The Brighton poisoning

THE BRIGHTON POISONING CASE.

AT the Central Criminal Court, on the 15th of January, Christiana Edmunds was arraigned before Mr. Baron Martin, charged with the wilful murder of Sidney Albert Barker. Mr. Serjeant Ballantine and Mr. Straight were counsel for the prosecution; and Mr. Serjeant Parry, Mr. VVorsley, and Mr. Poland were counsel for the defence.

The prisoner having pleaded Not Guilty, Mr. Serjeant Ballantine, in addressing the jury, observed that the prisoner at the bar was a person in easy circumstances. She was at the time of these transactions residing at Brighton, and had resided there for some time, and as far as I know with perfect respectability in her surroundings. It appears she had formed an acquaintance with a Dr. and Mrs. Beard, an acquaintance which was originally formed in consequence of Dr. Beard’s having been called in to attend the prisoner in his professional character. That acquaintance seems to have ripened into an intimacy scarcely consistent with the strict relations that ought to exist between a medical adviser and one of his female patients. There can be no doubt that the lady herself entertained the strongest feelings towards Dr. Beard, and expressed them in very strong language, which indicated on her part a considerable amount of affection towards him. Dr. Beard was a married man, and the prisoner was not only attended by him in his professional capacity, but seems to have been on visiting terms with him. There were a great number of letters between the parties. Whether it is necessary that these letters should be read I am not at present prepared to say, but they are in court, and if there is a desire expressed that they should be read, in order to further the ends of justice, I, on the part of the prosecution, will make no objection.

This being the state of things in 1870 and towards the close of that year, the prisoner appears to have been on one occasion, in the month of December, at the house of Dr. Beard, and she gave a chocolate cream to Mrs. Beard, who, upon receiving it, put it into her mouth and sucked a portion of it, but, finding it exceedingly disagreeable, and having an unusual taste, she spat it out, and received no real injury, though there was no doubt something deleterious in the cream.

It is to be borne in mind that up to this time no poison of any kind or description had been traced to the prisoner, but on this occurrence taking place Dr. Beard charged the prisoner with having attempted to poison his wife.

You will have, before the conclusion of this case, to consider the gravity of this occurrence, and how far it affects the extraordinary conduct of the prisoner. It is supposed by those whom I represent that this accusation having been launched against the prisoner, and finding, as she did find, that Dr. Beard and his wife shrank from further communication with her, the prisoner, with a view to divert suspicion from herself, and to defend herself from this charge which had been made against her, determined to pursue a course by which there might be cast upon another person the blame that was attributed to her.

With this object she pursued a course of conduct so extraordinary as to be totally unparalleled in the records of any criminal court of justice.

Mr. Serjeant Ballantine then went over the several portions of the evidence which had appeared on former occasions, calling attention to the more salient points as affecting the guilt of the prisoner, and dwelt at great length on the conduct of the prisoner in her purchases of poison at the shop of a Mr. Garrett, a chemist, observing in conclusion, “I believe I have now correctly stated the broad facts of this case, and I trust that not one word has escaped my lips that will cast on the prisoner at the bar an unfair or improper prejudice. The time has long elapsed in my career when I could feel it any victory in any criminal case to obtain the conviction of a prisoner.

I hope you will consider I feel it my duty to endeavour earnestly to assist in the administration of justice, and to assist, as far as I can, in arriving at the truth, and I am sure that, fearful as the issue is, you will not shrink from it. At the same time, I cannot grudge you the gratification, if you have a doubt, of giving the prisoner the benefit of it.”

