the blood,
what proportion does it bear to the total quantity of blood circulated
in the system?”
Answer.—“Assuming the system to contain the lowest quantity
of blood—25lb.—it would be one-fiftieth of a grain to a pound of
blood. A physician once died from a dose of half a grain in twenty

minutes. I believe it undergoes some partial change in the blood
which increases the difficulty of discovering it. I never heard of its
being separated from the tissues in a crystallised state. The crystals
are peculiar in form, but there are other organic crystallised
substances like them, so that a chemist will not rely on form only.
After the post-mortem examination, a portion of the stomach was
delivered to me by Mr. Boycott, covered with bladder, tied and
sealed. The jar contained the stomach and the intestines. I have
experimented upon them with a view to discover if any poison was
present. I sought for prussic acid, morphia, strychnia, veratria,
tobacco poison, hemlock, arsenic, antimony, mercury, and other
mineral poisons, but only found small traces of antimony. The parts
on which I had to operate were in the most unfavourable condition
that could possibly be. The stomach had been cut completely from
end to end; all the contents were gone, and the fine mucous surface,
on which any poison, if present, would have been found, was lying
in contact with the outside of the intestines—all thrown together.
The inside of the stomach was lying in a mass of intestinal fœcal
matter. That was, I presume, the fault or misfortune of the person
who dissected, but it seemed to have been shaken about in every
possible way in its journey to London.[48] By my request the spleen,
two kidneys, and a small bottle of blood, were sent up to me. We
had no idea where the blood came from. Each part of the liver, one
kidney, and the spleen, all yielded antimony. It was reproduced, or
brought out by boiling the animal matter in a mixture of
hydrochloric acid and water. Copper, in the shape of foil and gauze
in a sort of web of fine copper, was introduced, and the antimony
was found deposited on the copper. The quantity of antimony was
less in proportion in the spleen than in the other parts. I detected
some antimony in the blood. We applied the tests of Professor
Brande, Dr. Rees, and others. It is impossible to say how recently it
had been administered, but I should say shortly before death, that is,
within some days. The longest period at which antimony can be
found in the blood after death, within my knowledge, is eight days;
the earliest period, within my knowledge, eighteen hours. A boy

died within eighteen hours after taking it, and it was found in his
liver. It is usually given in the form of tartar emetic; it acts as an
irritant, and produces vomiting. If given in repeated doses, a portion
would find its way into the blood and the system, beyond what was
ejected. If it continued to be given after it had produced certain
symptoms, it would destroy life. It may, however, be given with
impunity.”

Referring to the symptoms previously proved in Cook’s case,
the witness said—
“Vomitings produced by antimony would cause those symptoms.
If given in small quantities, sufficient to cause vomiting, it would
not affect the colour of the liquid with which it was mixed, whether
brandy, wine, broth, or water. It is impossible to form an exact
judgment when the antimony was administered, but it must have
been two or three weeks at the outside before death. There was no
evidence that it was administered within some hours before death. It
might leave a sensation in the throat—a choking sensation—if a
large quantity was given at once. I found no trace of mercury during
the analysis. If a few grains had been taken recently before death, I
should have expected to find some trace. If a man had taken
mercury for a syphilitic affection within two or three weeks, I should
have expected to find it. It is very slow in passing out of the body.
As small a quantity as three or four grains might leave some trace. I
recollect a case in which three grains of calomel were given three or
four hours before death, and traces of mercury were found. Half a
grain three or four days before death, if given in divided doses more
favourable for absorption, would, I should expect, leave a trace. One
grain would certainly do so.” The witness agreed with the opinion of
the other witnesses as to the causes of the deaths of Mrs. Smyth,
Agnes French, and the other lady (Mrs. Dove), and of the attack of
Clutterbuck, and that the symptoms in Mr. Cook’s case appeared to
be of a similar character. As a professor of medical science, he did

not know any cause in the range of human disease, except strychnia,
to which the symptoms in Cook’s case could be referred.

The cross-examination of Dr. Taylor was necessarily very
diffuse and lengthy; with the exception, however, of the part in
which it was sought to raise a prejudice against the witness as a
partisan, to which I have previously referred, it was so important
that, like the examination in chief, it must, in justice to all parties,
be reported at length.
Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant Shee.—“I mean by the word
‘trace’ a very small quantity, which can hardly be estimated by
weight. I do not apply it in the sense of an imponderable quantity. In
chemical language it is frequently used in that sense. An
infinitesimal quantity would be called ‘a trace.’ The quantity of
antimony that we discovered in all parts of the body would make up
about half a grain. We did not ascertain that there was that quantity,
but I will undertake to say that we extracted as much as half a
grain. That quantity would not be sufficient to cause death. Only
arsenic or antimony could have been deposited, under the
circumstances, on the copper, and no sublimate of arsenic was
obtained.” [The witness, in reply to a further question, detailed the
elaborate test which he had applied to the deposit, in order to
ascertain that it consisted of antimony.]
Question.—“Would a mistake in any one of the processes you
have described, or a defect in any of the materials you have used,
defeat the object of the test?”
Answer.—“It would, but all the materials I used were pure. Such
an accident could not have happened without my having some
intimation of it in the course of the process. I should think antimony
would operate more quickly upon animals than upon men. I am
acquainted with the works of Orfila. He stood in the highest rank of
analytical chemists.”

Question.—“Did not Orfila find antimony in a dog four months
after injection?”
Answer.—“Yes; but the animal had taken about forty-five
grains.”
Mr. Serjeant Shee called the attention of the witness to a passage
in Orfila’s work in reference to that case, to the effect that the
antimony was found accumulating in the bones, the liver contained
a great deal, and the tissues a very little.
Witness.—“Yes; when antimony has been long in the body it
passes into the bones; but I think you will find that these are not
Orfila’s experiments. Orfila is quoting the experiments of another
person.”[49]
Question.—“But is not that the case with nearly all the
experiments referred to in your own book?”
Answer.—“No; I cannot say that.”
Mr. Serjeant Shee again referred to a case in Orfila in which
forty-five grains were given to a dog, and three and a half months
after death a quantity was found in the fat, and some in the liver,
bones, and tissues.
Witness.—“That shows that antimony gets into the bones and
flesh, but I never knew a case in which forty-five grains had been
given to a human being in ten days, and I have given no opinion
upon such a case.”
Question.—“A pretty good dose is required to poison a person, I
suppose?”
Answer.—“That depends on the mode in which it is given. A dog
has been poisoned with six grains. The dog died in the case you
mentioned. When antimony is administered as it was in that case the
liver becomes fatty and gristled. Cook’s liver presented no
appearance of the sort. I should infer that the antimony we found in
Cook’s body was given much more recently than in the experiments
you have described. We cannot say positively how long it takes to
get out of the body, but I have known three grains cleared out in
twenty-four hours. I was first applied to in this case on Thursday, the

27th of November, by Mr. Stevens, who was introduced to me by
Mr. Warrington, professor of chemistry. Either then or subsequently
he mentioned Mr. Gardner. I had not known Mr. Gardner before. I
had never before been concerned in cases of this kind at Rugeley.”

Mr. Serjeant Shee read the letter written by Dr. Taylor to Mr.
Gardner:

“Chemical Laboratory, Guy’s Hospital,
“Dec. 4, 1855.
“Re J. P. Cook, Esq., deceased.
“Dear Sir,—Dr. Rees and I have completed the analysis to-day.
We have sketched a report, which will be ready to-morrow or next
day.
“As I am going to Durham Assizes on the part of the Crown, in
the case of Reg. v. Wooler, the report will be in the hands of Dr.
Rees, No. 26, Albemarle-street. It will be most desirable that Mr.
Stevens should call on Dr. Rees, read the report with him, and put
such questions as may occur.
“In reply to your letter received here this morning I beg to say
that we wish a statement of all the medicines prescribed for
deceased (until his death) to be drawn up and sent to Dr. Rees.
“We do not find strychnine, prussic acid, or any trace of opium.
From the contents having been drained away it is now impossible to
say whether any strychnine had or had not been given just before
death, but it is quite possible for tartar emetic to destroy life if given
in repeated doses; and, so far as we can at present form an opinion,
in the absence of any natural cause of death, the deceased may have
died from the effects of antimony in this or some other form.
“We are, dear Sir, yours faithfully,
“Alfred S. Taylor.
“G. Owen Rees.”

Question.—“Was that your opinion at the time?”

Answer.—“It was. We could infer nothing else.”
Question.—“Have you not said that the quantity of antimony
you found was not sufficient to account for death?”
Answer.—“Certainly. If a man takes antimony he first vomits,
and then a part of the antimony goes out of the body; some may
escape from the bowels. A great deal passes at once into the blood
by absorption, and is carried out by the urine.”
Question.—“Can you say upon your oath that from the traces in
Cook’s body you were justified in stating your opinion that death
was caused by antimony?”
Answer.—“Yes; perfectly and distinctly. That which is found in a
dead body is not the slightest criterion as to what the man took
when alive.”
Question.—“When you gave your opinion that Cook died from
the effects of antimony, had you any reason to think that an undue
quantity had been administered?”
Answer.—“I could not tell. People may die from large or small
quantities; the quantity found in the body was no criterion as to how
much he had taken.”
Question.—“May not the injudicious use of a quack medicine
containing antimony, the injudicious use of James’s powders,
account for the antimony you found in the body?”
Answer.—“Yes; the injudicious use of any antimonial medicine
would account for it.”
Question.—“Or even their judicious use?”
Answer.—“It might.”
Question.—“With that knowledge, upon being consulted with
regard to Cook, you gave it as your opinion that he died from the
poison of antimony?”
Answer.—“You pervert my meaning entirely. I said that
antimony in the form of tartar emetic might occasion vomiting and
other symptoms of irritation, and that in large doses it would cause
death, preceded by convulsions.” [The witness was proceeding to
read his report upon the case, but was stopped by the Court.] “I was

told that the deceased was in good health seven or eight days before
his death, and that he had been taken very sick and ill, and had died
in convulsions. No further particulars being given us, we were left
to suppose that he had not died a natural death. There was no natural
cause to account for death; and finding antimony existing
throughout the body, we thought it might have been caused by
antimony. An analysis cannot be made effectually without
information.”
Question.—“You think it necessary before you can rely upon an
analysis to have received a long statement of the symptoms before
death?”
Answer.—“A short statement will do.”
Question.—“You allow your judgment to be influenced by the
statement of a person who knows nothing of his own knowledge?”
Answer.—“I do not allow my judgment to be influenced in any
way; I judge by the result.”
Question.—“Do you mean to say that what Mr. Stevens told you
did not assist you in arriving at the conclusion you state in writing?”
Answer.—“I stated it as a possible case—not as a certainty. If we
had found a large quantity of tartar emetic in the stomach we should
have come to the conclusion that the man died from it. As we found
only a small quantity, we said he might have died from it. I attended
the coroner’s inquest, first, I think, on December 14. Some of the
evidence was read over to me. I think that Dr. Harland was the first
witness I heard examined. I heard Mr. Bamford, and also Lavinia
Barnes. I cannot say as to Newton. I heard Jones. I had
experimented some years ago on five of the rabbits I have
mentioned. That is the only knowledge of my own that I had of the
effect of strychnia upon animal life when I wrote my book. I have a
great objection to the sacrifice of life. No toxicologist will sacrifice
the lives of one hundred rabbits to establish facts which he knows to
be already well established. I experimented on the last rabbits since
the inquest.”

Question.—“Do you not think it rather rash to judge of the
effects of strychnia on man by so small an experiment?”
Answer.—“You must add to the experiment the study of poisons
and cases.”
Question.—“Do you not think that a rabbit is a very unfair
animal to select?”
Answer.—“No.”
Question.—“Would not a dog be better?”
Answer.—“They are very dangerous to handle.”
Question.—“Do you mean to give that answer?”
Answer.—“Dogs and cats bear a greater analogy to man because
they vomit, while rabbits do not; but rabbits are much more
manageable.”
Question.—“Do you admit that as to the action of the respiratory
organs they would be better than rabbits?”
Answer.—“I do not.”
Question.—“As to the effect of poison would they not?”
Answer.—“I think a rabbit quite as good as any animal. The
poison is retained, and its operation is shown. At the inquest I saw
Mr. Gardner (the solicitor of Mr. Stevens). I suggested questions to
the coroner. Some of them he put to the witnesses, and others they
answered upon my suggesting them. Ten days before the inquest Mr.
Gardner informed me in his letter that strychnia, Battley’s solution,
and prussic acid, had been purchased on Tuesday; that was why I
used the expressions to which you have referred. We did not allow
that information to have any influence on our report.” [The
witness’s deposition before the coroner was then read.] “Having
given my evidence, I returned to town, and soon afterwards heard
that the prisoner had been committed on a charge of wilful murder.”
Question.—“And that his life depended in a great degree on
you?”
Answer.—“No. I simply gave an opinion as to the poison, not as
to the prisoner’s case. I knew I should probably be examined as a

witness on the trial.”
Question.—“Do you think it your duty to abstain from all public
discussion of the question which might influence the public mind.”
Answer.—“Yes.”
Question.—“Did you write a letter to the Lancet?”
Answer.—“Yes, to contradict several mis-statements of my
evidence that had been made.”
Letter to Lancet of Feb. 2, 1856, read, in which Dr. Taylor said:
—“During the quarter of a century which I have now specially
devoted to toxicological inquiries, I have never met with any cases
like these suspected cases of poisoning at Rugeley. The mode in
which they will affect the person accused is of minor importance
compared with their probable influence on society. I have no
hesitation in saying that the future security of life in this country
will mainly depend on the judge, the jury, and the counsel who may
have to dispose of the charges of murder which have arisen out of
these investigations.”[50]
Cross-examination continued.—“That is my opinion now. It had
been stated that if strychnia caused death it could always be found,
which I deny. It had also been circulated in every newspaper that a
person could not be killed by tartar emetic, which I deny, and which
might have led to the destruction of hundreds of lives. I entertained
no prejudice against the prisoner. What I meant was that if these
statements which I had seen in medical and other periodicals were
to have their way there was not a life in the country which was
safe.”
Question.—“Do you adhere to your opinion that ‘the mode in
which they will affect the person accused,’ that is, lead him to the
scaffold, ‘is of minor importance, compared with their probable
influence on society’?”
Answer.—“I have never suggested that they should lead him to
the scaffold. I hope that, if innocent, he will be acquitted.”
Question.—“What do you mean by the mode in which they will
affect the person accused being of minor importance?”

