Principal Offences Included. Taken in the order
of their seriousness, the following are the principal
offences in which chemical considerations and evidence
are frequently factors : drugging, procuring abortion
by drugs, poisoning, and attempting to commit these
crimes.
Drugging. Law of, Offences against the Person Act,
1861, S. .
"Whosoever shall unlawfully apply or admin-
ister to or cause to be taken by, or attempt to
apply or administer to, or attempt to cause to
be administered to or taken by, any person,
any chloroform, laudanum, or other stupefying or
overpowering drug, matter, or thing, with intent in
any of such cases thereby to enable himself or any
other person to commit, or with intent in any of
such cases thereby to assist any other person in
committing any indictable offence, shall be guilty of
felony, and being convicted thereof shall be liable
... to be kept in penal servitude for life."
Included in this offence is drugging with intent to
rob or kidnap, and generally, the administration of
stupefying drugs in order to facilitate the commission
of some other crime.
Chemical Evidence for the Prosecution. The identity
of the drug must, if possible, be proved, and if it con-
sists of chloroform or laudanum should be named in
the indictment. If some other body has been employed,
the evidence must show that it was of a stupefying
and overpowering nature and calculated to produce
the effect alleged. Defence. Show, if possible, that
the drug used could not, as employed, stupefy or
overpower.
Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1885, S. 3.
" Any person who . . . applies, administers to, or
causes to be taken by any woman or girl any drug,
matter, or thing, with intent to stupefy or overpower
so as thereby to enable any person to have unlawful
carnal connection with such woman or girl, shall be
guilty of a misdemeanour, and being convicted
thereof shall be liable ... to be imprisoned for any
term not exceeding two years."
Chemical Evidence. Prosecution. Prove the stupefy-
ing or aphrodisiac character of the drug or thing. De-
fence. Prove the innocent nature of that administered
and consequence absence of intent.
Note. Where directions are given to prove certain
facts, as here the innocent nature of the drug or
thing, it is, of course, understood that what is meant
is ascertain whether such facts exist, and if so, be
prepared with the necessary evidence to prove them.
Abortion or Miscarriage. Law of, Offences against
the Person Act, 1861, S. 58.
" Every woman being with child who, with intent
to procure her own miscarriage, shall unlawfully
administer to herself any poison or other noxious
thing, . . . and whosoever with intent to procure
the miscarriage of any woman, whether she be or be
not with child, shall unlawfully administer to her
or cause to be taken by her any poison or other
noxious thing, . . . shall be guilty of felony, and
being convicted thereof shall be liable ... to be
kept in penal servitude for life."
S. 59. "Whosoever shall unlawfully supply or
procure any poison or other noxious thing, ....
knowing that the same is intended to be unlaw-
fully used or employed with intent to procure the
miscarriage of any woman, whether she be or be
not with child, shall be guilty of a misdemeanour,
and being convicted thereof shall be liable ....
to be kept in penal servitude."
Definition of Poison. Taylor on Medical Juris-
prudence, p. 324, Vol. II. "A poison is a substance
which when taken into the mouth or stomach or
when absorbed into the blood is capable of seriously
affecting health or of destroying life by its action
on the tissues with which it immediately, or after
absorption, comes in contact."
Definition of "other noxious thing" The term is
employed usually, if not always, with reference to
abortifacients. A " noxious thing " may be defined as
" a substance which, while not of the nature of a
poison as above described, is nevertheless capable of
producing abortion."
Chemical Evidence. Prosecution. In administering,
prove that the substance administered was either " a
poison " or a " noxious thing."
R. v. Isaacs. L. & C. 220 ; 9, Cox, 228. The thing
supplied with intent to procure the miscarriage of a
woman with child must be noxious in its nature.
Therefore when the thing supplied and taken was of
a harmless character, but owing to the imagination of
the woman being powerfully acted upon a miscarriage
ensued, it was held a conviction could not be sustained.
In this case the prisoner had supplied three bottles of
a dark coloured mixture, of which a small portion
only was taken. The mixture was analysed and
found to contain a considerable quantity of starch
and some woody fibre. The analyst arrived at the
conclusion that the liquid was some vegetable decoct-
ion of a harmless character, and such as would not
procure a miscarriage. On these facts the court
decided that the thing was not noxious in its nature,
and quashed the conviction.
The substance being a recognised " poison," prove the
quantity administered, however small.
E. v. Cramp. 14, Cox, 401. The prisoner gave a
female an ounce bottle full of oil of juniper, with
intent to procure her miscarriage, and told her to take
it in two doses, half at a time. She took half of it at
one dose, and it caused her violent sickness. The
bottle contained from 500 to 600 drops of oil of
juniper. Oil of juniper is used as a diuretic in small
quantities, from five to twenty drops; but when as
much as half an ounce is taken it acts as an irritant,
and produces violent purging and vomiting, which
would have a tendency to procure miscarriage. It
was Held, that the causing to be taken, as much as
was taken in this case, was the causing of a noxious
thing to be taken within the meaning of the statute.