The following witnesses were then called:-

Mr. O. D. Miller, examined by Mr. Straight - I am the brother-in-law of Albert Barker, the father of the deceased. I knew the deceased, Sidney Barker, during his lifetime. In June last we were staying at Brighton, and on the 12th of June I purchased some chocolate creams at the shop of Mr. Maynard, a confectioner at Brighton. I gave the little boy Sidney one of these creams on the same day and he ate it. About ten minutes afterwards the child began to cry, and his limbs became stiff, and in about twenty minutes he died. Up to the time of his having the chocolate cream he appeared to be quite well. I ate some of the chocolates myself in the morning, and about ten minutes afterwards I felt a dizziness in my eyes and a coppery taste in my throat, and my limbs gradually became stiff, and my bones seemed “all one.” I endeavoured to rouse myself, but was unable to do so. I became better, and sat down to dinner, when the same symptoms returned, I went to a doctor, and he saw me, but the little boy was dead before he came. He was four years old. My brother tasted some of the creams, and observed a peculiar coppery taste, and he spat them out. The rest of the creams were thrown away. The creams were in a bag.

Dr. Richard Rugg, examined by Serjeant Ballantine - I am a surgeon practising at Brighton. On the 12th of June I was called in to see the deceased, and found him in strong convulsions. I gave him an emetic, but it did not operate, and he died about eight minutes after I first saw him. I made a postmortem examination on the following day. The organs of the body were generally healthy, and the brain exhibited the appearance usually observed in cases of death by convulsions. The body was unusually rigid, but I was unable to discover any cause of death. I had never seen the operations of strychnine.

Ernest Miller, examined by Mr. Straight - On the same evening that my brother purchased the chocolates I went again to Mr. Maynard’s shop and purchased some chocolates of the same description, and I afterwards handed them to Inspector Gibbs. The packet was marked No. 1.

Dr. Henry Letheby, examined by Serjeant Ballantine - I am a professor of chemistry, and well acquainted with the nature of poisons. I have heard the description of this boy’s death, and also the description of the symptoms of his uncle; they are the symptoms of poisoning by strychnine. A packet of chocolate creams was handed to me by Inspector Gibbs, and I analyzed the chocolate creams referred to by the last witness, and I ascertained that some of them contained strychnine, but I cannot state the exact quantity. I believe, however, that they contained altogether a quarter of a grain, which was a quantity suffcient in some cases to kill an adult. A sixteenth part of a grain is sufficient to cause the death of a child. I afterwards examined the contents of a jar that was handed to me, and I discovered a quarter of a grain of strychnine in them. The jar contained the contents of the stomach of the deceased.

Mr. Garrett, examined by Mr. Straight - I am a chemist, carrying on business at Brighton. I know the prisoner, and for some years she has been in the habit of dealing at my shop. I did not know her name. She came to my shop on the 28th of March, and first purchased some articles for the toilette, and she then asked me if I would supply her with a little strychnine for the purpose of destroying cats. I objected strongly to let her have any at first, but she said she had a garden and the cats destroyed the seeds in her garden, and pressed me to let her have some. She said she was a married woman, and had no children, and there was no fear of mischief, as the poison would never go out of her hand or those of her husband. I ultimately supplied her with ten grains of strychnine, but I required her to bring a witness. She said the only person she knew in the neighbourhood was Mrs. Stone, and she left the shop and fetched Mrs. Stone, and upon her word I made the entry of the sale in my book, and it was signed first by the prisoner and then by Mrs. Stone. The prisoner gave the name of Mrs. Wood, and her address at Hill Side, Kingston, Surrey. The prisoner came to me afterwards, and said that she had used the strychnine, and had thrown the paper away. On the 15th of April the prisoner came to me again, and said that the poison had not acted, and I gave her ten grains more, and she signed my book, and said that the reason she wanted the poison was to kill a dog. On the 8th of June I received a paper from a little boy, purporting to be signed by Messrs. Glaisyer and Kemp, chemists, asking me to supply them with a quarter of an ounce of strychnine. I wrote a note back to Messrs. Glaisyer and Kemp, and gave it to the boy who brought the order, and he returned in about twenty minutes or half an hour with another letter enclosing half a crown, and I enclosed one drachm of strychnine in a bottle, and labelled it, and handed it with the change to the boy. I remember the inquest being held upon the deceased boy, and on the 14th of July I received a letter purporting to come from the borough coroner, asking me to send him my register of poisonous drugs sold by me, at the same time the letter stating that the application was not in reference to anything sold by me, but the book was wanted in reference to another inquiry. I gave the messenger the book, and he brought it back to me, and a few days afterwards I missed a leaf. It was the leaf immediately preceding the entries relating to the sale to Mrs. Wood. I did not see the prisoner again until she was in custody at the police-court.