Answer.—“The lives of sixteen millions of people are, in my
opinion, of greater importance than that of one man.”
Question.—“That is your opinion?”
Answer.—“Yes. As you appear to put that as an objection to my
evidence, allow me to state that in two dead bodies I find antimony.
In one case death occurred suddenly, and in the other the body was
saturated with antimony, which I never found before in the
examination of three hundred bodies. I say these were
circumstances which demanded explanation.”
Question.—“You adhere to the opinion that, as a medical man
and a member of an honourable profession, you were right in
publishing this letter before the trial of the person accused?”
Answer.—“I think I had a right to state that opinion in answer to
the comments which had been made upon my evidence.”
Question.—“Had any comments been made by the prisoner?”
Answer.—“No.”
Question.—“Or by any of his family?”
Answer.—“Mr. Smith, the solicitor for the defence, circulated in
every paper statements of ‘Dr. Taylor’s inaccuracy.’ I had no wish or
motive to charge the prisoner with this crime. My duty concerns the
lives of all.”

I omit here the numerous questions about Mr. Mayhew’s visit,
and take up the cross-examination with the witness’s opinion of
Cook’s symptoms.

“Cook’s symptoms were quite in accordance with an ordinary
case of poisoning by strychnia.”
Question.—“Can you tell me any case in which a patient after
being seized with tetanic symptoms sat up in bed and talked?”
Answer.—“It was after he sat up that Cook was seized with these
symptoms.”
Question.—“Can you refer to a case in which a patient who had
taken strychnia beat the bed with his or her arms?”

Answer.—“It is exactly what I should expect to arise from a
sense of suffocation.”
Question.—“Do you know in your reading of any case in which
the symptoms of poisoning by strychnia commenced with beating of
the bed clothes?”
Answer.—“There have been only about fifteen cases, and in
none of those was the patient seized in bed. Beating of the bed
clothes is a symptom which may be exhibited by a person suffering
from a sense of suffocation, whether caused by strychnia or other
causes. A case has been communicated to me by a friend, in which
the patient shook as though with an ague.” [Answer objected to, but
allowed as witness had been questioned as to the results of his
reading.] “I have known of no case of poisoning by strychnia in
which the patient screamed before he was seized. That is common in
ordinary convulsions. In cases of poisoning by strychnia the patient
screams when the spasms set in; the pain is very severe. I cannot
refer to a case in which the patient has spoken freely after the
paroxysms had commenced.”
Question.—“Can you refer me to any case in an authentic
publication in which the access of the strychnia paroxysm has been
delayed so long after the injection of the poison as in the case of
Cook on Tuesday night?”
Answer.—“Yes; longer. In my book on Medical Jurisprudence,
p. 185, 5th Edition, it is stated that in a case communicated to the
Lancet, Aug. 31, 1850, by Mr. Bennett, a grain and a half of
strychnia taken by mistake destroyed the life of a healthy female in
an hour and a half. None of the symptoms appeared for an hour.
There is a case in which the period which elapsed was two hours
and a half. A grain and a half is a full, but not a very considerable,
dose. In my book on Poisons there is no case in which the paroxysm
commenced more than an hour and a half after the injection of the
poison. That book is eight years old, and since 1848 cases have
occurred. There is a mention of one in which three hours elapsed
before the paroxysms occurred.”

Mr. Serjeant Shee then referred to the case, and called attention
to the fact that the only statement as to time was that in three hours
the patient lost his speech, and was seized with violent convulsions.
[51]

Cross-examination continued.—“I know of no other fatal case in
which the interval was so long. In that case there was disease of the
brain. Referring to the Lancet, I find that in the case to which I
referred, as communicated by Dr. Bennett, the strychnia was
dissolved in cinnamon water. Being dissolved, one would have
expected it to have a more speedy action. The time in which a
patient would recover would depend entirely upon the dose of
strychnia which had been taken. I do not remember any case in
which a patient recovered in three or four hours, but such cases must
have occurred. There is one mentioned in my book on Medical
Jurisprudence. The patient had taken nux vomica, but its powers
depend upon strychnia. In that case the violence of the paroxysms
gradually subsided, and the next day, although feeble and exhausted,
the patient was able to walk home. The time of the recovery is a
point which is not usually stated by medical men. I cannot mention
any case in which there was a repetition of the paroxysms after so
long an interval as that from Monday to Tuesday night, which
occurred in Cook’s case. I do not think that the attack on Tuesday
night was the result of anything which had been administered to him
on the Monday night. In the cases of four out of five rabbits the
rigidity was continued at the time of death and after death. In the
other the animal was flaccid at the time of death.”
Question.—“Are you acquainted with this opinion of Dr.
Christison, that in these cases rigidity does not come on at the time
of death, but comes on shortly afterwards?”
Answer.—“Dr. Christison speaks from his experience, and I
from mine.”
Question.—“Did you hear that Dr. Bamford said that when he
arrived he found the body of Cook quite straight in bed?”

Answer.—“Yes.”
Question.—“Can that have been a case of ophisthotonos?”
Answer.—“It may have been.”
Question.—“Are not the colour tests of strychnia so uncertain
and fallacious that they cannot be depended upon?”
Answer.—“Yes, unless you first get the strychnia in a visible and
tangible form.”
Question.—“Is it not impossible to get it so from the stomach?”
Answer.—“It is not impossible; it depends upon the quantity
which remains there.”
Question.—“You do not agree that the fiftieth part of a grain
might be discovered?”
Answer.—“I think not.”
Question.—“Nor even half a grain?”
Answer.—“That might be. It would depend upon the quantity of
food in the stomach with which it was mixed.”
Re-examined by the Attorney-General.—“In cases of death from
strychnia the heart is sometimes found empty after death. That is the
case of human subjects. There are three such cases on record. I think
that emptiness results from spasmodic affection of the heart. I know
of no reason why that should rather occur in the case of man than in
that of a small animal like a rabbit. The heart is generally more
filled when the paroxysms are frequent. When the paroxysm is short
and violent, and causes death in a few moments, I should expect to
find the heart empty. The rigidity after death always affects the same
muscles; those of the limbs and back. In the case of the rabbit, in
which the rigidity was relaxed at the time of death, it returned while
the body was warm. In ordinary death it only occurs when the body
is cold, or nearly so. I never knew a case of tetanus in which the
rigidity lasted two months after death; but such a fact would give
me the impression that there were very violent spasms. It would
indicate great violence of the spasms from which the person died.
The time which elapses between the taking of strychnia and the
commencement of the paroxysms depends on the constitution and

strength of the individual. A feeling of suffocation is one of the
earliest symptoms of poisoning by strychnia, and that would lead
the patient to beat the bedclothes. I have no doubt that the
substances I used for the purpose of analysis were pure. I had tested
them. The fact that three distinct processes each gave the same
result was strong confirmation of each. I have no doubt that what we
found was antimony. The quantity found does not enable me to say
how much was taken. It might be the residue of either large or small
doses. Sickness would throw off some portion of the antimony
which had been administered. We did not analyse the bones and
tissues. I suggested questions to the coroner because he did not put
such as enabled me to form an opinion. I think that arose rather
from want of knowledge than intention. There was an omission to
take down the answers. At the time I wrote to Mr. Gardiner I had not
learnt the symptoms which attended the attack and death of Cook. I
had only the information that he was well seven days before he died,
and had died in convulsions. I had not information to lead me to
suppose that strychnia had been the cause of death, except that
Palmer had purchased strychnia. Failing to find opium, prussic acid,
or strychnia, I referred to antimony as the only substance found in
the body. Before writing to the Lancet, I had been made the subject
of a great many attacks. What I had said as to the possibility or
impossibility of discovering strychnia after death had been
misrepresented. In various newspapers it had been represented that I
had said strychnia could never be detected—that it was destroyed by
putrefaction. What I had said was, that when absorbed in the blood
it could not be separated as strychnia. I wrote the letter in my own
vindication.”

Dr. Rees and Professor Brande briefly but decidedly confirmed
the statements, and coincided with the opinions expressed by Dr.
Taylor, the latter witness speaking as to an experiment made by
him to test the accuracy of the previous one, with reference to the
supposed presence of antimony, which enabled him to state
positively that that poison was isolated by it. Professor Christison,

of the University of Edinburgh, author of the well-known treatise
on poisons, was then called, and gave the following evidence:—

Professor Christison said:—“I am a fellow of the Royal College
of Physicians and Professor of Materia Medica to the University of
Edinburgh; I am also the author of a work on the subject of poisons,
and I have directed a good deal of attention to strychnia. In my
opinion it acts by absorption into the blood, and through that upon
the nervous system. I have seen its effects upon a human subject,
but not a fatal case. I have seen it tried upon pigs, rabbits, cats, and
one wild boar. (A laugh.) I first directed my attention to this poison
in 1820, in Paris. It had been discovered two years before in Paris.
In most of my experiments upon animals I gave very small doses—a
sixth of a grain; but I once administered a grain. I cannot say how
small a dose would cause the death of an animal by administration
into the stomach. I generally applied it by injection through an
incision in the cavity of the chest. A sixth part of a grain so
administered killed a dog in two minutes. I once administered to a
rabbit, through the stomach, a dose of a grain. I saw Dr. Taylor
administer three-quarters of a grain to a rabbit, and it was all
swallowed except a very small quantity. The symptoms are nearly
the same in rabbits, cats, and dogs. The first is a slight tremor and
unwillingness to move; then frequently the animal jerks its head
back slightly; soon after that all the symptoms of tetanus come on
which have been so often described by the previous witnesses.
When the poison is administered by the stomach death generally
takes place between a period of five minutes and five and twenty
minutes after the symptoms first make their appearance. I have
frequently opened the bodies of animals thus killed, and have never
been able to trace any effect of the poison upon the stomach or
intestines, or upon the spinal cord or brain, that I could attribute
satisfactorily to the poison. The heart of the animal generally
contained blood in all the cases in which I have been concerned. In
the case of the wild boar the poison was injected into the chest. A
third of a grain was all that was used, and in ten minutes the
symptoms began to show themselves. If strychnia was administered
in the form of a pill it might be mixed with other ingredients that
would protract the period of its operation. This would be the case if

it were mixed with resinous materials, or any materials that were
difficult of digestion, and such materials would be within the
knowledge of any medical men, and they are frequently used for the
purpose of making ordinary pills. Absorption in such a case would
not commence until the pill was broken down by the process of
digestion. In the present state of our knowledge of the subject I do
not think it is possible to fix the precise time when the operation of
the poison commences on a human subject. In the case of an animal
we take care that it is fasting, and we mix the poison with
ingredients that are readily soluble, and in every circumstance
favourable for the development of the poison. I have seen many
cases of tetanus arising from wounds and other causes. The general
symptoms of the disorder very nearly resemble each other, and in all
the natural forms of tetanus the symptoms begin and advance much
more slowly, and they prove fatal much more slowly, and there is no
intermission in certain forms of natural tetanus. In tetanus from
strychnia there are short intermissions. I have heard the evidence of
what took place at the ‘Talbot Arms’ on the Monday and Tuesday,
and the result of my experience induces me to come to the
conclusion that the symptoms exhibited by the deceased were only
attributable to strychnia, or the four poisons containing it: namely,
nux vomica, St. Ignatius’s bean, snakewood, and a draught poison
called “exhetwick.”[52] There is no natural disease of any
description that I am acquainted with to which I could refer these
symptoms. In cases of tetanus consciousness remains to the very last
moment. When death takes place in a human subject by spasm it
tends to empty the heart of blood. When death is the consequence of
the administration of strychnia, if the quantity is small, I should not
expect to find any trace in the body after death. If there was an
excess of quantity more than was required to cause the death by
absorption, I should expect to find that excess in the stomach. The
colour tests for the detection of the presence of strychnia are
uncertain. Vegetable poisons are more difficult of detection than
mineral ones, and there is one poison with which I am acquainted
for which no known test has been discovered. The stomach of the

deceased was sent in a very unsatisfactory state for examination,
and there must have been a considerable quantity of strychnia in the
stomach to have enabled any one to detect its presence under such
circumstances.”
Cross-examined by Mr. Grove.—“The experiments I refer to
were made many years ago. In one instance I tried one of the colour
tests in the case of a man who was poisoned by strychnia, but I
failed to discover the presence of the poison in the stomach. I tried
the test for the development of the violet colour by means of
sulphuric acid and oxide of lead. From my own observation I should
say that animals destroyed by strychnia die of asphyxia, but in my
work, which has been referred to, it will be seen that I have left the
question open.”

Some further questions were put to the witness by the learned
counsel for the prisoner in reference to opinions expressed by him
in his work, and he explained that this work was written twelve
years ago, and that the experience he had since obtained had
modified some of the opinions he then entertained.
Cross-examination continued.—“I have not noticed that in cases
where a patient is suffering from strychnia the slightest touch
appears to bring on the paroxysm. It is very remarkable in the case
of animals, unless you touch them very gently indeed. Strychnia has
a most intensely bitter taste. It is said on the authority of a French
chemist that a grain will give a taste to more than a gallon of water.
If resinous substances were used in the formation of a pill it does
not follow that they would necessarily be found in the stomach; they
might be passed off.”
By the Attorney-General.—“One of the cases quoted in the work
that has been referred to was that of a gamekeeper, who was found
dead; his head was thrown back, his hands were clenched, and his
limbs were rigid. A paper containing strychnia was found in his
pocket, and upon a post-mortem examination, there were indications
which, under the circumstances, satisfied me of the existence of

strychnia. There was a substance in the body of an intensely bitter
taste, which was tested by the colour test, and it succeeded in one
instance, but failed in another. It appears that colour tests are not to
be relied upon in the case of strychnia in an impure condition: in the
first place, you may not find indication of strychnia: and, secondly,
they are subject to fallacy even if the strychnia is pure from other
substances not containing strychnia presenting similar appearances.”

With the examination of this witness, the medical and scientific
evidence for the prosecution was closed.

MEDICO-SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE FOR THE DEFENCE.