A thing may be a noxious thing within the statute,
if when taken in large quantity it proves injurious,
although when taken in a small quantity it is
beneficial. There follow extracts from the judgments
of various members of the court.
COLERIDGE, L.C.J. " It is therefore in each case a
question of the quantity and the circumstances under
which the drug is administered. It is in each case a
question for the jury whether the thing, administered
as it was under the circumstances, is a 'noxious
thing.' Here the thing, as administered, was proved
to be noxious."
FIELD, J. " The section speaks, first, of poisons ;
secondly, of other noxious things. If the thing ad-
ministered is a known recognised poison, I think the
offence may be committed, though the quantity given
is so small as to be incapable of doing harm."
STEPHEN, J. "As to the administration of ' poison,*
certain things are known as poisons ; and as to these,
possibly the administration of a small quantity, with
the criminal intent, would be within the statute."
It will be seen that FIELD and STEPHEN, J. J., draw
a distinction between a recognised poison and a thing
which is noxious only in large quantities.
For this reason it is important to prove that the
substance is in fact a poison, and recognised as such.
The administration of even a small quantity is probably
then sufficient to constitute the offence.
The substance not being a poison, prove that the
quantity administered is a noxious thing. The fore-
going case, R. v. Cramp, is an illustration of a thing
which was noxious in the quantity administered,
though much smaller doses are beneficial. The follow-
ing cases, R. v. Perry, and R. v. Hennah, are examples
of instances in which the quantity given was in fact
not sufficiently large to be noxious.
R. v. Perry. 2, Cox, 223. The prisoner gave a female
two powders and a bottle containing a decoction of
feverfew, with directions to take the same for the
purpose of procuring a miscarriage. She took one
powder only, but no miscarriage resulted. Dr. Davis,
for the prosecution, stated as his opinion from the
examination of the powder that it was a mixture of
savin and fenugreek, the latter being the larger
ingredient. The fenugreek would scarcely produce any
effect at all ; savin, in that quantity, might produce a
little disturbance in the stomach for the time, but
would do no further injury. The decoction of feverfew
had nothing noxious in it, and a mixture of the powder
and the decoction would not alter the properties of
either. It was Held that the small quantity of savin
thus administered is not a " noxious thing " within the
meaning of the statute.
E. v. Hennah. 13, Cox, 547. The prisoner, William
Hennah, was charged with administering a " certain
destructive or noxious thing " called cantharides, with
intent to injure, aggrieve, or annoy. The prisoner
offered a fig to a young woman, and on her acceptance
gave her two. She commenced to chew a portion. It
was noticed by her father to contain something glisten-
ing, on learning which she spat out what she had been
chewing. The other fig was taken to a chemist, and
was found to contain from a grain to a grain and a half
of cantharides, a quantity insufficient to produce any
effect upon the human system. COCKBURN, C. J., in the
course of his judgment, said : " What is important to
the present case is that the quantity administered was
incapable of producing any effect .... unless the
thing is a noxious thing in the quantity administered
it seems exceedingly difficult to say logically there has
been a noxious thing administered. The thing is not
noxious in the form in which it has been taken ; it is not
noxious in the degree or quantity in which it has been
given and taken. We think, therefore, the indictment
will not hold. It would be very different if the thing
administered, as regards either its character or degree,
were capable of doing mischief. But because it
happens to fail in a particular instance, from any
collateral or unforeseen cause, owing, may be, to the
vigour of the constitution of the person to whom it is
administered, or some cause of that description, if it
was capable of doing mischief at all it would be within
the statute."
The reader's attention is directed to the distinction
drawn between the administration of a thing in itself
innoxious in the quantity given, and one which
happens in a particular case to do no harm, even
though noxious in itself because of some unforeseen
cause, such as unusual strength or drug-resisting
power of the person to whom administered.
Defence. Prove that the substance was neither a
poison nor a noxious thing. If a noxious thing, that
the quantity administered was so small as to be incap-
able of doing harm and therefore innoxious.
In procuring. If alleged to be a noxious thing, for
the Prosecution, prove that it must be noxious in the
quantity supplied. Defence. Prove that the quantity
supplied was innoxious.
Administering Poison with intent to Murder.
Offences against the Person Act, 1861, S. 11.
" Whosoever shall administer to or cause to be
administered or to be taken by any person any
poison or other destructive thing . . . with intent
... to commit murder, shall be guilty of felony,
and being convicted thereof shall be liable. . . .
to be kept in penal servitude for life."