Cross-examined - I knew her very well, and had not the slightest difficulty in identifying her. She had been a customer of mine for four years, and I had been in the habit of supplying her with articles for the toilette. I cannot say whether one or more leaves have been torn out, but all the entries relating to the sale of the strychnine remain in the book. It did not strike me as being at all extraordinary that the prisoner should sign her name Mrs. Wood instead of using her Christian name. I knew Mrs. Stone very well. She was a milliner and dressmaker at Brighton. There are sixty grains in a drachm.

Mrs. Caroline Stone was examined, and said - I am unable positively to identify the prisoner as the person that came to my shop, and told me that she had neuralgia in the face, and she was going to Mr. Garrett’s to get some stuff for it. She purchased a “fall ” and paid for it, and left. She returned in about five minutes, and then said that she wanted me to do her a great favour, which was  to go and sign the book at Mr. Garrett's, in order that she might obtain some poison for stuffing birds. She said that she and her husband were naturalists, and lived at Kingston, near Brighton. I went with her and signed the book at Mr. Garrett’s. I afterwards accompanied her a second time to Mr. Garrett’s shop, and she had a second supply of poison. I did not hear the word strychnine made use of. What she said she wanted was “poison.”

Cross-examined - Some of my assistants knew the prisoner, but I did not myself know her.

Mr. Thomas Glaisyer, examined by Mr. Straight - I am one of the firm of Glaisyer and Kemp, chemists at Brighton, No. 11, North-street. The three documents now produced by Mr. Garrett are not in my handwriting, and I know nothing of any application being made to him for strychnine.

Mr. David Black, examined by Mr. Straight - I am the borough coroner of Brighton. The signature to the letter produced by Mr. Garrett is not in my handwriting, and I know nothing of the application for his poison book.

Adam May (a very small boy), examined by Serjeant Ballantine - I am eleven years old, and live with my parents at Brighton. I see the prisoner in the dock, and I believe I saw the same lady in Portland-street, at Brighton. She asked me if I would go on an errand for her, and she told me to go to Mr. Maynard’s shop and purchase sixpenny worth of large chocolate creams. I asked her if she wanted “flats.” I meant if she wanted flat ones, and she said no, she wanted large ones. I purchased the creams for her. A lady who was in the shop gave me what I asked her for. I saw her take them out of a large case, and she put them into a paper bag. I noticed that they were large ones, such as I had asked her for. The lady was waiting for me at the bottom of Portland-street, and I gave her the bag, and she undid it and looked at the chocolates and said they were not the right sort. She gave me a large piece of chocolate cream after she had untwisted the paper. This was after I had been back to the shop and told the young lady that they were not the sort I wanted. The chocolates I had taken back were put into the glass case, and I took back a sixpenny box of small chocolates. I gave these to the lady, and she said they were the right sort. She only looked at the box, and did not open it. I don’t know where she got the chocolate from that she gave to me. After I had given her the box of sweets, the lady walked away, and I did not see her again until about three months afterwards, at the top of King-street. She spoke to me first, and asked me if I would go on an errand for her. I asked my mother to allow me to do so, and the prisoner then sent me to Mr. Garrett’s shop with a note, and I was to bring back an answer. I did so. The parcel contained something like a book, and I took it to the prisoner and gave it to her, and she walked away with it. Before this we had walked together for some distance. When I gave the prisoner the parcel, she gave me fourpence-halfpenny. Not long after this I saw the prisoner again in King-street, Brighton, and she asked me if I should like some “bull’s-eyes.” I said I should, and she gave me some.