The conflict in the testimony given by scientific experts in this
case, will be more clearly shown if, instead of deferring it to its
original position, after the speech for the defence, the evidence of
the eminent medical men and analysts is at once contrasted with
that of those called for the prosecution. The two points mainly in
contest were, (1.) Were the symptoms in Cook’s case such as could
only be produced by strychnia, or could they have arisen from
other diseases, and especially from one of the forms of ordinary
tetanus? (2.) If strychnia had been given, could it not have been
discovered by chemical analysis?[53] Under the first head came the
consideration of Cook’s mode of life and general state of health,
and his excitement at the victory of his horse at such a critical
period of his fortunes, as predisposing causes to one or other of the
various diseases to which the witnesses for the defence were
prepared to attribute the symptoms and the result. Under the
second, the success that uniformly attended such analysts as Mr.
Herapath in detecting, even twenty times less than the fiftieth part
of a grain of strychnia, and the inference that as it was not
discovered by such eminent analysts as Dr. Taylor and Dr. Rees,

that none had been given. If this inference was fair, it would follow
that, however mysterious the causes of the death of Cook might
have been, and the symptoms of his attacks difficult of being
referred to any known form of disease, yet it was not proved that he
died of strychnia, and that therefore Palmer was entitled to an
acquittal. “According to the witnesses for the Crown,” said Serjeant
Shee, “the poison of strychnia is of that nature, that when it has
done its fatal work, and become absorbed into the system, it ceases
to be the thing it was when it was taken into the system; it becomes
decomposed, its elements separated from each other, and, therefore,
no longer capable of responding to the tests which, according to
Taylor, would certainly detect the presence of undecomposed
strychnia. They account for the fact that it is not detected, and for
their still believing that it destroyed Mr. Cook, by this hypothesis.
Now it is only an hypothesis: there is no foundation for it in
experiment: it is not supported by the evidence of any eminent
toxicologists but themselves; it was the theory of Dr. Taylor, which
he propounds in his book—but he propounds it as a theory of his
own; he does not vouch, as I remember, any eminent toxicologist in
support of it.”
Against this theory, among other eminent men, the defence
called Mr. Nunneley, of Leeds, who had assisted Mr. Morley
(previously called for the prosecution) in the case of Mrs. Dove,
Dr. Letheby, the medical officer of health of the city of London,
and Mr. William Herapath. Of these three experts it will be
advisable to give the evidence at some length, contenting oneself
with summarising that of the other scientific witnesses who agreed
with them in rejecting, as a scientific heresy, the hypothesis of Dr.
Taylor.
The evidence of Mr. Nunneley covered both points—the
character of Cook’s symptoms and the discovery of strychnia. “He

had been, he said, in large practice for more than twenty-five years,
and had seen four cases of idiopathic tetanus, all of which did not
commence with lockjaw; in one of them lockjaw not becoming so
marked as to prevent the person from swallowing once during the
disease.”
“I assume,” said the witness, “that Cook was a man of very
delicate constitution; that for a long time he had felt himself ailing,
for which indisposition he had been under medical treatment; that
he had suffered from syphilis; that he had disease of the lungs, and
an old standing disease of the throat; that he led an irregular life;
that he was subject to mental depression and excitement, and that
after death appearances were found in his body to show this to have
been the case. There was an unusual appearance in the stomach. The
throat was in an unnatural condition. The back of the tongue showed
similar indications. The air vessels of the lungs were dilated. In the
lining of the aorta there was an unnatural deposit, and there was an
unusual appearance in the membranes of the spinal marrow. One of
the witnesses also said there was a loss of substance from the penis.
That scar on it could only have resulted from an ulcer. A chancre is
an ulcer, but an ulcer is not necessarily a chancre. The symptoms at
the root of the tongue and throat I should ascribe to syphilitic
inflammation of the throat. Supposing these symptoms to be correct”
(which they were not), “I should infer that Cook’s health had not for
a long time been good, and that his constitution was delicate. His
father and mother died young. Supposing that to have been his state
of health, it would make him liable to nervous irritation. That might
be excited by moral causes. Any excitement or depression might
produce that effect. A person of such health and constitution would
be more susceptible of the injurious influence of wet and cold than
one of a stronger one. Upon such a constitution convulsive disease
is more likely to supervene. I understand he had three attacks on
succeeding nights, occurring about the same hour. As a medical man
I should infer from this that they were of a convulsive character—in
the absence of other causes to account for them. Convulsive attacks

are as various as possible in their forms and degrees of violence: it
is not possible to give a definite name to every convulsive symptom.
There are some forms of convulsion in which the patient retains
consciousness. Those are forms of hysteria, sometimes found in the
male sex. It is also stated that there are forms of epilepsy in which
the patient retains consciousness.”
To Lord Campbell.—“I cannot mention a case in which
consciousness has been retained during the fit. No such case has
come under my notice.”
Examination continued.—“I know from reading that, though
rarely, it does sometimes occur. The degree of consciousness in
epilepsy varies very much. In some attacks it is wholly lost for a
long time. Convulsive attacks are sometimes accompanied by
violent spasms and rigidity of the limbs—they sometimes assume
tetanic complexion. I agree with Dr. Copland that convulsions arise
from almost any cause. Affections of the spinal cord, or eating
indigestible food, will produce them. I know of no case in which
they resulted from retching and vomiting. I agree with Dr. Copland
that they sometimes end immediately in death. The immediate
proximate cause of death is frequently asphyxia. Death from spasm
of the heart is often described as death by asphyxia. I have seen
convulsions recurring—in various cases. The time at which a patient
recovers his ease after a violent attack of convulsions varies very
much. It may be a few minutes, it may be hours. From an interval
between one convulsion and another I should infer that the
convulsions arose from slight irritation in the brain or the spinal
cord. When death takes place in such paroxysms there is sometimes
no trace of organic disease to be found by a post-mortem
examination. Granules between the DURA MATER and the
ARACHNOID are not common at any age. I should not draw any
particular inference from their appearance. They might or might not
lead to a conjecture as to their cause and effect. I do not form any
opinion upon these points. They might produce an effect upon the
spinal cord. There are three preparations in museums where
granules are exhibited in the spinal cord, in which the patients are

said to have died from tetanus. Those are at St. Thomas’s Hospital.
[54]
To ascertain the nature and effect of such granules the spinal
cord ought to be examined immediately after death. Not the most
remote opinion could be formed upon an examination made two
months after death, more especially if the brain had been previously
opened. Independently of the appearance of granules, it would not
after that period be possible to form a satisfactory opinion upon the
general condition of the spinal cord. If there were a large tumour, or
some similar change, it might be exhibited; but neither softening nor
induration of the structure could be perceived. The nervous structure
changes within two days of death. To ascertain minutely its
condition it is necessary to use a lens or microscope. That is
required in an examination made immediately after death. I have
attended cases of traumatic tetanus. That disease commonly begins
with an attack upon the jaw. One of the cases of idiopathic tetanus
that I have seen was my own child. In three of those cases the
disease began with lockjaw. The fourth case commenced in the
body, the facility of swallowing remaining. I have within the last
twelve months made post-mortem examinations of two persons who
had died from strychnia. I did not see the patients before death. In
both cases I ascertained by chemical analysis that death had been
caused by strychnia. In both I found the strychnia. In one case—that
of a lady aged twenty-eight years—I made my examination forty-
two hours after death, and in the other thirty hours. In the former
case the body had not been opened before I commenced my
examination.” [The witness read a report of this examination, in
which it was stated that the eyelids were partially open, the globes
flaccid, and the pupils dilated. The muscles of the trunk were not in
the least rigid; indeed, they were so soft that the body might be bent
in any direction. The muscles at the hip and shoulder joints were not
quite so flaccid, but they allowed these joints to be easily moved;
while those of the head and neck, forearms, &c., were rigid. The
fingers were curved, and the feet somewhat arched. All the muscles,
when cut into, were found soft and dark in colour. The membranes
of the liver were exceedingly vascular. The membrane of the spinal

cord was much congested. There was bloody serum in the
pericardium; the lungs were distended, and some of the air cells
were ruptured. The lining membrane of the trachea and bronchial
tubes was covered with a layer of dark bloody mucus of a dark
chocolate colour. The thoracic vessels and membranes were much
congested, and the blood was everywhere dark and fluid.] After
reading this report the witness continued:—“In the second case I
made my examination thirty hours after death. I first saw the body
about twelve hours after death. It was a woman somewhere near
twenty years of age.” [The witness also read the report of the
examination in this case. The appearances of the body were
substantially similar to those presented in the previous case.] “In
two other cases I have seen a patient suffering from over doses of
strychnia. Neither of those cases was fatal. In one case I had
prescribed the twelfth of a grain, and the patient took one-sixth.
That was for a man of middle age. Strychnia had been given in
solution. In a few minutes the symptoms appeared. They were a
want of power to control the muscles, manifested by twitchings,
rigidity, and cramp, more violent in the legs than in any other part of
the body. The spasms were not very violent. They continued six
hours before they entirely disappeared. During that time they were
intermittent at various intervals. As the attack passed off the length
of the intervals increased. At first their length was but a few
seconds. The spasms were not combated by medical treatment. The
other case was a very similar one. The quantity taken was the same
—double what I had prescribed. I have experimented upon upwards
of sixty animals with strychnia. Those animals were dogs, cats, rats,
mice, guinea pigs, frogs, and toads. The symptoms of the attack in
all animals present great resemblances. Some animals are, however,
much more susceptible of its influence than others are. The period
elapsing between the injection of the poison and the commencement
of the symptoms has been from two minutes to thirty,—more
generally five or six. I administered the poison occasionally in
solution, but more generally in its solid state. It was sometimes
placed dry upon the back of the tongue, and some fluid poured
down the throat; sometimes it was enclosed between two portions of

meat; sometimes mixed up with butter or suet, and sometimes rolled
up in a small piece of gut. To frogs and toads it was administered by
putting them into a solution of strychnia. I have also applied it direct
to the spinal cord, and in other cases to the brain. The first symptom
has been a desire to be quite still; then hurried breathing; then
slavering at the mouth (when the poison had been given through that
organ); then twitching of the ears, trembling of the muscles,
inability to walk, convulsions of all the muscles of the body, the
jaws being generally firmly closed; the convulsions attended by a
total want of power in the muscles, which on the least touch were
thrown into violent spasms with a galvanic-like shock. Spasms also
come on if the animal voluntarily attempts to move; that is usually
the case, but occasionally the animal is able to move without
inducing a recurrence of the spasms. These spasms recur at various
periods, but do not always increase in violence. The animals die
after periods varying from three hours to three hours and a half. In
the cases where the animals live longest, the paroxysms occur at the
longest intervals. In all cases in the interval before death the rigidity
ceases (I know no exception to this) and the muscles become quite
soft, powerless, and flaccid. The limbs may be put in any position
whatever. There is but little difference from ordinary cases of
convulsive death in the time at which the rigor mortis comes on. I
have destroyed animals with other poisons, and there is very little
difference between the rigidity in their cases and that in the cases of
death from strychnia. In the two women I have mentioned the rigor
mortis was much less than is usual in cases of death from natural
disease. I have known fatal cases of poisoning animals by strychnia
in which there has between the first and the second paroxysm been
an interval of about half-an-hour, but that is not common. I have
examined the bodies of upwards of forty animals killed by
strychnia. I have invariably found the heart full on the right side;
very generally the left ventricle firmly contracted, and the blood
usually dark, and often fluid. There is no particular appearance
about the spine. I have experimented with other poisons upon
upwards of 3000 animals, and have written upon this subject. It very
often happens that in the case of animals dying suddenly from

poisoning the blood is fluid after death. That also happens in cases
of sudden death from other causes. I have attended to the evidence
as to the symptoms exhibited by Cook on the Sunday, Monday, and
Tuesday nights. The symptoms on Sunday night I assume to have
been from great excitement. Cook described himself as having been
very ill, and in such a state that he considered himself mad for a few
minutes. He stated that the cause of this was a noise in the street.
These symptoms in the three nights I have mentioned, do not
resemble those which I have seen follow the administration of
strychnia. Cook had more power of voluntary motion than I have
observed in animals under the influence of this poison. He sat up in
bed, and moved his hands about freely, swallowed, talked, and
asked to be rubbed and moved, none of which, if poisoned by
strychnia, could he have done. The sudden accession of the
convulsions is another reason for believing that they were not
produced by strychnia. Other reasons for believing that the
convulsions were not produced by strychnia are their sudden
accession without the usual premonitory symptoms, the length of
time which had elapsed between their commencement and the
taking of the pills which are supposed to have contained poison, and
the screaming and vomiting. I never knew an animal which had
been poisoned with strychnia to vomit or scream voluntarily. I
apprehend that where there is so much spasm of the heart there must
be inability to vomit. In the cases related in which attempts were
made to produce vomiting they did not succeed. There is such a case
in the 10th volume of the Journal de Pharmacie, in which an emetic
was given without success. The symptoms exhibited after death by
animals poisoned by strychnia differ materially from those
presented by the body of Cook. In his case the heart is stated to have
been empty and uncontracted.”
Lord Campbell.—“I do not remember that. I think it was said
that it was contracted.”
Mr. Baron Alderson.-”According to my note, Dr. Harland said
that the heart was contracted, and contained no blood.”

Examination continued.—“The lungs were not congested, nor
was the brain. In the case of animals which have recovered the
paroxysms have subsided gradually. I never knew a severe
paroxysm followed by a long interval of repose. I have
experimented upon the discovery of strychnia in the bodies of
animals in various stages of decomposition, from a few hours after
death up to the forty-third day, in which latter case the body was
quite putrid. It has never happened to me to fail to discover the
poison. I have experimented in about fifteen cases.”
Question.—“Supposing a person to have died under the
influence of strychnia poison in the first paroxysm, and his stomach
to have been taken out and put into a jar on the sixth day after death,
must strychnia have, by a proper analysis, been found in the body?”
Answer.—“Yes. If the strychnia be pure, such as is almost
invariably found among medical men and druggists, the test is nitric
acid, which gives a red colour, which in a great measure disappears
on the addition of protochloride of tin.[55] If the strychnia be pure, it
does not undergo any change on the addition of sulphuric acid, but
on the addition of a mixture of bichromate of potash, with several
other substances it produces a beautiful purple, which changes to
varying shades until it gets to be a dirty red. There are several other
tests. In this case the stomach was not, in my opinion, in an
unfavourable condition for examination. The circumstances
attending its position in the jar and its removal to London would
give a little more trouble, but would not otherwise affect the result.
If the deceased had died from strychnia poison it ought to have been
found in the liver, spleen, and kidneys. I have seen this poison found
in similar portions of animals which had been killed by it. I have
also seen it found in the blood; that was by Mr. Herapath, of
Bristol.”
Question.—“Could the analyses be defeated or confused by the
existence in the stomach of any other substance which would
produce the same colours?”
Answer.—“No. Supposing that pyroxanthine and salicine were
in the parts examined, their existence would not defeat the analysis.