Attempting to administer, S. 14> "Whosoever
shall attempt to administer to or shall attempt to
cause to be administered to or to be taken by any
person any poison or other destructive thing . . .
shall, whether any bodily injury be effected or not,
be guilty of felony; and being convicted thereof
shall be liable ... to be kept in penal servitude for
life."
Chemical Evidence. For Prosecution, prove the sub-
stance to be a poison or destructive thing in the
quantity administered or attempted. Defence. Prove
contra.
Note. Cocculus indicus berries grow in a pod. The
kernel is a poison, but the pod will not dissolve in the
stomacb, and therefore the whole pod is harmless. It
has nevertheless been Held that giving the whole pod
is an administering within the section R. v. Cluderay.
4, Cox 84. It is immaterial, therefore, whether bodily
injury be or be not effected.
Homicide Murder and Manslaughter. Offences
against the Person Act, 1861, S. 1.
"Whosoever shall be convicted of murder shall
suffer death as a felon."
5. " Whosoever shall be convicted of man-
slaughter shall be liable, at the discretion of the
court, to be kept in penal servitude for life ... or
to pay such fine as the court shall award, in addition
to or without any such other discretionary punish-
ment as aforesaid."
Definitions Murder. The following is that given by
LORD COKE (3 Inst. 47) : -" Where a person of sound
memory and discretion unlawfully killeth any
reasonable creature in being and under the King's
peace with malice aforethought, either express or
implied."
Manslaughter is " the unlawful and felonious killing
of another without any malice either express or implied."
E. v. Tayler, 2, Lewin, 215. Killing ly Poison. COKE
again in " 3, Inst. 48 says, ' of all the forms of death by
which human nature may be overcome, the most detest-
able is that of poison ; because it can of all others be
the least prevented either by manhood or forethought.'
And therefore, in all cases where a man wilfully ad-
ministers poison to another, 1, Hale 455, or lays poison
for him, and either he or another takes it, and is killed
by it, the law implies malice, although no particular
enmity can be proved."
Death occasioned by administration of Medi-
cine. " A medical man must, at his peril, use proper
skill and caution in administering a poisonous drug."
(12, v. M'Leod. 12, Cox, 534).
Eule as to Qualified and Unqualified Men. This is
laid down by LORD LYNDHURST in E. v. Webb.
1 M. & Rob., 405. "In these cases there is no
difference between a licensed physician or surgeon,
and a person acting as physician or surgeon without
license. In either case, if a party having a competent
degree of skill and knowledge, makes an accidental
mistake in his treatment of a patient, through which
mistake death ensues, he is not thereby guilty of man-
slaughter ; but if, when proper medical assistance can
be had, a person totally ignorant of the science of medi-
cine takes on himself to administer a violent and
dangerous remedy to one labouring under disease, and
death ensues in consequence of that dangerous remedy
having been so administered, then he is guilty of
manslaughter."
Gross Negligence and Manslaughter. On an indictment
for manslaughter against a medical man by administer-
ing poison by mistake for some other drug, it is not
sufficient for the prosecution merely to show that the
prisoner, who dispensed his own drugs, supplied a
mixture which contained a large quantity of poison;
they are bound also to show that this happened through
the gross negligence of the prisoner. R. v. Spencer. 10,
Cox, 525.
Chemical Evidence. In criminal matters of grave
character, all evidence must be overwhelmingly strong.
The rule is, if possible, even more stringent when life is
at stake. The proof must be complete in every detail.
The defence is under a positive duty to test every link
of the chain ; and if any be found wanting the jury is
bound not to convict. Useful details of the preparation
of such chemical evidence are given in Taylor's Medical
Jurisprudence, Vol. II., p. 372.
NATURE OF PRECAUTIONS TO BE TAKEN.
Character of Articles submitted to chemist. These
may include the stomach or other organs of the body ;
urine or other secretions of the body ; vomit ; medicine ;
food ; contents of drinking vessels, etc.
Previous history of these. As a rule all these articles
are first collected by some person other than the
chemist, such as a policeman. A non-professional man
should, if possible, touch nothing, and see that nothing
is touched. To this there is the exception of something
that will be lost if not at once recovered. For example,
a woman was found dead, with vomit near the mouth
running away and soaking into the floor. This should
be collected at once with a clean spoon in a clean vessel.
An Expert Medical Man will, on arrival, take note
of everything, preserve all necessary articles, put in
proper vessels, seal, and arrange for personal delivery
to the chemist. On post mortem examination the
operator will take precautions for the proper packing
of essential organs of the body and other substances
therefrom requiring to be analysed.
Exact particulars of delivery and receipt of Articles.
The chemist should ascertain as much as possible of the
previous history of the case, such as the symptoms
preceding death. He should also acquaint himself with
the circumstances under which any articles were found,
e.g., articles of food, suspected poison, etc., whether in
clean vessels or the reverse. Also vomit, whether in
clean vessel or possibly collected from a dirty floor.