Cross-examined - I have always said that the prisoner is like the lady I saw and who sent me on these errands. I have never positively sworn that she is the same person. I remember telling the magistrate that the bag I gave to the prisoner she handed back to me directly.

Re-examined - I am not sure that she gave me back the same bag I had given her.

Annie Meadows, examined by Serjeant Ballantine, corroborated the last witness as to the selling the chocolate creams.

Kate Page, examined by Mr. Straight - —I was in the employ of Mr. Maynard with the last witness, and I left for my holiday on the 10th of June. I filled up the various compartments in the chocolate tray on the Saturday before I left. I remember a boy named George Brookes coming to Mr. Maynard’s shop at the latter end of May, and I served him with an ounce of four-penny creams, and, in consequence of something that had occurred previously I gave a man named Parker directions to follow the boy when he left the shop. Both these boys had previously come back and returned chocolate creams which they had purchased, and it was for this that directions were given to follow them. I noticed that a portion of the creams that had been brought back were broken, and I put the broken parts into the broken drawer.

Cross-examined - I am sure that I filled up the compartments every day that required it. We generally sold between three and four pounds’ weight of these particular chocolates every week. I do not remember the boy Adam May coming to the shop to purchase the chocolates. Two other boys besides him purchased chocolates and brought them back.

Charles Schooling, examined by Mr. Straight - About the end of May last, in consequence of what the last witness told me, I followed two boys out of the shop as far as North-street, where I saw them give what they had received from Miss Page to the prisoner.

George Brookes, a lad, said - I live with my parents in Russell-street, Brighton. I remember, about the middle of last year, meeting a lady in Cranbourn-street, and she asked me to go to Mr. Maynard’s and get an ounce of chocolate creams, and she gave me sixpence to pay for them. I got the creams, and gave them to the lady, and also the change, twopence, and she gave me a penny for my trouble. The prisoner is that lady.

John Henry Parker said - I am an assistant in the employment of Mr. Maynard, and in consequence of what Miss Page told me I followed the boy Brookes, and saw him hand something to the prisoner.

William Tye said - I am twelve years old, and live at Brighton with my parents. In April last year I met a lady in North-street, Brighton, and she asked me to go to Mr. Maynard’s to purchase some chocolate creams. I was to buy three ounces, and she gave me a shilling to pay for them. I got the chocolates, and took them back to the lady and gave them to her, and she said I had got the wrong ones, and sent me back, and I obtained others at the shop of Mr. Maynard and gave them to her, and she went away with them. She told me to say that the chocolates were for Mrs. Field. The prisoner is the same lady.

Cross-examined - I believe I took back the same bag I had first given to the prisoner.

Mr. John Goddard Maynard said - I carry on the business of a confectioner in West-street, Brighton, and have done so for twenty-eight years. Among the articles I sell are chocolate creams, and I procured them from Mr. Ware and Messrs. Adbury, wholesale confectioners. Large quantities of these creams are sold in my shop. I cannot say when I first heard any complaints about the creams I sold. I think it was about the month of April when these complaints were first made. The prisoner was the person who complained, and she said something to me to the effect that the creams were poisoned, and she said that she intended to have them analyzed. I told her I wished she would do so. I never heard from the prisoner whether they had been analyzed or not, and I heard nothing more about the matter until after the inquest on the boy Barker. I never keep strychnine or poison of any kind in my shop, and I cannot form an idea how poison could have found its way into those creams.

Cross-examined - The prisoner had a private interview with me when she made the statement in question. She said that a friend of hers had been nearly poisoned by the creams. I had not known the prisoner as a customer up to this time. To my knowledge there was not a particle of poison on my premises at any time. I am not aware that my premises were infested with rats. The prisoner introduced herself to me at my private house, and said that a lady friend of hers had eaten some chocolates bought at my shop and they had made her ill. In consequence of what she said I had my chocolates tested, and they were found to be quite pure. I saw her again at the inquest upon the deceased, and I recognized her as the same lady who had had the conversation with me previously. The verdict of the jury was “Accidental death,” and exonerating me from all blame. After the coroner’s inquest I had the whole of my stock analyzed, and it was all destroyed. Since July and August I have carried on my business as usual.