Pyroxanthine is very unlikely to be found in the stomach. It is one
of the rarest and most difficult to be obtained. The distinction
between pyroxanthine and strychnia is quite evident. Pyroxanthine
changes to a deep purple on the addition of sulphuric acid alone, and
the bichromate of potash spoils the colour. In strychnia no change is
produced by sulphuric acid. It requires the addition of the
bichromate to produce the colour.”
Question.—“Supposing the death to have been caused by a dose
of strychnia, not more than sufficient to destroy the animal, would it
be so diffused by the process of absorption that you would not be
able by these tests to detect it in any portion of the system?”
Answer.—“No; I believe it would not. That question had
occupied my attention before I was called upon to give evidence in
this trial. My reason for stating that strychnia when it has done its
work continues as strychnia in the system is, that those who say
some change takes place, argue, that as food undergoes a change, so
does poison; it becomes decomposed. But the change in food takes
place in digestion; consequently its traces are not found in the
blood. Substances like strychnia are absorbed without digestion, and
may be obtained unchanged from the blood. They may be
administered in various ways.”
Question.—“In your judgment, will any amount of putrefaction
prevent the discovery of strychnia?”
Answer.—“To say that it is absolutely indestructible would be
absurd, but within ordinary limits, no. I have found it at the end of
forty days. The emptier the stomach, the quicker the action of
strychnia.”

On cross-examination by the Attorney-General, the witness,
who, to judge from the expressions that passed between them,
assumed an antagonistic position to the prosecution, after admitting
that perhaps half of his sixty experiments had been made in
conjunction with Mr. Morley, and spread over thirty years; that
some had been made after the Leeds case, and some in reference to

the present, and that he had been in consultation with the prisoner’s
attorney since the case at Leeds, to whom he had transmitted its
details, he thus continued:—

“The general dose in these experiments was from half a grain to
two grains; half a grain is sufficient to destroy life in larger animals.
I have seen both a dog and a cat die of this dose, but not always.
Some animals as a species are more susceptible than those of a
different species, and among animals of the same species some are
more susceptible than others. The symptoms in the experiments I
have mentioned did not occur after so long a period as an hour. We
have had to repeat the dose in some instances when half a grain was
given. In the case of a cat, symptoms of spasm were produced, but
the cat did not die; she had not swallowed the whole dose. I think I
have known animals of the cat species killed with half a grain.”
Question.—“Have you any doubt of it?”
Answer.—“Yes. I think it would be the minimum dose in an old
strong cat. If given in a fluid state I think a smaller dose would
suffice. Hurried breathing is one of the first symptoms, afterwards
there are twitchings and trembling of the muscles and then
convulsions.”
Question.—“Is there any diversity in the intervals and order of
the symptoms in animals of the same species?”
Answer.—“They certainly do not occur after the same intervals
of time, but I should say they generally occur in the order I have
described. There is some difference in the periods at which the
convulsions take place. Some will die after less convulsions than
others, but generally after four or five. In one or two instances an
animal has died after one convulsion. In those instances a dose has
been given equal in amount to another which has not produced the
same effect. The order in which the muscles are convulsed varies to
some extent. The muscles of the limbs are generally affected first.
The convulsions generally occur simultaneously.”

Question.—“Do you know of any case of strychnia in which
rigidity after death was greater than the usual rigor mortis?”
Answer.—“I think not. I don’t think there is any peculiar rigidity
produced by strychnia.”
Question.—“Have you never found undue rigidity in a human
subject after death by strychnia?”
Answer.—“Considerably less.”
Question.-”In the anonymous case (the Leeds), were not the
hands curved and the feet arched by muscular contraction?”
Answer.—“Not more than is usual in cases of death from
ordinary causes. The limbs were rigid, but not more than usual.”
Question.—“In the face of the medical profession I ask you
whether you signed a report stating that ‘the hands were curved and
the feet decidedly arched by muscular contraction,’ and whether you
meant by those words that there was no more than the ordinary
rigidity of death?”
Answer.—“Certainly; I stated so at the time.”
Question.—“Where? In the report?”
Answer.—“No; in conversation. Allow me to explain that a
distinction was drawn between the muscles of the different parts of
the body. I heard Mr. Morley’s evidence with regard to experiments
on animals, and his statement that ‘after death there was an interval
of flaccidity, after which rigidity commenced more than if it had
been occasioned by the usual rigor mortis.’”
Question.—“You don’t agree with that statement?”
Answer.—“I do not. I generally found the right side of the heart
full.”
Question.—“Does the fact of the heart in Cook’s case having
been found empty lead you to the conclusion that death was not
caused by strychnia?”
Answer.—“Among other things, it does. I heard the evidence of
Dr. Watson as to the case of Agnes Sennett, in which the heart was
found distended and empty: also of Dr. Taylor, as to the post-

mortem of Mrs. Smyth. No doubt he stated that the heart in that case
was also empty.”
Question.—“And do those facts exercise no influence on your
judgment?”
Answer.—“They would not unless I knew how the post-mortem
examination had been made. If it was commenced at the head, the
blood being fluid, the large drains would be opened, and the blood,
from natural causes, would drain away.”
Question.—“Do you know how the post-mortem examination
was made in this case?”
Answer.—“No. Excuse me, I do. The chest and the abdomen, not
the head, were first opened.”
Question.—“The heart, then, was not emptied in the first
instance?”
Answer.—“No.”
Question.—“Then what occasioned the contraction of the
heart?”
Answer.—“When the heart is emptied it is usually contracted.”
Question.—“But how do you account for its contraction and
emptiness?”
Answer.—“I cannot account for it.”
Lord Campbell.—“ Would the heart contract if there was blood
in it?”
Answer.—“No.”
Lord Campbell.—“When you find the heart contracted, you
know, then, that it was contracted at the moment of death?”
Answer.—“It is necessary to draw a distinction between the two
cavities. It is very common to find the left ventricle contracted and
hard, while the right is uncontracted.”
Lord Campbell.—“That is death by asphyxia?”
Answer.—“Precisely.”[56]
By the Attorney-General.—“In Cook’s case the lungs were
described as not congested. Entosthema is of two kinds; one of them

consists of dilation of the cells, the other of a rupture of the cells.
When animals die from strychnine, entosthema occurs. I do not
know the character of the entosthema in Cook’s case. It did not
occur to me to have the question put to the witnesses who described
the post-mortem examination.”
Question.—“To what constitutional symptoms about Cook do
you ascribe the convulsions from which he died?”
Answer.—“Not to any.”
Question.—“Was not the fact of his having syphilis an important
ingredient in your judgment upon his case?”
Answer.—“It was. I judge that he died from convulsions, by the
combination of symptoms.”
Question.—“What evidence have you to suppose that he was
liable to excitement and depression of spirits?”
Answer.—“The fact that after winning the race he could not
speak for three minutes.”
Question.—“Anything else?”
Answer.—“Mr. Jones stated that he was subject to mental
depression. Excitement will produce a state of brain which will be
followed, at some distance, by convulsions. I think Dr. Bamford
made a mistake when he said the brain was perfectly healthy.”
Question.—“Do you mean to set up that opinion against that of
Dr. Devonshire and Dr. Harland, who were present at the post-
mortem?”
Answer.—“My opinion is founded in part on the evidence taken
at the inquest, in part on the depositions. With the brain and the
system in the condition in which Cook’s were, I believe it is quite
possible for convulsions to come on and destroy a person. I do not
believe that he died from apoplexy. He was under the influence of
morphia. I don’t ascribe his death to morphia, except that it might
assist in producing a convulsive attack. I should think morphia was
not very good treatment, considering the state of excitement he was
in.”

Question.—“Do you mean to say, on your oath, that you think
he was in a state of excitement at Rugeley?”
Answer.—“I wish to give my evidence honestly. Morphia, when
given in an injured state of the brain, often disagrees with the
patient.”
Question.—“But what evidence have you as to the injured state
of the brain?”
Answer.—“Sickness often indicates it. I can’t say whether the
attack of Sunday night was an attack of convulsions. I think that the
Sunday attack was one of a similar character, but not so intense, as
the attack of Tuesday, in which he died. I don’t think he had
convulsions on the Sunday, but he was in that condition which often
precedes convulsions. I think he was mistaken when he stated that
he was awoke by a noise. I believe he was delirious. That is one of
the symptoms on which I found my opinion. Any intestinal irritation
will produce convulsions in a tetanic form. I have known instances
in children. I have not seen an instance in an animal. Medical
writers state that such cases do occur. I know no name for
convulsions of that kind.”
Question.—“Have you ever known a case of convulsions of that
kind, terminating in death, in which the patient remained conscious
to the last?”
Answer.—“I have not. Where epilepsy terminates in death
consciousness is gone. I have known four cases of traumatic, and
five or six of idiopathic tetanus.”
Question.—“You heard Mr. Jones make this statement of the
symptoms of Cook after the commencement of the paroxysms:
—‘After he swallowed the pills he uttered loud screams, threw
himself back in the bed, and was dreadfully convulsed. He said,
“Raise me up! I shall be suffocated.” The convulsions affected every
muscle of the body, and were accompanied by stiffening of the
limbs. I endeavoured to raise Cook with the assistance of Palmer,
but found it quite impossible owing to the rigidity of the limbs.
When Cook found we could not raise him up, he asked me to turn
him over. He was then quite sensible. I turned him on to his side. I

listened to the action of his heart. I found that it gradually
weakened, and asked Palmer to fetch some spirits of ammonia, to be
used as a stimulant. When he returned, the pulsations of the heart
were gradually ceasing, and life was almost extinct. Cook died very
quietly a very short time afterwards. When he threw himself back in
bed he clinched his hands, and they remained clinched after death.
When I was rubbing his neck, his head and neck were unnaturally
bent back by the spasmodic action of the muscles. After death his
body was so twisted or bowed that if I had placed it upon the back it
would have rested upon the head and feet!’ Now, I ask you to
distinguish in any one particular between those symptoms and the
symptoms of tetanic convulsions.”
Answer.—“It is not tetanus at all; not idiopathic tetanus.”
Question.—“I quite agree with you that it was not idiopathic
tetanus. But point out any distinction that you can see between these
symptoms and real tetanus?”
Answer.—“I do not know that there is any distinction, except
that in a case of tetanus I never saw rigidity continue till death and
afterwards.”
Question.—“Can you tell me of any case of death from
convulsions in which the patient was conscious to the last?”
Answer.—“I do not know any. Convulsions occurring after
poison has been taken are properly called tetanic.”
Question.—“Sir B. Brodie tells us that while paroxysms of
tetanic convulsion last there is no difference between those that arise
from strychnia and those from tetanus properly so called, but only
in the course the symptoms take. What do you say is the
difference?”
Answer.—“The hands are less violently contracted; the effect of
the spasm is less in ordinary tetanus; the convulsion, too, never
entirely passes away. I have stated that tetanus is a disease of days,
strychnia of hours and minutes; that convulsive twitchings are in
strychnia the first symptoms, the last in tetanus; that in tetanus the
hands, feet, and legs are usually the last affected, while in strychnia

they are the first. I gave that opinion after the symptoms in the case
of the lady at Leeds which were described by the witness Witham,
and I still adhere to it. I never said that Cook’s was a case of
idiopathic tetanus in any sense of the word. It differed from the
course of tetanus from strychnine in the particulars I have already
mentioned.”
The Attorney-General.—“Repeat them.”
Answer.—“There was a sudden accession of the convulsions.”
Question.—“Sudden—after what?”
Answer.—“After the rousing by Jones. There was also the power
of talking.”
Question.—“Don’t you know that Mrs. Smyth talked and
retained her consciousness to the end: that her last words were,
‘Turn me over’?”
Answer.—“She did say something of that kind. No doubt those
were the words she used. I believe that in poison tetanus the
symptoms are first observed in the legs and feet. In the animals
upon which I have experimented twitchings in the ears and
difficulty of breathing have been premonitory symptoms.”
Question.—“When Cook felt a stiffness and difficulty of
breathing, and said that he should be suffocated on the first night,
what were they but premonitory symptoms?” (question evaded).
Answer.—“Well, he asked to be rubbed; but as far as my
experience goes with regard to animals——.”
The Attorney-General.—“They can’t ask to have their ears
rubbed, of course.”
Mr. Serjeant Shee.—“The witness was about to explain the
effect of being rubbed upon animals.”
Witness.—“In no single instance could the animals bear to be
touched.”
Question.—“Did not Mrs. Smyth ask to have her arms and legs
rubbed?”