The nature and efficiency of packages, how fastened,
and what identifying marks or seals must also be noted.
A record of when and where received and from whom
must also be made and kept.
Condition when received. Note minutely whether seals
or packages are entire or show any sign of having
been tampered with ; also whether putrefactive or other
changes have occurred in the contents.
Custody during analysis. If possible, all articles should
be kept in the direct personal custody of the chemist.
They must be securely locked up during his absence ;
products, etc., must be labelled at each stage of the
work. If any article or portion of article is given
to any other chemist or expert, it must be handed over
personally together with a written description. A note
must be made of the time, place, and person. At the
close of the investigation any remainders must be
sealed up in proper vessels, labelled, and kept in safe
custody. Or if directions have been received to hand
them to some other person, a note must be made of
full particulars of the articles handed over, their
nature and state, and time when, and place where, and
person to whom so handed.
Preservation. No antiseptics are admissible. Ob-
viously one must not introduce foreign matters. It is
dangerous to heat since some of the substances may
be volatile. Cold storage is permissible. If spirituous
extracts are to be made, at an early stage one may
macerate with the spirit, and thus incidentally
preserve from putrefaction.
Full details of modes of analysis and results. These
must include when and where analysed, how analysed,
full details of methods of analysis, whether assistants
were employed, and if so, the exact nature of work
done by them. The chemist must be able to speak if
required as to the skill of his assistants, and should
keep such personal touch with their work as to be
able to adopt their results as his own.
Accuracy of Analysis. The analyst should be able
to speak as to the accuracy of his modes of analysis
and their limitations. He should also have tested the
accuracy of the calibration of his instruments, pipettes*
burettes, flasks, hydrometers, etc.
Substances obtained by analysis must be kept. The
active substance may possibly be isolated, in that case
it must be carefully preserved for production if
necessary, e.g., samples of arsenic, aconitine, etc.
Form and strength of poison administered. If possible
the analyst should determine the form in which the
poison was given, e.g., morphia whether as opium,
laudanum, or salt of alkaloid. In the matter of
strength he should, if able, decide whether given in
concentrated or in diluted condition.
Organs or Secretions of body in which found. These
must be noted, as thereby indications of the nature of
the poison and the length of time during which it
was being administered, are afforded.
Amount of fatal dose. The analyst should be able
to state the amount of fatal dose and its relation to
the sex, age, and state of health of the deceased. He
should ascertain the proportion such dose bears to the
quantity found on analysis. He should further be
able to state what relation this quantity found bears
to the quantity administered.
Possible existence of poison naturally in the body. The
poison may have been given as a medicine ; for example
arsenic, antimony, and strychnine are all recognised
drugs. Or it may have been absorbed during the
natural avocations of the person ; thus lead poisoning
frequently occurs in the case of potters working with
lead glaze.
Another alternative is that the poison may have
been present in food. Thus prussic acid is formed
from bitter almonds, and also may be obtained from
other fruit kernels. A well-known anecdote is that
of counsel who advanced the theory that a person, in
whose body prussic acid was found, had himself intro-
duced it by chewing and swallowing apple-pips. The
defence was ineffective except that for long after the
barrister was familiarly known as " Apple-pip Kelly."
Poison, the result of decomposition. As the result of
certain obscure chemical changes which may occur
within the body after death, there may be poisonous
bodies produced from non-poisonous substances in the
body. These are known as cadaveric alkaloids, or
more usually as " ptomaines." As the naturally
poisonous alkaloids may possibly be confused with
ptomaines, evidence differentiating the two classes of
bodies must be forthcoming.
Introduction of poison by impure analytic reagents. This
is not an unknown experience, thus arsenic has
actually been introduced, by means of the reagents,
into the Marsh's and Keinsch's tests by which sub-
stances were being examined for its presence.
Introduction by improper wrappers. The obvious duty
of the person forwarding articles for analysis is to see
that they are packed in proper receptacles. The
chemist can only deal with them as they reach him,
but he should be on the alert for the discovery of any
improper wrapper. Thus a case is on record of a
stomach, suspected to contain arsenic, having been
packed in a piece of wall paper. The wall paper itself
on examination was found to contain arsenic in
abundance.
Chemical Evidence for Defence. The first duty of a
chemist who is acting for the defence is to scrutinise
most closely the whole chain of evidence for the
prosecution. The preceding directions as to the pre-
cautions necessary to ensure its completeness should
also furnish suggestions to the defence as to the tests
to which it may be subjected in order to find any
defects in case of their existence. If, for example, the
circumstances of death point to a possibility of
ptomaine poisoning having been the cause, this should
be pressed in cross-examination of witnesses for the
prosecution. Such a possibility should be supported
by direct chemical evidence that the analytical results
are compatible with death from such a cause.