Mr. G. R. Ware, wholesale confectioner, said - I reside in Marchmont-street, Russell-square, and have been in the habit of supplying Mr. Maynard with chocolate sweets. We are the largest manufacturers of that article in England, and I have never heard any complaint of it. I never had any strychnine on my premises.

Gross-examined - I used to supply Mr. Maynard with a quarter or a half hundredweight of the creams at a time.

Mr. Black, the coroner, recalled - The first day of holding the inquest on the deceased was on the 13th of June, and it was adjourned to the 22nd. On the second occasion the prisoner volunteered herself as a witness, and made a long statement. The statement was put in and read. It was to the effect that she had purchased chocolate creams on several occasions, and every time felt a burning sensation in her throat and a metallic taste in her mouth. The prisoner said that in consequence of this she had gone to Mr. Maynard’s shop and complained to him, and he said he was obliged to her. The prisoner also said that she had given one of the chocolates to a lady, and it made her very ill; but she took a glass of wine and it made her sick, and after this she got better. The object of the prisoner was evidently to throw the blame on Mr. Maynard of having sold poisoned sweetmeats.

Albert Barker said - I am the father of the deceased, and after the coroner’s inquest I received several anonymous letters.

Inspector Gibbs said - In consequence of certain matters that had come to my knowledge I wrote a letter to the prisoner, and received an answer which I produce. I have compared this letter of the prisoner with the letters mentioned by the last witness, and I am of opinion that they are all in the same handwriting.

Mr. Serjeant Parry objected to the letters being read until they were proved by an expert, and remarked that a police-inspector could not be said to be an expert in handwriting.

The Judge said by the Act of Parliament the comparison could be made by any one, and it was for the jury to judge of the value of the evidence.

Inspector Gibbs said the prisoner came up to him in the Pavilion grounds and told him she had received a letter from him, and that she had left an answer for him at his oflice. She wrote to him that she purchased the last lot of chocolate creams at Mr. Maynard’s shop on the 8th of March, and that she had had them analyzed at Mr. Schwitzer’s. The letters were then read.

This closed the prosecution.

Mr. Serjeant Parry addressed the jury on behalf of the prisoner. Having remarked how extraordinary were the facts in this case, and how difficult a task it was to place them fairly before the jury, he proposed to point out to the jury every issue they would have to try. The prisoner was charged with the wilful murder of Sidney Barker, a boy of tender years, who was unknown to the prisoner, and against whom therefore she could have no malice. He  did not pretend that on certain occasions she did not give poisoned chocolate creams to several children; but in regard to this charge the jury must be satisfied that the chocolate cream which caused the death of the boy was given indirectly by the prisoner. After commenting upon the fact that ten days had elapsed since the prisoner was alleged to have returned the bags of creams to Mr. Maynard’s by the boy May, until the creams, one of which was taken by the boy Barker, were purchased, and that during that time the shop assistants were selling three-quarters of a pound weekly out of the case into which they were put, he put it to the jury as a simple fact that there was a gap in the evidence which was not in any way bridged over on the part of the prosecution.

His learned friend and himself had determined upon placing before the jury the history of the prisoner at the bar, and he could not but think that they would find she was of impaired intellect. The whole case completely puzzled him. He had never in the course of his long experience, or of his reading, met with a similar case, and he was completely at a loss in his own mind how to place the case by way of argument before the jury. It was not his intention to attempt to do so.