Answer.—“In the Leeds case the lady asked to be rubbed before
the convulsions came on, but afterwards she could not bear it, and
begged not to be touched.”
Question.—“Can you point out any one point, after the
premonitory symptoms, in which the symptoms in this case differ
from those of strychnia tetanus?”
Answer.—“There is the power of swallowing, which is taken
away by inability to move the jaw.”
Question.—“But have you not stated that lockjaw is the last
symptom in strychnia tetanus?”
Answer.—“I have. I don’t deny that it may be. I am speaking of
the general rule. In the Leeds case it came on very early, more than
two hours before death, the paroxysms having continued for two
and a half hours. In that case we believed the dose was four times
repeated. Poison might probably be extracted by chemical process
from the tissues, but I never tried it except in the case of one animal.
I am not sure whether poison was in that case given through the
mouth. We killed four animals in reference to the Leeds case, and in
every instance we found strychnia in the contents of the stomach. In
one case we administered it by two processes—one failed, and the
other succeeded.”
Re-examined.—“In making reports on cases such as that referred
to (Leeds) we state ordinary appearances as well as extraordinary—
facts without anything more.”
Mr. William Herapath, examined by Mr. Grove, Q. C.—“I am a
professor of chemistry and toxicology at the Bristol Medical School
—have studied chemistry for more than forty years—toxicology for
thirty. Have experimented on strychnia; have seen no case of a
human subject during life, but have examined a human body after
death. In one case I examined the contents of the stomach, and
found strychnia three days after death. I obtained evidence of
strychnia by the colour tests in that case. I have experimented on
animals for strychnia in eight or nine cases, and analysed the bodies
in two cases where I destroyed the animals myself—both cats. I
gave the first one grain of strychnia in a solid form. The animal took

the poison at night, and I found it dead in the morning. It was
dreadfully contorted and rigid, the limbs extended, the head turned
round—not to the back, to the side—the eyes protruding and
staring, the iris expanded so as to be almost invisible. I found
strychnia in the urine which had been ejected, and also in the
stomach, by the test I mentioned. I administered the same quantity
of strychnia in a solid form to another cat. It remained very quiet for
fifteen or twenty minutes, but seemed a little restless in the eyes and
its breathing. In thirty-five minutes it had a terrible spasm, the
extremities and the head being drawn together and the feet
extended. I watched it for three hours. The first spasm lasted a
minute or two. The saliva dropped from its mouth, and it forcibly
ejected its urine. It had a second spasm a few minutes afterwards. It
soon recovered and remained still, with the exception of a trembling
all over. It continued in that state three hours. During two hours and
a half it was in a very peculiar state. It appeared to be electrified all
through; blowing upon it or touching the basket in which it was
placed produced a kind of electric jump like a galvanic shock. I left
it in three hours, thinking it would recover, but in the morning I
found it dead, in the same indurated and contorted condition as the
former animal. I examined the body thirty-six hours after death and
found strychnia in the urine, in the stomach and in the upper
intestine, in the liver, and in the blood of the heart. I have
discovered strychnia in all other cases by the same tests, but I took
extraordinary means to get rid of organic matter. In all cases in
which strychnia has been given I have been able to find it, but not
only strychnia, but the nux vomica from which it is taken. I have
found nux vomica in a fox and other animals. The detection of nux
vomica is more complicated than that of strychnia. In one case the
animal had been buried two months. I have experimented with
strychnia mixed purposely with organic putrefying matter. I have
found it in all cases, whatever was the state of decomposition of the
matter.”
Question.—“Are you of opinion that where strychnia has been
taken in a sufficient dose to poison it can and ought to be

discovered?”
Answer.—“Yes; unless the body has been completely
decomposed—that is, unless decomposition had reduced it to a dry
powder. I am of opinion, from the accounts given by Dr. Taylor and
the other witnesses, that if it had existed in the body of Cook it ought
to have been discovered. I am aware of no cause of error in the
analysis, if the organic matter had been properly got rid of. The
experiments I made were in Bristol. I have made experiments in
London, and found strychnia in the stomach, liver, and blood of an
animal.”
Cross-examined by the Attorney-General.—“I don’t profess to
be a toxicologist. I have principally experimented on the stomach
till lately. I tried my chemical process on the 8th of this month with
a view to the present case. The experiment here was on a dog. I
experimented on the tissues of a cat at Bristol, and a dog in London.
I found strychnia in the blood, the heart, and the urine of the cat,
besides the stomach. One grain was given to the dog. It was a large
dog. I have seen a cat killed with a quarter of a grain.”
Question.—“Have you not said, that you had no doubt strychnia
had been taken, but that Dr. Taylor had not gone the right way to
find it?”
Answer.—“No; certainly not.”
Question.—“Have you not said it to the present Mayor of
Bristol?”
Answer.—“I have said, if it was there Dr. Taylor ought to have
found it.”
Question.—“Have you not said several times in his presence
that you had no doubt strychnia had been given, but that Dr. Taylor
had not found it?”
Answer.—“I had a strong opinion from the reports in the
newspapers; it is very likely I might. I don’t deny it.”
To Lord Campbell.—“From the statements I saw in the
newspapers: I was not engaged in the case, and I conceived I had a
right to express an opinion, the same as others. I dare say I have

frequently said so in conversation. Hundreds of persons spoke to
me, knowing I had made toxicology a study, and it is possible I may
have said something like what you ask me about.”[57]
Re-examined by Mr. Grove.—“What is the smallest quantity of
strychnia that your process is capable of detecting?”
Answer.—“I am perfectly sure I could detect the 50,000th part of
a grain if it was unmixed with organic matter. If I put ten grains in a
gallon, or 70,000 grains of water, I could discover its presence in
the tenth part of a grain of that water. It is more difficult to detect
when mixed with organic matter. If a person had taken a grain, a
very small quantity would be found in the heart, but no doubt it
could be found. I made four experiments with a large dog to which I
had given the one-eighth part of a grain. I have discovered it by
change of colour in the thirty-second part of the liver of a dog.”

In reply to a request by Mr. Grove, Lord Campbell intimated
that in the opinion of the Court experiments could not now be
shown. This defect of evidence has been cured by the Vivisection
Act, before referred to.

Dr. Henry Letheby, examined by Mr. Kenealy.—“I am a bachelor
of medicine, professor of chemistry and toxicology in the London
Hospital of Medicine, and Medical Officer of Health to the City of
London. I have been engaged for a considerable time in the study of
poisons and their action on the living animal economy. I have also
been frequently engaged on behalf of the Crown in prosecutions in
cases of this nature during the last fourteen years. I have been
present during the examination of the medical witnesses, and have
attended to the evidence as to the symptoms which have been
described as attending the death of Cook. I have witnessed many
cases of animals poisoned by strychnia, and many cases of
poisoning by nux vomica in the human body, one of which was
fatal. The symptoms described in this case do not accord with the
symptoms I have witnessed in the case of those animals. They differ
in this respect:—In the first place I never witnessed the long interval

between the administration of the poison and the commencement of
the symptoms which is said to have elapsed in this case. The longest
interval I have known has been three-quarters of an hour, and then
the poison was administered under most disadvantageous
circumstances. It was given on a very full stomach and in a form
uneasy of solution. I have seen the symptoms begin in five minutes.
The average time in which they begin is a quarter of an hour. In all
cases I have seen the system has been in that irritable state that the
very lightest excitement, such as an effort to move, a touch, a noise,
a breath of air, would send the patient off in convulsions. It is not at
all probable that a person, after taking strychnia, could pull a bell
violently. Any movement would excite the nervous system, and
bring on spasms. It is not likely that a person in that state could bear
to have his neck rubbed. When a case of strychnia does not end
fatally, the first paroxysm is succeeded by others, gradually shaded
off, the paroxysms becoming less violent every time, and I agree
with Dr. Christison that they would subside in twelve or sixteen
hours. I have no hesitation in saying that strychnia is, of all poisons,
either mineral or vegetable, the most easy of detection. I have
detected it in the stomach of animals in numerous instances, also in
the blood and in the tissues. The longest period after death in which
I have detected it is about a month. The animal was then in a state of
decomposition. I have detected very minute portions of strychnia.
When it is pure, the 20,000th part of a grain can be detected. I can
detect the tenth part of a grain most easily in a pint of any liquid,
whether pure or putrid. I gave one animal half a grain, and I have
the strychnia here now within a very small trifle. I never failed to
detect strychnia where it had been administered. I have made post-
mortem examinations on various animals killed by it. I have always
found the right side of the heart full. The reason is that the death
takes place from the fixing of the muscles of the chest by spasms, so
that the blood is unable to pass through the lungs, and the heart
cannot relieve itself from the blood flowing to it, and therefore
becomes gorged. The lungs are congested and filled with blood. I
have administered strychnia in a liquid and a solid form; I agree
with Dr. Taylor that it may kill in six or eleven minutes when taken

in a solid state in the form of a pill or bolus. I also agree with him
that the first symptom is that the animal falls on its side, the jaws are
spasmodically closed, and the slightest touch produces another
paroxysm. But I do not agree with him that the colour tests are
fallacious. I do not agree that it is changed when it is absorbed into
the blood, but I agree with its absorption. I think it is not changed
when the body is decomposed. The shaking about of the contents of
the stomach with the intestines in a jar, would not prevent the
discovery of strychnia, if it had been administered. Even if the
contents of the stomach were lost, the mucous membrane would, in
the ordinary course of things, exhibit traces of strychnia. I have
studied the poison of antimony. If a quantity had been introduced
into brandy-and-water, and swallowed at a gulp, the effect would
not be to burn the throat. Antimony does not possess any such
quality as that of immediate burning. I have turned my attention to
the subject of poison for seventeen or eighteen years.”
Cross-examined by the Attorney-General.—“I am not a member
of the College of Physicians or of Surgeons. I do not now practise. I
have been in general practice for two or three years. I gave evidence
in the last case of this sort, tried in this court in 1850” (the case of
Ann Merritt). “I gave evidence of the presence of arsenic. The
woman was convicted. I stated that it had been administered within
four hours of death. I was the cause of her being respited, and the
sentence was not carried into effect, in consequence of a letter I
wrote to the Home Office. Other scientific gentlemen interfered, and
challenged the soundness of my conclusions before I wrote that
letter. I have not since been employed by the Crown. There has not
been a case that I know of. I have been employed in prosecutions.”
By Mr. Justice Cresswell.—“I was present at the trial. I perfectly
remember it.” (See the report of this case, post.)
Cross-examination continued.—“I detected the poison. I said in
my letter that I could not speak as to possibilities, but merely as to
probabilities. I have experimented on animals for a great number of
years. On five recently. I have never given more than a grain, and it
has always been in a solid form—in pills or bread. In the case where

poison was administered under disadvantageous circumstances it
was kneaded up into a hard mass of bread.”
Mr. Baron Alderson.—“Did the animal bolt it or bite it?”
Witness.—“I opened the mouth and put it into the throat. About
half an hour elapsed before the symptoms appeared in one case in
which half a grain had been given. In another case death took place
within thirteen minutes. I have noticed twitching of the ears,
difficulty of breathing, and other premonitory symptoms. There are
little variations in the order in which the symptoms occur. I have
known frequent instances in which an animal has died in the first
paroxysm. I heard the evidence of Mrs. Smyth’s death, and I was
surprised at her having got out of bed when the servant answered
the bell. It is not consistent with the cases I have seen. That fact
does not shake my opinion. I have no doubt that Mrs. Smyth died
from strychnia. Cook’s sitting up in bed and asking Jones to ring the
bell is inconsistent with what I have observed in strychnia cases.”
Question.—“If a man’s breath is hurried, is it not natural for him
to sit up?”
Answer.—“It is. I have seen cases of recovery of human subjects
after taking strychnia. There is a great uniformity in its effects; that
is, in their main features, but there is a small variation as to the time
in which they are produced.”
Question.—“What do you attribute Cook’s death to?”
Answer.—“It is irreconcileable with everything with which I am
acquainted.”
Question.—“Is it reconcileable with any known disease you
have ever seen or heard of?”
Answer.—“No.”[58]
Re-examined by Mr. Serjeant Shee.—“We are learning new facts
every day, and I do not at present conceive it to be impossible that
some peculiarity of the spinal cord, unrecognisable at the
examination after death, may have produced symptoms like those
which have been described. I, of course, include strychnia in my
answer, but it is irreconcileable with everything I have seen or heard

of. It is as irreconcileable with everything else; it is irreconcileable
with every disease that I am acquainted with, natural or artificial.
Touching an animal during the premonitory symptoms will bring on
a paroxysm. Vomiting is inconsistent with strychnia. The Romsey
case was an exceptional one, from the quantity of the dose. The
ringing of the bell would have produced a paroxysm. I am still of
opinion that the evidence I gave on the trial in 1851 is correct. I am
not aware that there is any ground for an imputation upon me in
respect of that evidence. I have no reason to think Government was
dissatisfied with me. I have been since employed in prosecutions,
where I very much think the Crown was the prosecutor. After that
case Dr. Pereira came to my laboratory, and asked me, as an act of
mercy, to write a letter to him to show to the Home Office, admitting
the possibility of the poison which I found in the stomach having
been administered longer than four hours before death. I wrote the
letter, drawing a distinction between what was possible and
probable, and the woman was transported for life.”

In addition to these analytical chemists, Professor Rogers, of
the St. George’s Medical School, London, described an experiment
he had lately made on a dog to which he had given two grains of
strychnia. He had not taken out its stomach and its contents,
together with some of the blood, until three days after death, and
had put off the analysis of the latter for ten days, when it had
become putrid, and that of the stomach and its contents for a month
or five weeks, yet found in both portions strychnia in large
quantities. This witness maintained that unless the contents of the
stomach in Cook’s case had been lost, their being shaken would
only make the process of detection more difficult, but admitted that
if strychnia had been in his stomach it would be found smeared
over its mucous membrane, which, it may be remembered, was not
sent to Dr. Taylor.

Dr. Francis Wrightson, a pupil of Liebig, of Giessen, a teacher
of chemistry at a school in Birmingham, described two similar
experiments on animals, with the same results as Professor Rogers.
He expressed his decided opinion that strychnia could be detected
in a mixture of bile, bilious matter, and putrifying blood and in the
tissues in extremely minute quantities indeed, and that five or six
days after death he should expect to find it, if it had been given—
unless the dose had been entirely absorbed. The clearness and
decision with which this witness gave his evidence elicited the
well-deserved commendation of Lord Campbell. On cross-
examination by the Attorney-General, he was asked—

Question.—“Supposing that the whole dose was absorbed into
the system, where would you expect to find it?”
Answer.—“In the blood.”
Question.—“Does it pass from the blood into the solids of the
body?”
Answer.—“It does, or I should rather say it is left in the solids of
the body. In its progress towards its final destination, the destruction
of life, it passes from the blood, or is left by the blood in the solid
tissues of the body.”
Question.—“If it be present in the stomach, you find it in the
stomach; if it be present in the blood, you find it there; if left by the
blood in the tissues, you find it there?”
Answer.—“Precisely so.”
Question.—“Suppose the whole had been absorbed.”
Answer.—“Then I would not undertake to find it.”
Question.—“Suppose the whole had been eliminated from the
blood, and had passed into the urine, should you expect to find it in
the blood?”
Answer.—“Certainly not.”
Question.—“Suppose the minimum dose which will destroy life
had been taken, and absorbed into the circulation, then deposited in

the tissues, and then a part eliminated by the action of the kidneys;
where would you search for it?”
Answer.—“In the blood, in the tissues, and in the ejections; and I
would undertake to discover it in each of them.”