Granted any reasonable case for death being due to
other causes, or that death by poison has resulted from
any innocent source, the defence must be prepared
with all the constructive evidence necessary to build
up an affirmative case. This will include evidence in
support of the whole chemical argument (and of
course equally of the medical one, though the latter
at present only indirectly concerns us).
ILLUSTRATIVE CASES.
In the following poisoning cases an account is given
of the more important chemical evidence. The figures
in brackets (1) refer to notes at the end of each case :
E. v. Palmer.
On the 14th. May, 1856, William Palmer was tried
at the Central Criminal Court (C.C.C.) for the murder
of J. P. Cook, who died on the 21st. November, 1855.
Cook was seized with symptoms of antimony (tartar
emetic) poisoning vomiting, etc. These were after-
wards followed by tetanic convulsions and death.
Palmer, who was a medical man, had been attending
Cook, and gave him medicines. Palmer had on several
occasions bought strychnine, the disposal of which he
could not account for. Palmer had a pecuniary interest
in Cook's death. The symptoms of death were those
of poisoning by strychnine.
A post mortem examination was held, at which Palmer
was present. The stomach having been placed in a
jar, Palmer tried to upset it; and, after the jar had
been covered with bladder and tied down, took it into
another room and cut slits in the covering (1), but
without succeeding in tampering with the contents.
Palmer further tried to bribe the post-boy to upset the
trap in which the jar was being driven away for
purposes of subsequent analysis.
The contents of the stomach were analysed by Taylor
and Rees. They had examined for strychnine, but
found none (2) ; they found antimony in the liver, left
kidney, spleen, and in the blood. The stomach had
been turned inside out, and the contents were mixed
with the intestines (1).
Herapath, Letheby, and others gave chemical evidence
for the defence, and argued that no strychnine having
been found was incompatible with its having been
administered (3).
Taylor's view was that if the minimum lethal dose
had been given, none would be left in the stomach, and
if it had got into the blood it would be so diffused and
diluted as to be incapable of detection (4), and there-
fore there was no certainty as to its being found at all.
Herapath claimed that he could detect -sv.vvo g ra i Q of
strychnine.
The medical and other evidence was so conclusive
that the prisoner was found guilty and hanged.
Notes. (1). The most obvious precautions were
neglected in the conduct of the post mortem. The
stomach, etc., should have been more carefully treated,
and the contents preserved if necessary in separate
vessels. Palmer, a suspect, should not have had any
opportunities of tampering with the substances, much
less of taking a jar into another room.
(2). According to Taylor's evidence, though he found
no strychnine, yet the same processes detected no
strychnine in animals specially poisoned for the
purposes of analysis.
(3). Herapath's contention only went to prove he,
Herapath, could have succeeded where Taylor failed.
It must be remembered that all this was more than
fifty years ago, and toxicological analysis was then
in its comparative infancy.
(4). Stevenson believes that with modern methods
of analysis, strychnine can hardly fail to be detected
in the body in any case of poisoning by this alkaloid
proving fatal within a couple of hours. Strychnine
is absorbed into the blood unchanged, which is proved
by the fact that a dog may be killed by transfusion
of blood of another animal which has been strychnised.
Strychnine is very resistant to decomposition. Steven-
son extracted ^ grain from 2 Ibs. of exhumed viscera,
six months after burial, though the woman had sur-
vived the administration for six hours.
It is remarked in Taylor's Medical Jurisprudence,
Smith's 1905 Edition, that with such culpable neglect
as in this case, the only course is to seek for the
poison in the tissues. Detection in the body is a
proof it has been taken . . . non-detection does not
prove that it has not destroyed life.
A number of indiscretions were committed by the
witnesses in this case. Taylor communicated before-
hand with the Illustrated London Times, and Herapath
had expressed the opinion freely that Taylor had not
gone the right way to find strychnine. The strongly
partisan character of the evidence led to the following
aphorism of the judge: "With regard to the witnesses
on the part of the prisoner .... there were
gentlemen whose object was to procure an acquittal
for the prisoner. It is in my opinion indispensable
to the administration of justice that a witness should
not be turned into an advocate, nor an advocate into
a witness."
R. v. Smethurst.
On the 7th. July, 1859, Smethurst was tried at the
C.C.C. for the murder of Isabella Banks, who died on
the 3rd. May, 1859. A motive for the alleged murder
existed. The symptons of illness preceding death
were as follows : diarrhoea and vomiting, dysentery,
heat and burning throughout the whole alimentary
canal. These pointed to the administration of some
irritant poison. No poison was traced to the prisoner's
possession, but he as a doctor would have no difficulty
in procuring same.
Chemical evidence for the Prosecution. A part of a
motion was analysed by Dr. Taylor, who found it to
contain arsenic. The following report of the evidence
is abstracted and condensed from Vol. 50,0.0.0., Sessions
Cases, p. 552.