Mr. Partridge, the professor of Anatomy at King’s College,
gave the following evidence, attributing the death of Cook to the
granules found on his spine at the post-mortem examination:—

“These granules,” said the witness, “would be likely to cause
inflammation, and no doubt that inflammation would have been
discovered if the spinal cord or its membranes had been examined
shortly after death. It would not be likely to be discovered if the
spinal cord was not examined until nine weeks after death. I have
not seen cases in which this inflammation has produced tetanic form
of convulsions, but such cases are on record. It sometimes does, and
sometimes does not produce convulsions and death.”
Question.—“Can you form any judgment as to the cause of
death in Cook’s case?”
Answer.—“I cannot. No conclusion or inference can be drawn
from the degree or kind of the contractions of the body after death.”
Lord Campbell.—“Can you not say from the symptoms you
heard whether death was produced by tetanus, without saying what
was the cause of tetanus?”
Answer.—“Hypothetically I should infer that he died of the form
of tetanus which convulses the muscles. Great varieties of rigidity
arise after death from natural causes. The half-bent hands and
fingers are not uncommon after natural death. The arching of the
feet in this case seemed to me rather greater than usual.”
Cross-examined by the Attorney-General.—“Granules are
sometimes, but not commonly, found about the spine of a healthy
subject,—not on the cord itself; they may exist consistently with
health. No satisfactory cases of the inflammation I have described
have come under my notice without producing convulsions. It is a

very rare disease. I cannot state from the recorded cases the course
of the symptoms of that disease. It varies in duration, sometimes
lasting only for days, sometimes much longer. If the patient lives it
is accompanied with paralysis. It produces no effect on the brain
which is recognisable after death. It would not affect the brain prior
to death. I do not know whether it is attended with loss of sensibility
before death. The size of the granules which will produce it varies.
This disease is not a matter of months, unless it terminates in palsy.
I never heard of a case in which the patient died after a single
convulsion. Between the intervals of the convulsions I don’t believe
a man could have twenty-four hours’ repose. Pain and spasms would
accompany the convulsions. I cannot form a judgment as to whether
the general health would be affected in the intervals between them.”
Question.—“You have heard it stated that from the midnight of
Monday till Tuesday Cook had complete repose. Now, I ask you, in
the face of the medical profession, whether you think the symptoms
which have been described proceeded from that disease?”
Answer.—“I should think not.”
Question.—“Did you ever know the hands completely clinched
after death except in case of tetanus?”
Answer.—“No.”
Question.—“Have you ever known it even in idiopathic or
traumatic tetanus?”
Answer.—“I have never seen idiopathic tetanus. I have seen the
hands completely clinched in traumatic tetanus. A great deal of
force is often required to separate them.”
Question.—“Have you ever known the feet so distorted as to
assume the form of a club foot?”
Answer.—“No.”
Question.—“You heard Mr. Jones state that if he had turned the
body upon the back it would have rested on the head and the heels.
Have you any doubt that that is an indication of death from
tetanus?”

Answer.—“No; it is a form of tetanic spasm. I am only
acquainted with tetanus resulting from strychnia by reading. Some
of the symptoms in Cook’s case are consistent, some are
inconsistent with strychnia tetanus. The first inconsistent symptom
is the intervals that occurred between the taking of the supposed
poison and the attacks.”
Question.—“Are not symptoms of bending of the body,
difficulty of respiration, convulsions in the throat, legs, and arms,
perfectly consistent with what you know of the symptoms of death
from strychnia?”
Answer.—“Perfectly consistent. I have known cases of traumatic
tetanus. The symptoms in those cases had been occasionally
remitted, never wholly terminated. I never knew traumatic tetanus
run its course to death in less than three or four days. I never knew a
complete case of the operation of strychnia upon a human subject.”
Question.—“Bearing in mind the distinction between traumatic
and idiopathic tetanus, did you ever know of such a death as that of
Cook according to the symptoms you have heard described?”
Answer.—“No.”
Re-examined by Mr. Grove.—“Besides the symptom which I
have mentioned as being inconsistent with the theory of death by
strychnia, there are others—namely, sickness, beating the bed
clothes, want of sensitiveness to external impressions, and sudden
cessation of the convulsions and apparent complete recovery. There
was apparently an absence of the usual muscular agitation.
Symptoms of convulsive character arising from an injury to the
spine vary considerably in their degrees of violence, in their periods
of intermission, and in the muscles which are attacked. Intermission
of the disease occurs, but is not frequent in traumatic tetanus. I
don’t remember that death has ever taken place in fifteen hours; it
may take place in forty-eight hours during convulsions. Granules
about the spine are more unusual in young people than in old. I
don’t know of any case in which the spine can preserve its integrity,
so as to be properly examined, for a period of nine weeks. I should
not feel justified in inferring that there was no disease from not

finding any at the end of that time. The period of decomposition
varies from a few hours to a few days. It is not in the least probable
that it could be delayed for nine weeks.”
By the Attorney-General.—“Supposing the stomach were acted
on by other causes, I do not think sickness would be inconsistent
with tetanus.”

With reference to the existence of these granules, Mr. Oliver
Pemberton, anatomical lecturer at Queen’s College, Birmingham,
who was present with Professor Bolton when Cook’s body was
exhumed, in January, for the special purpose of arriving at a more
satisfactory decision on this point than had been effected at the first
post-mortem examination, was called for the defence. He gave it as
his opinion, in which Professor Bolton agreed, that the spinal cord
was not then in a condition to enable him to judge as to what was
its state immediately after death; the upper part, where it separated
from the brain, being green from decomposition, and the other part,
though better preserved, not soft enough for that purpose. This
point was, therefore, left in a far from satisfactory position.
A Dr. G. Robinson, of the Newcastle-on-Tyne Dispensary, also
supported the spinal granules theory, and considered that from his
habits of life Cook was predisposed to epilepsy. He admitted,
however, on cross-examination, that “he had never seen symptoms
of epilepsy proceed to anything like the extent as in Cook’s case;
never saw a body so stiff in epilepsy as to rest on its head and
heels; nor such symptoms, except in tetanus, and that the extreme
form of epilepsy was always accompanied by unconsciousness.”
“The granules,” he thought, “were likely to have irritated the spinal
cord, and yet no indications remain after death; they might have
produced Cook’s death.”

Attorney-General.—“But do you think so?”

Witness.—“Putting aside the assumption of strychnia, I should
say so.”
Attorney-General.—“Are not all the symptoms reported by Mr.
Jones indicative of death by strychnia?”
Witness.—“They certainly are.”
Attorney-General.—“Then it comes to this, that if there were no
other cause of death suggested, you should say it arose from
epilepsy?”
Witness.—“Yes. Epilepsy is a well-known disease which
includes many others, and the convulsions of that disease sometimes
assume tetanic appearances.”

The last important medical witness called for the defence, Dr.
Benjamin Ward Richardson, physician, of London, took the
prosecution somewhat by surprise by attributing Cook’s death to
Angina pectoris, a cause not as yet hinted at. As the counsel for the
Crown were not prepared with information requisite for an
effective cross-examination on this point, at the close of the
prisoner’s case the Attorney-General asked leave to recall this
witness, as he was then prepared with the books required for that
purpose. The Court, however, refused the application, and the
evidence therefore must be accepted with caution.
Dr. Richardson said:—“I am a physician, practising in London. I
have never seen a case of tetanus, properly so called, but I have seen
many cases of death by convulsions. In many instances they have
presented tetanic appearances without being strictly tetanus. I have
seen the muscles fixed, especially those of the upper part of the
body. I have observed the arms stiffened out, and the hands closely
and firmly clinched until death. I have also observed a sense of
suffocation in the patient. In some forms of convulsions I have seen
contortions both of the legs and the feet, and the patient generally
expresses a wish to sit up. I have known persons die of a disease
called angina pectoris. The symptoms of that disease, I consider,

resemble closely those of Mr. Cook. Angina pectoris comes under
the denomination of spasmodic diseases. In some cases the disease
is detectable upon post-mortem examination; in others it is not. I
attended one case. A girl ten years old was under my care in 1850. I
supposed she had suffered from scarlet fever. She recovered so far
that my visits ceased. I left her amused and merry in the morning; at
half-past ten in the evening I was called in to see her, and I found
her dying. She was supported upright at her own request, her face
was pale, the muscles of the face rigid, the arms rigid, the fingers
clinched, the respiratory muscles completely fixed and rigid, and
with all this there was combined intense agony and restlessness,
such as I have never witnessed. There was perfect consciousness.
The child knew me, described her agony, and eagerly took some
brandy and water from a spoon. I left for the purpose of obtaining
some chloroform from my own house, which was thirty yards
distant. When I returned her head was drawn back, and I could
detect no respiration; the eyes were then fixed open, and the body
just resembled a statue; she was dead. On the following day I made
a post-mortem examination. The brain was slightly congested; the
upper part of the spinal cord seemed healthy; the lungs were
collapsed; the heart was in such a state of firm spasm and solidity,
and so emptied of blood, that I remarked that it might have been
rinsed out. I could not discover any appearance of disease that
would account for the death, except a slight effusion of serum in one
pleural cavity. I never could ascertain any cause for the death. The
child went to bed well and merry, and immediately afterwards
jumped up, screamed, and exclaimed, ‘I am going to die.’”
By the Attorney-General.—“I consider that the symptoms I have
described were those of angina pectoris. It is the opinion of Dr.
Jenner that this disease is occasioned by the ossification of some of
the small vessels of the heart. I did not find that to be the case in this
instance. There have been many cases where no cause whatever was
discovered. It is called angina pectoris, from its causing such
extreme anguish to the chest. I do not think the symptoms I have
described were such as would result from taking strychnia. There is

this difference,—that rubbing the hands gives ease to the patient in
cases of angina pectoris. I must say there would be great difficulty
in detecting the difference in cases of angina pectoris and strychnia.
As regards symptoms I know of no difference between the two. I am
bound to say that if I had known so much of these subjects as I do
now, in the case I have referred to I should have gone on to analysis
to endeavour to detect strychnia. In the second case I discovered
organic disease of the heart, which was quite sufficient to account
for the symptoms. The disease of angina pectoris comes on quite
suddenly, and does not give any notice of its approach. I did not
send any note of this case to any medical publication. It is not at all
an uncommon occurrence to find the hands firmly clinched after
death in cases of natural disease.”
By Mr. Serjeant Shee.—“There are cases of angina pectoris in
which the patient has recovered and appeared perfectly well for a
period of twenty-four hours, and then the attack has returned. I am
of opinion that the fact of the recurrence of the second fit in Cook’s
case is more the symptom of angina pectoris than of strychnia
poison.”[59]
Dr. Wrightson was recalled, and in answer to a question put by
Mr. Serjeant Shee he said it was his opinion that when the strychnia
poison was absorbed in the system it was diffused throughout the
entire system.
By the Attorney-General.—“The longer time that elapsed before
the death would render the absorption more complete. If a minimum
dose to destroy life were given, and a long interval elapsed to the
death, the more complete would be the absorption and the less the
chance of finding it in the stomach.”
By Mr. Serjeant Shee.—“I should expect still to find it in the
spleen and liver and blood.”

CASES OF TETANUS BROUGHT FORWARD FOR THE
DEFENCE.

In answer to the cases of undoubted poisoning by strychnia
proved on the part of the prosecution, four cases of tetanus were
brought forward on behalf of the prisoner, with the object of
showing that the symptoms then exhibited were identical with
those in Cook’s case, and, therefore, raising the presumption that he
might have died from ordinary tetanic convulsions, and not from
those produced by strychnia.
The first of these cases was described by Mr. Robert Edward
Gay, a member of the College of Surgeons, who had attended a
patient of the name of Forster for tetanus in October, 1855.
Apparently, at first the patient was suffering only from sore throat
and its usual attendant pains in the neck and upper portion of the
spine, for which he was duly treated. On the fourth day of his
illness the muscular pains extended to the face, and particularly to
the lower jaw, and by evening lockjaw had come on, with pains of
the muscles of the bowels, legs, and arms. “He became very
convulsed throughout the entire muscular system, had frequent
involuntary contractions of the arms, hands, and legs; his difficulty
of swallowing increased, and not a particle of food, solid or liquid,
could be introduced into the mouth, the attempt to do so bringing
on violent convulsions; so strong were they, that I could compare
him to nothing but a piece of warped board.” The head was thrown
back, the abdomen thrust forward, the legs frequently drawn up and
contracted; the attempt to feed him with a spoon, the opening a
window, or placing the fingers on the pulse, brought on violent
convulsions. While the patient was suffering in this manner, he
complained of great hunger, repeatedly exclaimed that he was
hungry, and could not eat. He was kept alive to the fourteenth day
entirely by injections of a milky and farinaceous character. He was
insensible on the 12th, and continued so till he died. There was no
sore or hurt about his body, and Mr. Gay attributed his death to an

inflammatory sore throat, from cold and exposure to the weather,
assuming a tetanic form, from the patient being a very nervous,
excited, and anxious person. Mr. Gay, whilst satisfied that this was
a case of idiopathic tetanus, admitted that he never met with such
another case; that it was altogether progressive from the first onset;
that although for a short time there was a remission of symptoms,
they invariably recurred, and that the locking of the jaw was the
very first symptom that made its appearance.
In another case, at the Royal Free Hospital, in 1843, on the 28th
of July, a boy was brought in with the middle toe of his left foot
smashed by a stone, which Mr. John Gay amputated. The accident
had happened a week before, and the wound became very
unhealthy. When the surgeon first saw him, his mouth was almost
closed, and continued so until the 1st of August, but a small
quantity of medicine could be introduced.

“During the first three days,” said Mr. J. Gay, “his paroxysms
were of unusual severity; he complained of a stiff neck, and during
the first night started up and was convulsed. On the following night
he was again convulsed. At times the abdominal muscles, as well as
those of the legs and back, were rigid, and the muscles of the face in
a state of great contraction. He was in the same state the next day,
but at two o’clock there was much less rigidity of the muscles,
especially those of the abdomen and back. On the following
morning the rigidity had gone, he opened his mouth and could talk;
he was thoroughly relieved. He had no return of spasms till half-past
five on the following day. He then asked the nurse to change his
linen, and as she lifted him up in bed to do so, violent convulsions
of the arms and face came on, and he died in a few minutes. About
thirty hours elapsed between the preceding convulsion and the one
which ended his life. Before the paroxysm came on the rigidity had
been completely relaxed. Tartar emetic (containing antimony),
which I gave on the second and third day, did not produce vomiting;
the rigidity of the muscles of the chest would go far to prevent it.

The wound might have rubbed against the bed when he was raised,
but I don’t think it possible. Some peculiar irritation of the nerves
would give rise to the affection of the spinal cord. There may be
various causes for this irritation of the spinal cord, which ends in
tetanus, but it would be very difficult merely from seeing symptoms
of tetanus, and in the absence of knowledge of how it had been
occasioned, to ascribe it to any particular cause. No doubt the death
took place in consequence of something produced by the injury of
the toe.”

The seriousness of the wound in this case, in comparison with
any signs of wounds found on Cook’s body, and the severity of the
shock occasioned by such a painful accident, renders this example
almost valueless.
In a third case, at the London Hospital, on the 22nd of March of
1856, a patient, aged thirty-seven, was brought in about half-past
seven in the evening. When in the receiving room, he had one
paroxysm, and another soon after when in the ward. After the first,
his pulse was feeble and rapid, his jaws closed and fixed, an
expression of anxiety on his countenance, and his features sunken;
he was unable to swallow, and the muscles of the abdomen and the
back were somewhat tense. After the second paroxysm, his body
became arched for about a minute. He was quieter for a few
minutes, had a third attack, and died. He had some old neglected
sores of a chronic character, particularly at the right elbow, a
peculiarly sensitive spot, and Mr. Ross, the house-surgeon, who
attended the case, admitted that the disease had been coming on
since the morning, that he had felt symptoms of lockjaw at
breakfast, and had had successive attacks all the afternoon before
coming to the hospital. Here again the case had been progressive
until death, and commenced with lockjaw, the admitted signs of
ordinary tetanus as distinguished from that due to poison.

The last case proved was that of Catherine Wilson, of Garnkirk,
near Glasgow, who “was attacked with a fit,” as she deposed, “in
October last year at night, felt heavy all the day from the morning,
but had no pain till night. My first pain,” she said, “was in the
stomach, and then I had cramp in the arm, and became quite
insensible.” By the administration of chloroform the spasms were
relieved, and she recovered.
Dr. William Macdonald, of Edinburgh, who saw the case about
an hour after the attack, admitted that lockjaw came on in about an
hour or two after he was called in.
This witness was also put forward as a medical expert in cases
of strychnia, and attributed Cook’s death to “epileptic convulsions
with tetanic complications,” and was subjected to the following
cross-examination by the Attorney-General:—

“I believe,” said Dr. Macdonald, “that all convulsive diseases,
including the epileptic forms and the various tetanic complications,
arise from the decomposition of the blood acting upon the nerves.
Any mental excitement might have caused Cook’s death. Cook was
excited at Shrewsbury, and whenever there is excitement there is a
consequent depression. I think Cook was afterwards depressed.
When a man is lying in bed and vomiting he must be depressed.”
Attorney-General.—“This gentleman was much overjoyed at his
horse winning, and you think he vomited in consequence?”
Witness.—“It might predispose him to vomit.”
Attorney-General.—“I am not speaking of ‘mights.’ Do you
think that the excitement of three minutes on the course on Tuesday
accounts for the vomiting on Wednesday night.?”
Witness.—“I do not. I find no symptoms of excitement or
depression reported between that time and his death. The white
spots found in the stomach of the deceased might, by producing an
inflammatory condition of the stomach, have brought on the
convulsions that caused death.”

Attorney-General.—“But the gentlemen who made the post-
mortem examination say that the stomach was not inflamed.”
Witness.—“There were white spots, which cannot exist without
inflammation. There must have been inflammation.”
Attorney-General.—“But these gentlemen say there was not.”
Witness.—“I do not believe them. Sexual excitement might
cause epileptic convulsions with tetanic complications. The chancre
and syphilitic sores were evidence that Cook had undergone such
excitement. That might have occurred before he was at
Shrewsbury.”
Attorney-General.—“Might sexual excitement produce epilepsy
a fortnight after it occurred?”
Witness.—“There is an instance on record in which epilepsy
supervened upon the very act of intercourse.”
Attorney-General.—“Have you any instance in which epilepsy
came on a fortnight afterwards?”
Witness.—“It is within the range of possibility.”
Attorney-General.—“Do you mean as a serious man of science
to say so?”
Witness.—“The results might.”
Attorney-General.—“What results were there in this case?”
Witness.—“The chancre and the syphilitic sores.”
Attorney-General.—“Did you ever hear of a chancre causing
epilepsy?”
Witness.—“No.”
Attorney-General.—“Did you ever dream of such a thing.”
Witness.—“I never heard of it.”
Attorney-General.—“Did you ever hear of any other form of
syphilitic disease producing epilepsy?”
Witness.—“No; but tetanus.”
Attorney-General.—“But you say that this was epilepsy. We are
not talking of tetanus.”

Witness.—“You forget the tetanic complication.”
Attorney-General.—“If I understand it right then, the sexual
excitement produces epilepsy, and the chancre superadds tetanic
complications.”
Witness.—“I say the results of sexual excitement produce
epilepsy.”
Attorney-General.—“What would be the effect of morphia given
a day or two previously; would it not retard the action of the
poison?”
Witness.—“No. I have seen opium bring on convulsions very
nearly similar.”
Attorney-General.—“What quantity?”
Witness.—“A grain and a half. From my experience, I think if
morphia had been given a day or two before, it would have
accelerated the action of the strychnia. If this were a case of
poisoning by strychnia, I should suppose that as both opium and
strychnia produce congestion of the brain, they would act together
and have a more speedy effect. If congestion of the brain was
coming on when morphia was given to Cook on the Sunday and
Monday nights it might have increased rather than allayed it.”
Attorney-General.—“But the gentlemen who examined the body
say there was no congestion after death.”
Witness.—“But Dr. Bamford says there was.”
Attorney-General.—“You stick to Dr. Bamford.”
Witness.—“Yes; because he was a man of experience and could
judge much better than younger men, and was not so likely to be
mistaken.”
Attorney-General.—“But Dr. Bamford says that Cook died of
apoplexy. Do you think it was apoplexy?”
Witness.—“No; it was not.”
Attorney-General.—“What then do you think of Dr. Bamford,
who certified that it was?”

Witness.—“That was a matter of opinion, but the existence of
congestion on the brain he saw.”
Attorney-General.—“The other medical men said there was
none.”
Lord Campbell.—“That is rather a matter of reasoning than of
evidence.”

Having thus reported the medico-scientific evidence pro and
con, we pass on to the moral evidence—the purchase of poison by
the prisoner, and his acts during Cook’s illness and subsequent to
his death.

PURCHASE OF POISON BY PALMER.

The proof that Palmer purchased strychnia on two separate
occasions immediately before the convulsive attacks of which
Cook died rested on the evidence of two druggists’ assistants at
Rugeley. One of these, Charles Newton, assistant to Mr. Salt, swore
that about nine o’clock on the Monday evening, the 19th of
November, Palmer came to his master’s shop, asked for three
grains of strychnia, which he gave him, without charge, as he knew
him as a medical practitioner of the town. Next morning, between
eleven and twelve, Roberts, the assistant of Hawkins, another
druggist in Rugeley, was asked by Palmer for two drachms of
prussic acid, for which he brought a bottle with him. Whilst
Roberts was preparing this, Newton, the former witness, came into
the shop, and Palmer, putting his hand on Newton’s shoulder, said
he wished to speak with him, and together they stepped out into the
street, when Palmer asked some questions about Mr. Edwin Salt
going to a farm about fourteen miles from Rugeley. Whilst they
were talking, a Mr. Brassington joined them, and began to speak to
Newton about some accounts for Mr. Salt, on which Palmer went

back into Hawkins’s shop and asked for six grains of strychnia and
two drachms of Batley’s solution of opium.

“Whilst I was preparing them,” said Roberts, “Palmer stood at
the shop door with his back to me, looking into the street. I was
about five minutes preparing them. He stood at the door till they
were ready, when I delivered them to him—the prussic acid in the
bottle he had brought, the strychnia in a paper, and the opium in a
bottle. He paid, and took them away. No one else was in the shop.”

As soon as Palmer had left, Newton came in, and spoke to
Roberts about Palmer’s visit, and no doubt was struck with the
information he received. At that time he did not mention to his
master Palmer’s purchase of the strychnia because, he said, Palmer
and Salt were not friends, and he was afraid that the latter might
blame him for having given Palmer the strychnia. “I first
mentioned it,” said Newton, “to Boycott, the clerk to Mr. Gardner,
the solicitor, at the Rugeley station, when I and a number of
witnesses were assembled for the purpose of going to London. He
took me to Mr. Gardner’s. I told him what I had to say, and he took
me to the solicitor of the Treasury.” Counsel for the defence tried to
elicit from him that he had given as his reason for not mentioning it
before that he was afraid of being prosecuted for perjury. “No,” he
replied; “I did not give that as a reason, but I stated to a gentleman
that a young man at Wolverhampton had been threatened by
George Palmer because he had said at the inquest on Walter Palmer
that he had sold the prisoner prussic acid, and he had not entered it
in the book, and could not prove it. I stated at the same time that
George Palmer said he could be transported for it. The inquest on
Walter Palmer did not take place until five or six weeks after that
on Cook.”

Not only, however, did Newton[60] not mention this purchase of
strychnia when before the coroner, but he did not state that on the
25th of November he was sent for about seven in the evening to
Palmer’s house, where he found the prisoner in his kitchen, sitting
by the fire reading.

“He asked me,” he now said, “how I was, and to have some
brandy and water. No one else was there. He asked me what was the
dose of strychnia to kill a dog. I told him a grain. He asked me what
would be the appearance after death. I told him that there would be
no inflammation, and that I did not think it could be found. Upon
that he snapped his finger and thumb in a quiet way and exclaimed,
as if communing with himself, ‘That’s all right.’ He made some
other commonplace remark, which I do not recollect. I was with him
altogether about five minutes.”

Though he appears to have related the story of the dog at an
earlier date, it was not until the Tuesday before the trial that he said
a word to anyone about the purchase of the strychnia.
To contradict the evidence of Newton, the inspector of police at
the Euston station was called to prove that the last train for Rugeley
left at 2P.M., and that if Palmer went by the five o’clock express he
would not get to Stafford until 8.45, and would then have nine
miles to travel to reach Rugeley. It was, however, remarked by the
Attorney-General that Newton’s words were “about nine o’clock,”
and “that everyone knows how easy it is to make a mistake of half
an hour or three quarters of an hour, or even an hour, if your
attention is not called to the circumstances within a week or a
fortnight, or three weeks afterwards.” Not content with this
evidence, counsel for the defence called one Jeremiah Smith, an
attorney, of Rugeley, and intimate friend of the prisoner’s mother,
who swore that on the night in question he saw Palmer get out of a
car coming in the direction from Stafford at ten minutes past ten,

and went with him to Cook’s room. The exhibition made by this
fellow in the box was disgusting. For some time he declared that he
had never had anything to do with the applications for the
enormous insurances on Walter Palmer’s life; would not
acknowledge his signature to them as a witness, and only after a
most vigorous cross-examination admitted that he witnessed them
on the application of the prisoner. He it was who made the
application to the Midland Insurance Company for the policy of
£10,000 on the life of Bate, the person whom Palmer represented as
a gentleman of property with a fine cellar of wine, but whom the
insurance agent found hoeing turnips in a field of Palmer’s, and
with six months’ rent in arrear for the room in the farm-house
which he occupied. The credit of Newton was set up by the
desperate attempt of Mr. Jeremiah Smith.[61]

ACTS OF THE PRISONER DURING COOK’S ILLNESS AND
AFTER HIS DEATH.

On Thursday, the 15th of November, Cook returned from
Shrewsbury with Palmer to the “Talbot,” at Rugeley, complaining
of being poorly. It will be remembered that he had been sick at
Shrewsbury after partaking of the brandy and water in Palmer’s
company. Next day he dined with Palmer, and came back to the inn
between nine and ten at night, as the witness Barnes said, sober.
Early the next morning (Saturday) Palmer was in his bedroom, and
sent for a cup of coffee for him. Mills, who brought it up, did not
see him drink it; but when soon after she went into his room she
found he had vomited it in the chamber. Palmer was in and out
frequently, and promised to send Cook some soup; for this he sent
Ann Rowley, a charwoman to the “Albion Inn,” who brought it to
Palmer in his kitchen, left it there about five minutes with him,

whilst she went about her other work, and then, by Palmer’s orders,
took it to the “Talbot,” with a message that Jerry Smith, a mutual
friend who had dined with them on the Friday, had sent it.[62] Cook,
seeming unwilling to take this, Palmer said he must have it. It was
taken up again; Cook drank it, and shortly after vomited. Again, on
the Sunday, Palmer sent a jobbing gardener in his employ with a
covered cup of broth to the “Talbot,” of which Mills, who took it
up to Cook’s room, tasted about two tablespoonsful, and was so
sick that she had to go to bed. Whether Cook drank this or not was
not distinctly proved, but the cup was afterwards seen empty in the
kitchen of the hotel. What followed as to the pills sent by Dr.
Bamford, and the others produced by Palmer, is already fully given
in Mills’s evidence. Immediately after Cook’s death, Palmer was
found by Barnes searching the pockets of Cook’s coat and under
his pillow, and the bank-notes which Cook had had only a few days
before, his betting-book, which had been seen on his dressing-
table, and the letters that had been on his chimney-piece, had
disappeared.[63] Previously to this time Palmer had been very short
of money, being pressed for small debts, but immediately
afterwards was in funds, paying small bills, and depositing £50 in a
local bank. On Tuesday evening (20th), when Cook was in such a
serious state, Palmer sent for Cheshire, the Rugeley postmaster, and
asked him to fill up the body of a cheque on Weatherby for £350 in
Palmer’s favour, which he said that he would take over to Cook to
sign. That cheque was sent to Weatherby’s that night, and returned
by them to Palmer, as Weatherby, not having yet received the
stakes Cook had won, was not in funds to meet it. That cheque was
called for by the prosecution, but not produced by the prisoner.
Again, on the Thursday or Friday after, between six and seven in
the evening, Palmer sent for Cheshire. “When I arrived,” said the
witness, “I found him in the kitchen, and he immediately went out,

and shortly after returned with a quarto sheet of paper in his hand.
He gave me a pen, and asked me to sign something. I asked what it
was, and he replied, ‘You know that Cook and I have had dealings
together, and this is a document he gave me some days ago, and I
want you to witness it.’ I said, ‘What is it about?’ He said, ‘Some
business that I have joined in with him, and which is all for his
benefit, and this is the document stating so.’” Cheshire refused, and
Palmer, saying perhaps they would not dispute Cook’s signature,
took it away. This document was also called for, and not produced.
[64]

On Friday, 23rd, Mr. Stevens, who had married the widow of
Cook’s father some years before, and was executor to his
grandfather’s will, arrived in Rugeley, saw Palmer, and asked him
about his stepson’s affairs. “There are £4000 of his bills out,” said
Palmer, “and I am sorry to say my name is to them, but I have got a
paper drawn up and signed by him to show that I never had any
money from them.” Mr. Stevens expressed great surprise, and said,
“I fear there will not be 4000 shillings to pay you.” Then, after
discussing his stepson’s affairs, Mr. Stevens said, “Well, whether
he has left anything or not, poor fellow, he must be buried,” on
which Palmer immediately said, “Oh, I will bury him myself, if
that is all.” Mr. Stevens at once refused, and expressed his intention
of removing the body to London for interment, so as not to
inconvenience the inn people. “Oh,” said Palmer, “that is of no
consequence, but the body ought to be fastened up; as long as the
body is fastened up, it is of no consequence.” Whilst Mr. Stevens
was talking with the persons in the room, Palmer went out, and on
his return, when asked by Stevens to recommend an undertaker,
said, “I have been and done this. I have ordered a shell and a strong
oak coffin.” Mr. Stevens expressed his surprise, and insisted on
giving instructions himself to the undertaker.