Taylor in examination in chief ] deposed that on the
1st. May, he received a parcel delivered by Buzzard.
This contained two bottles, which were sealed, he
opened one and took out a portion. (1). Before com-
mencing his analysis, he first tested his apparatus and
reagents, copper wire, hydrochloric acid, water, and
test-tube ; he found then all perfectly clean. (2). He
then used the same reagents and apparatus, and tested
some of the liquid from the bottle he had opened.
The result was a metallic deposit of a greyish steel
colour on the copper. This might be arsenic or anti-
mony, or possibly mercury. The bottle was then re-sealed
in his presence, and taken away by Buzzard. (3).
He made further experiments with some more of
the liquid, and obtained a further deposit of grey
matter. This he examined under the microscope, and
found it to have the appearance of arsenic. He heated
a piece of the copper on which was the deposit, and
obtained crystals of arsenic. These he produced. (4).
He had not the slightest doubt of their identity.
There was no indication of the presence of antimony,
mercury, or bismuth. He found that arsenic was
contained in the blood.
On the 5th. May, he received a large jar from
M'Intyre, sealed up this contained viscera, stomach
unopened, and other organs enumerated,
On the 7th. May, and on other specified dates
he received other packages, labelled, and numbered
them. (5).
On examination he found no arsenic or antimony
in the gullet or stomach. He found antimony in two
places in the intestine, and traces of antimony in
blood taken from the heart. He was assisted by Dr.
Odling. (6).
He examined a number of articles of food
and medicine. Bottle No. 5 contained 355 grains
chlorate of potass free from anything else it is not
muriate of potass. [KC1]
Bottle No. 21 contained a clear watery liquid of
saline taste. Handed 1J oz. from it to an assistant to
boil for Reinsch's Test. The copper was destroyed by
being dissolved. He plunged a portion of fresh copper
in the solution for a very short time, and found
arsenic deposited on it.
Subsequent examination showed no arsenic or
antimony in the liquid, but that the arsenic found in
the original test had come from the copper used for
the experiment. (7.) In the ordinary mode of apply-
ing the test, witness added, " We never dissolve the
copper."
On cross-examination by Parry. When giving
evidence before the magistrate, he believed that this
bottle contained arsenic. Subsequent examination
showed that the original analysis was mistaken.
On re-examination by Bodkin. If half a grain of
copper was administered during life, there would not
be any action of acid in the stomach that would
account for the arsenic in the evacuation. (8). Slight
traces of arsenic were found in the copper pills, but
none in those of bismuth.
Odling, on examination, stated that in a case where
the copper is not dissolved there is no fallacy in
Reinsch's test.
Chemical Evidence for Defence. B. Ward Eichardson
was examined by Giffard. Slow arsenical poisoning
is quite impossible without arsenic being found in
the tissues. (9). He experimented on a dog, giving
it white arsenic and potassium chlorate in excess, the
latter being a diuretic he subsequently found arsenic
in the dog's tissues.
Various medical witnesses averred that the symptoms
were not those of slow poisoning, but of dysentery.
The jury believed the chemical evidence for the
prosecution and found tbe prisoner guilty.
Notes. (1) The witness states the time when, and
the person from whom he received the articles for
analysis, also the mode of packing, and that they were
sealed.
(2) All apparatus was tested before use.
(3) States what was done with the bottle when
finished with.
(4) Produced in Court the substance isolated.
(5) All packages labelled and numbered.
(6) Gives name of assistant whose qualifications
were well known.
(7) Example of the poison being searched for having
been introduced in the reagents.
(8) Medicines administered could not have been
the source of the poison found on analysis.
(9) Defence attacks the evidence for the prosecution
on the ground that absence of arsenic from the tissues
is conclusive evidence of absence of slow arsenical
poisoning. Different argument and conclusion based
on facts as advanced by the prosecution.
STEPHENS, J., comments somewhat fully on this case
in his Criminal Law of England, p. 305. He remarks
that Taylor's credit was attacked because on the
copper gauze being dissolved by the potassium
chlorate, and arsenic liberated, Taylor assumed that
the arsenic came from the liquid being tested. The
defence tried to draw the inference that his whole
evidence was unreliable. But examining that evi-
dence, altogether 77 experiments were made, in 74 no
copper was dissolved and no arsenic was found. In
2 tests no copper was dissolved and arsenic was
found. In one test, the copper was dissolved and
arsenic from the copper was found, thus showing that
the test will reveal arsenic. The 74 experiments show
that when there is no solution of copper, the test does
not reveal arsenic unless it is free in the liquid, as
distinct from being combined with the copper. A
second argument was based on Eichardson's evidence,
that arsenic must be found in the tissues in a case of
arsenical poisoning. In the judge's opinion, absence of
arsenic at death does not show that no arsenic was
given during life, but that none was given for the last
two or three days of life. The third argument of the
defence was that Taylor found antimony and arsenic
present in the medicines, which contained bismuth, and
therefore in that way such arsenic as was found could
be accounted for. An attack was made on the credit
of the witnesses for the defence, on the ground that
they had also given evidence for the defence at Palmer's
trial. Richardson then deposed that Cook's symptoms
were those of angina pectoris, and Kogers that if death
were due to strychnine, that poison ought to have been
found in the body.