Later in the day, after dinner, on Mr. Jones reporting to Stevens,
who had asked him to go up to Cook’s room for that purpose, that
he could not find any betting-book or papers, Palmer said, “Oh, it’s
no manner of use if you do find it.” “No use,” replied Stevens, “I
am the best judge of that.” Again said Palmer, “It’s of no manner of
use.” “I am told it is,” was the reply; “my son won a great deal of
money at Shrewsbury, and I ought to know something about it.” “It
is of no use, I assure you,” replied Palmer; “when a man dies, his
bets are done with; and besides, Cook received the greater part of
the money on the course.” “Very well,” replied Stevens, “the book
ought to be found, and must be found,” when Palmer said, in a
quieter tone, “It will be found, no doubt.” The room was then
locked by Mr. Stevens’s order, but the book was never found.
Mr. Stevens returned to London to see his solicitor, and on his
way back met Palmer (who had been to London to pay Pratt £100,
and caution him against giving any information about Cook’s
affairs), and told him his intention of having a post-mortem
examination. Apparently agreeing with that, Palmer offered to
introduce him to a local solicitor to conduct it, which was declined;
but, added Mr. Stevens, “I said, ‘Mr. Palmer, if I should call in a
solicitor to give me advice, I suppose you will have no objection to
answer any question he may put to you.’ I altered my tone
purposely; I looked him steadily in the face, but although the moon
was shining, I could not see his features distinctly. He said, with a
spasmodic convulsion of the throat, which was perfectly apparent,
‘Oh no, certainly not.’” Later in the evening Palmer came to Mr.
Stevens and renewed his conversation about the bills, hoping that
affairs would be settled pleasantly, and was told by the stepfather
that “they could be only settled in Chancery.” Palmer, at that time,
denied that he had attended Cook in a medical capacity.

On the 17th of November, Ishmael Fisher, who was Cook’s
usual racing agent, received a letter from Cook requesting him to
pay Pratt £200, which he would repay him on the following
Monday, when the Shrewsbury bets would be settled at Tattersall’s.
Much to his surprise, he was not employed as usual, and in
consequence lost the money he had advanced, for on the 19th Mr.
George Herring, another betting man, got a letter from Palmer to
call on him at the latter’s lodgings, in London, at half-past two that
day. He did so.

“I found Palmer there,” said Herring. “He asked me what I
would take. I declined to take anything. I then asked him how Mr.
Cook was. He said, ‘He’s all right; his physician gave him a dose of
calomel, and advised him not to come out, it being a damp day.’ I
don’t know which term he used, ‘damp’ or ‘wet.’ He then went on to
say, in the same sentence, ‘What I want to see you about is settling
his account.’ While he was speaking he took out half a sheet of note
paper from his pocket, and it was open when he had finished the
sentence. He held it up and said, ‘This is it.’ I rose to take it. He
said, ‘You had better take its contents down; this will be a check
against you.’ At the same time he pointed to some paper lying on the
table. I wrote on that paper from his dictation. I have here the paper
which I so wrote. [The witness read the document in question,
which contained instructions as to certain payments he should make
out of moneys to be received by him at Tattersall’s on account of the
Shrewsbury races.] Palmer then said that I had better write out a
cheque for Pratt and Padwick—for the former £450, and for the
latter £350, and send them at once. I told him I had only one form of
cheque in my pocket. He said I could easily fill up a draught on half
a sheet of paper. I refused to comply with his request, as I had not as
yet received the money. He replied that it would be all right, for that
Cook would not deceive me. He wished me particularly to pay Mr.
Pratt the £450. His words, as nearly as I can remember them, were,
‘You must pay Pratt, as it is for a bill of sale on the mare.’ I don’t
know whether he said ‘a bill of sale,’ or ‘a joint bill of sale.’ He told

me he was going to see both Pratt and Padwick, to tell them that I
would send on the money. Previous to his saying this, I told him that
if he would give me the address of Pratt and Padwick I would call
on them, after I had got the money from Tattersall’s, and give it to
them. He then asked me what was between us. There were only a
few pounds between us, and after we had had some conversation on
the point, he took out of his pocket a £50 Bank of England note. He
required £29 out of the note, and I was not able to give it; but he
said that if I gave him a cheque it would answer as well. I gave him
a cheque for £20 and nine sovereigns. When I was going away I do
not remember that he said anything about my paying the money to
Pratt and Padwick. He said on parting, ‘When you have settled this
account write down word to either me or Cook.’ I turned round and
said, ‘I shall certainly write to Mr. Cook.’ I said so because I thought
I was settling Mr. Cook’s account. He said, ‘It don’t much matter
which you write to.’ I said, ‘If I address Mr. Cook, Rugeley,
Stafford, it will be correct, will it not?’ He said, ‘Yes.’ After leaving
Beaufort Buildings I went to Tattersall’s. I then received all the
money I expected, except £110 from Mr. Morris, who paid me £90
instead of £200. I sent from Tattersall’s a cheque for £450 to Mr.
Pratt. I posted a letter to Cook from Tattersall’s, and directed it to
Rugeley. On Tuesday the 20th, next day, I received a telegraphic
message. I have not got it here. I gave it to Captain Hatton at the
coroner’s inquest at Rugeley. In consequence of receiving that
message I wrote again to Cook that day. I addressed my letter as
before, but I believe the letter was not posted till the Wednesday. I
have three bills of exchange with me. I know Palmer’s handwriting,
but never saw him write. I cannot prove his writing; but I knew
Cook’s writing, and I believe the drawing of two and the accepting
of the three bills to be in his writing. I got them from Fisher and
gave him cash for them.” [The witness Boycott was recalled, and
identified the signatures on the bills as those of Palmer and Cook.]
Examination continued.—“The bills are each for £200. One of
them was payable in a month, and when it fell due on October 18,
Cook paid the £100 on account. He paid me the remaining £100 at

Shrewsbury, but I cannot tell with certainty on what day. I did not
pay the £350 to Padwick. I hold another bill for £500.” [Thomas
Strawbridge, manager of the bank at Rugeley, identified the drawing
and endorsing as in the handwriting of Palmer. The acceptance,
purporting to be in the writing of Mrs. Sarah Palmer, he did not
believe to have been written by her.]
Examination continued.—“I am sure that the endorsement on
the £500 bill is in Cook’s writing. I got the bill from Mr. Fisher. I
paid £200 on account of it to Palmer, and £275 to Mr. Fisher. The
balance was discount. It was not paid at maturity. I have taken
proceedings against Palmer to recover the amount.”

On the 26th of November, the post-mortem examination was
held, at which Palmer was present, and the incidents of the pushing
of the jar containing the contents of the stomach and the cutting of
its coverings occurred; and if the evidence of Myatt, the postboy, is
to be taken as true, Palmer tried to bribe him to upset the fly in
which Mr. Stevens and his solicitor’s clerk were to take the jar to
the Stafford station, en route to London,
James Myatt, examined by Mr. James.—“In November last I
was postboy at the ‘Talbot Arms,’ Rugeley. I know Palmer, the
prisoner, and I remember Monday, the 26th of November last. I was
ordered on that night, a little after five o’clock, to take Mr. Stevens
to the Stafford station in a fly. Before I started I went home to get
my tea, and on returning from my tea to the ‘Talbot Arms’ I met the
prisoner. He asked me if I was going to drive Mr. Stevens to
Stafford. I told him I was.”
Question.—“What did he say to you then?”
Answer.—“He asked me if I would upset them.”
Question.—“Them? Had anything been said about a jar?”
Answer.—“He said he supposed I was going to take the jar.”
Question.—“What did you say then?”
Answer.—“I said I believed I was.”

Question.—“What did he say after that?”
Answer.—“He said—‘Do you think you could upset them?’”
Question.—“What answer did you make?”
Answer.—“I told him ‘No.’”
Question.—“Did he say anything more?”
Answer.—“He said—‘If you could, there’s a £10 note for you.’”
Question.—“What did you say to that?”
Answer.—“I told him I could not. I then said, ‘I must go, the
horses are in the fly ready for us to start.’ I do not recollect that he
said anything more about the jar. I said, that if I didn’t go somebody
else would go. He told me not to be in a hurry, for if anybody else
went he would pay me. I saw him again next morning, when I was
going to breakfast. He asked me then who went with the fly. I told
him Mr. Stevens, and, I believed, one of Mr. Gardner’s clerks.”
Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant Shee.—“Were not the words
that Palmer used—‘I wouldn’t mind giving £10 to break Stevens’s
neck?’”
Answer.—“I don’t recollect the words ‘break his neck.’”
Question.—“Well, ‘upset him.’ Did he say, ‘I wouldn’t mind
giving £10 to upset him?’”
Answer.—“Yes; I believe those were the words. I do not know
that Palmer appeared to have been drinking. I don’t recollect that he
had. I can’t say that he used any epithet, applied to Stevens—he said
it was a humbugging concern altogether, or something of that. I
don’t recollect that he said Stevens was a troublesome fellow, and
very inquisitive. I don’t remember anything more than I have said. I
do not know whether there was more than one jar.”

Whilst the analysis of the contents of the jar was being
conducted in London, the coroner opened an inquest at Rugeley.
Palmer, now fully aware of his danger, determined to use his
influence over the postmaster to get the earliest information of the
results of the analysis, and to make a friend of Ward, the coroner.

With the latter object, he sent a hamper of fish and game to the
coroner from London on the 1st of December, writing the direction
himself, but not otherwise letting Ward know from whom they
came, which he professed to wish to be kept secret. To Cheshire,
the postmaster, with whom he had long been on very friendly
terms, receiving from him his mother’s and Cook’s letters, on the
2nd of December he hinted the importance of his knowing anything
that might pass through the post between Dr. Taylor and the local
solicitor. In consequence, on the Wednesday following, he is told
by Cheshire the substance of the letter, already quoted, written by
the analyst to Mr. Gardner on the previous day. On this Palmer, on
the 8th, writes to a poulterer at Stafford to have some game ready
for his messenger, and sends Bate over for it, to take it, with the
following note, to the coroner:—
“My dear Sir,—I am sorry to tell you that I am still confined to
my bed. I don’t think it was mentioned at the inquest yesterday that
Cook was taken ill on Sunday and Monday night, in the same way
as he was on the Tuesday, when he died. The chambermaid at the
‘Crown’ Hotel (Masters’s) can prove this. I also believe that a man
by the name of Fisher is coming down to prove he received some
money at Shrewsbury. Now, here he could only pay Smith £10 out
of £41 he owed him. Had you not better call Smith to prove this?
And, again, whatever Professor Taylor may say to-morrow, he wrote
from London last Tuesday night to Gardner to say, ‘We (and Dr.
Rees) have this day finished our analysis, and find no traces of
either strychnia, prussic acid, or opium.’ What can beat this from a
man like Taylor, if he says what he has already said, and Dr.
Harlands’s evidence? Mind you, I know and saw it in black and
white what Taylor said to Gardner; but this is strictly private and
confidential, but it is true. As regards his betting-book, I know
nothing of it, and it is of no good to anyone. I hope the verdict to-
morrow will be that he died of natural causes, and thus end it.
“Ever yours, “W. P.”

Bate goes to the poulterer, re-directs, and sends the game by a
lad, and then finds his way to the inn, where the coroner is
smoking, calls him out of the billiard-room, and privately gives
him the letter.
On the 14th of December the adjourned inquest is to be held,
and Dr. Taylor’s evidence taken. On the previous day, therefore,
Bate is again summoned by Palmer, and sent to borrow a £5 note of
Thirlby, and on his return, Palmer being still ill in bed, is told by
him to look in a drawer for another, but can only find one for £50.
At this juncture the sheriff’s officer arrives to arrest him on one of
the overdue bills, Bate is sent out of the room, and on his return
commissioned to take a note to the coroner, and to be sure that no
one sees him deliver it. This he succeeds in doing between the
“station” and the “Junction Hotel,” where he slips it slily into
Ward’s hand. Not liking all this secrecy, Bate had hesitated at
accepting the mission, and asked that some one else should be sent,
when Palmer replied, “Why, George, as to this poor fellow Cook,
he was the best pal I ever had in my life; and why should I have
poisoned him?” and then added, “I am as innocent as you, George.”
The inquest proceeded, and in addition to the evidence of the
symptoms attendant on Cook’s death, Dr. Taylor gave his, and
Roberts proved the purchase of strychnia only a day before Cook’s
death. Palmer was summoned, but professed to be too ill to come,
and on the next day a verdict of wilful murder against him was
returned, and a warrant issued for his transfer to Stafford jail. After
a few days’ detention in his own house, Palmer was conveyed to
jail, in such a state of despondency that he appears to have
determined to starve himself to death, and would probably have
done so, but for the threat of compulsory measures by the
Governor. Soon afterwards all his property was seized under a bill

of sale and sold, his racehorses alone realising four thousand
guineas.[65]

THE DEFENCE.

Of Mr. Serjeant Shee’s address to the jury in the defence of the
prisoner, which occupied, without wearying, the attention of the
Court during eight hours on the seventh day, only a brief analysis
can be given. The main points on which he insisted were—First,
the erroneous nature of the medico-scientific evidence in referring
the symptoms exhibited in Cook’s case to tetanus from strychnia,
on which he was prepared to contradict it by witnesses of equal
character and credit in the profession. Secondly, the probability,
amounting as near as possible to a certainty, that if the death had
been occasioned by strychnia, the presence of that poison should
have been detected by the analysts. Thirdly, the similarity of the
symptoms in the case to those of cases of traumatic or idiopathic
tetanus of late occurrence, to be described by the doctors who had
attended them. As the mass of evidence by which he sought to
support these propositions has been already reported, it is needless
to recur to it. We may therefore pass on to the moral evidence, only
pausing to extract the noble passage descriptive of the mechanism
of the human frame, with which he introduced the former subject,
and his picture of Cook’s state of mind from before his victory at
Shrewsbury until his death.

“‘A little learning is a dangerous thing.’

“It appears to me there never was a case in which the adage was
so applicable as it is in this. Of all the works of God, the one best
calculated to fill us with wonder and admiration, and convince us of
our dependence on our Maker, and the utter nothingness of
ourselves, is the mortal coil in which we live, and breathe, and