After the sentence, petitions and other documents were
sent to the judge (L. C. BARON POLLOCK), among them
being a communication from Drs. Baly and Jenner on
the medical evidence, they regarded the symptoms and
post mortem appearances as ambiguous, and thought they
might be due either to natural causes or poison.
The judge recommended the Home Secretary to refer
the matter to the judgment of some independent medical
and scientific persons selected by himself.
Herapath meanwhile had written a letter to The
Times asserting that Taylor had extracted more arsenic
from the potassium chlorate and copper than could
have been set free by the solution of the copper.
The Home Secretary sent the papers to Sir Benjamin
Brodie, the eminent surgeon, who reported on the
materials supplied him, that there were six reasons for
believing Smethurst guilty, and eight for doubting the
same, and concluded " I own that the impression on
my mind is that there is not absolute and complete
evidence of Smethurst's guilt."
The Home Secretary thereon granted a free pardon.
This was at best an unsatisfactory course of procedure.
Such a matter would now be referred to the Court of
Criminal Appeal.
R. v. Lamson.
On the 3rd. December, 1881, Lamson, a doctor, visited
his brother-in-law, P. M. John, cetat 19, at school. He
administered a gelatin capsule containing aconitine.
Symptoms of aconitine poisoning followed, resulting in
death.
Chemical Evidence. Stevenson stated that analyses
were made jointly with Dupre*. "Every step taken
was arranged between myself and Dr. Dupre before
being adopted. The manual operations were sometimes
carried on by me and sometimes by Dr. Dupre, and
when he performed the analysis I examined it, so as to
be able to speak to the result." (1).
We obtained morphia and aconitine ; the latter by
Stas's process from the viscera, etc. Its existence was
proved by its general reactions as an alkaloid. The
tongue sensations produced by aconitine are character-
istic. By the comparative action on mice as against a
standard solution of aconitine, -2-^-5 grain may be
recognised.
In cross-examination, he gave details of the analytic
processes. The effect on the tongue was not like veratria
or delphinia, but was characteristic of aconitine (2).
Cadaveric alkaloids may possibly be produced in the
stomach after death, but he has seen none producing
the same effect as aconitine. (C.G.C. Reports, Vol. 96,
p. 572.)
The prisoner was found guilty and sentenced to death.
Notes. (1) Particulars of the analyses having been
jointly made were very carefully stated.
(2) The suggestion for the defence is that the analytic
results may have been due to something else than
aconitine. The effect on the tongue as a means of
recognition depends on the correct estimation of a
sensation as distinct from some purely physical means
of identification.
(3) The theory that ptomaines (cadaveric alkaloids)
had been developed, and that the effects obtained were
really due to such bodies, is negatived by the evidence
that ptomaines do not in fact produce the same effects.
M. v. Maybrick.
On the 31st. July, 1889, Florence Maybrick was
tried at the Liverpool Assizes for the murder of James
Maybrick, her husband, who died on the llth. May,
1889. The alleged motive was intimacy with a man
named Brierley. The symptoms of the fatal illness
were agreed to be those of gastritis or some similar
disease. According to the theory of the prosecution
the gastritis was due to administration of arsenic.
According to the defence it was due to irritant food
or cold through wetting.
Chemical Evidence for the Prosecution. Nokes, phar-
maceutical chemist, had sold to the prisoner some fly-
papers containing arsenic, also at the time of purchase
she paid for them, although she had a running account.
They were delivered in the ordinary way by the boy.
Hanson, pharmaceutical chemist, had also sold
arsenical fly-papers to the prisoner under the same
circumstances of paying at the time, although she
had a running account. At the same time he sold
her a lotion containing benzoin and elder flower water,
being the usual ingredients of a skin lotion. These
mixed with the arsenic would make a good combination
as a cosmetic. (1).
Humphreys, surgeon, attended the deceased during
his last illness, and gave him Fowler's Solution on
5th. or 6th. May. This contains arsenic, the total
quantity thus administered was y^y grain. On
the 9th he applied Eeinsch's Test to the i'seces and
urine results negative ; but he admitted inexperience
in chemical testing, and hence possibly failed in
detecting the presence of arsenic.
Davis, analyst, deposed that a bottle of Valentine's
Meat Juice handed to him contained J grain of arsenic
in solution. The normal preparation contained no
arsenic. Some arsenic was present in the glass of the
bottle, but less than in that of another bottle, the
contents of which were arsenic free. (2).
He found no arsenic in the stomach or spleen, but
it was present in the liver and intestines. A number
of bottles present in the house contained arsenic, as
did also a box labelled " poison for cats." One bottle
was filled with a saturated solution of arsenic. A
tumbler in a hat-box contained milk in which was a
handkerchief. This milk contained arsenic equal to
from 20 to 30 grains in the whole tumbler. He found
arsenic in a jug in which some lunch for the deceased
had been taken to his office. A bottle of glycerin in
the lavatory contained arsenic, as did also one of
deceased's medicine bottles. Stock bottles of the
drugs from which the medicine was dispensed contained
no arsenic. (3). The fly-papers contained arsenic.
Witness produced tubes containing the characteristic
sublimate from Reinsch's Test, made respectively on
the kidneys and liver. He calculated the quantity in
the entire liver to be J grain. The amount found was
half the smallest amount that the witness had ever
found in a fatal case of arsenic posioning.
Stevenson, analyst, stated that he had examined
the contents of the stomach, and found no arsenic.
In the intestines he found about ~ grain of arsenic,
and some arsenic in the kidney. On examining the
liver, 4 oz. yielded 0'027 grain of arsenic, equal to J
grain (0'33) for the whole liver, which weighed 3 Ibs.
On making a duplicate test, 8 oz. yielded 0*049 grain
equal to 0'29 grain of arsenic for the whole liver. (4).
" The body at the time of death probably contained
approximately a fatal dose of arsenic."
He did not macerate the whole liver into one bulk. (5).
For the Defence. Various witnesses stated that the
deceased was in the habit of taking arsenic as a
medicine. In particular, Stanton, a pharmaceutical
chemist, sold the deceased a ' pick-me-up " containing
Fowler's Solution, 7 drops to the dose, sometimes as
often as five times a day. The last occasion was in
November, 1887; the quantity in the day was nearly
J grain of arsenic. On going away from home he took
with him 8 or 16 dose bottles. Arsenic is used as
an aphrodisiac. (6).
Tidy, chemist, was of opinion that the symptoms
and appearances were not those of arsenical poisoning.
Stevenson assumed the quantity present to be 0*3
grain, but witness did not think that warranted.
It it is not fair to infer that all the intestines or liver
contained the same proportion of arsenic as a portion.
They should have been mashed up, and a uniform
sample taken. (7). Witness calculated the total
quantity of arsenic found to be 0*082 grain. (8). This
does not point to over administration. He cited various
medicinal cases. No. 1, arsenic was given three months
before death, there was found 0*028 grain of arsenic.
In No. 2, arsenic was given five months before death,
there was found in the liver 0*174 grain of arsenic.
In these cases there was no suggestion of arsenical
poisoning.
Paul, examiner in Toxicology, Victoria University, had
examined similar pans to that mentioned by Davis, and
found arsenic in the glaze, which arsenic was set free
by acids. (9).
Prisoner's Statement. She had used a cosmetic con-
taining arsenic from fly-papers. (10). Her husband
had been taking a powder, this she mixed in with the
meat juice at his request. (11).
The jury found the prisoner guilty. (Times Report).
Notes. (1). Evidence of purchase of arsenic under
suspicious circumstances, but one witness admitted that
the arsenic would make a good cosmetic. The use
as a cosmetic might explain the secrecy of the
purchase.
(2). The evidence here given had evidently been pre-
pared in anticipation of a defence that the arsenic in
the meat juice had been derived from the glass of the
bottle.
(3). Interesting as a tracing back of the history of
the medicine, in order to prove that it contained no
arsenic when originally prepared.
(4). A duplicate test served the double purpose of
confirming the accuracy of the first test, and also that
the poison was fairly evenly distributed throughout the
whole liver.
(5). Evidently an answer given to a question fore-
shadowing one of the lines of defence.
(6). Evidence of the deceased being an habitual
arsenic taker.
(7). Goes to proof that the sample did not adequately
represent the whole of the organ.
(8). The calculation by which the witness arrived at
the figure 0'082 grain is not very clear. If the amounts
found in the two portions analysed by Stevenson be
added together the sum is 0'076, which is only 0'006
grain short of Tidy's estimated total. That 12 oz. of
the liver should contain 0'076 grain, and the re-
maining 2 Ib. 4 oz. only 0'006 grain, is exceedingly
improbable.
(9). It will be remembered that Davis found arsenic
in the food sent to the deceased's office for his lunch.
This is an attempt to prove that such arsenic was
derived from the glaze of the containing vessel, from
which it could be set free by any acids in the food.
(10). This was an explanation of the reason for pur-
chasing the fly-papers. Compare with Note 1.
(11). This was an explanation of the reason why
arsenic was found in the meat juice. It would be
strengthened by the evidence that the deceased was an
habitual arsenic taker.