He should prove that the father of the prisoner at the bar died at middle age in a lunatic asylum where he had been confined for some years before his death. Both by the certificate under which he was confined, and by the evidence of the medical officer who attended him, he should show that his disease was suicidal and very destructive. The prisoner's brother died in the prime of life, an epileptic idiot or lunatic at Earlswood. Both her grandfathers were perfectly imbecile, and were both in a state of unsound mind. He should prove that other relations were afflicted with insanity. Her sister suffered constantly from hysteria, and had attempted to commit suicide. The prisoner at the age of twenty-four or twenty-five years was seized with paralysis, and he should prove that her conduct had for some time excited attention, and that about twelve or thirteen months ago a great change took place in her. Her age was given as thirty-four in the calendar, and she had the idiotic vanity to deny her real age; but he should show that her real age was forty-three. The chaplain of Lewes Gaol would state that he believed her to be of unsound mind, and medical witnesses would describe the nature of her insanity.

The learned counsel then referred to the prisoner’s conduct as detailed by previous witnesses with a view to showing that she had acted in a manner inconsistent with soundness of mind.

Mrs. A. Christiana Edmunds was the first witness examined. When placed in the box she cried bitterly, and for some time was unable to proceed with her evidence. The prisoner was greatly affected, and also wept. The witness said that her husband was confined in the Southall Lunatic Asylum. For a long time previously he had been insane. He was always raving that he had millions of money, and he attempted to knock down the medical man with a ruler, and was so violent that they had to lock him in a room. The prisoner was born at Margate in 1828. In 1844 witness’s husband was at home, and in March 1845 he was sent to Peckham Lunatic Asylum. He died in the asylum. Witness had a son who was epileptic. They could not manage him, and in 1860 he was sent to Earlswood, where he died in 1866. She had also had another daughter who suffered from hysteria. In one of her fits she attempted to throw herself out of the window. She died at thirty-six years of age. Witness’s father was Major Burns. He died at the age of forty-three in a fit. He had fits occasionally, and was quite childish. Witness had a brother whose daughter also suffered from weakness of intellect and was imbecile. In 1853 the prisoner went up to London, and when she returned she was paralyzed. She suffered from hysteria for several years, and even now had it upon occasions. When a child she walked in her sleep, and they were obliged to have a fastening on the door to keep her in her room. Witness had noticed a great change in the prisoner since she had known Dr. Beard.

Cross-examined - The medical men who attended witness’s husband were all dead with the exception of Dr. Stewart. Her husband was an architect, and built the lighthouse and other public works at Margate. Since Dr. Beard left Brighton Mr. Humphreys had attended the prisoner. In consequence of what took place at Dr. Beard’s the prisoner was greatly excited. Witness went to Dr. Beard to obtain a retractation.

Re-examined - She came home excited, and after some questioning she said that in consequence of Dr. Beard’s coldness she asked what had changed him. He replied, “I never respected you so much since the chocolate cream.” She was greatly excited when she came home, and walked up and down, saying, “Oh! I shall go mad.” Witness said, “You are mad already; you, of all people, ought to be particular,” alluding to her father, which she had never done before. The prisoner was now forty-three years of age, a period in her life the approach of which witness had always dreaded.

Dr. Stewart, of Southall, said that in 1843 Mr. William Edmunds was received into the Southall Lunatic Asylum upon the authority of medical certificates. (Certificates produced and read. They stated that the nature of the insanity was suicidal, disposed to injure, and very destructive.) The patient suffered from acute mania, incoherence, violence, and want of sleep. He had a fit and became paralyzed. He left the hospital in 1844. Insanity in the father would predispose to insanity in his offspring, but acute mania would not necessarily be inherited.

Dr. H. Armstrong, of the Peckham Lunatic Asylum, produced the certificates upon which Wm. Edmunds was received into the asylum in March 1845. He died in the asylum in March 1847.

Dr. G. W. Grabham, resident physician of the Earlswood Asylum for Idiots, produced the certificates upon which Arthur Burn Edmunds, brother of the prisoner, was admitted into the asylum. The patient was subject to epilepsy, and died in the asylum in January 1866.

The Rev. J. H. Cole, chaplain of Lewes Gaol, said that he had been two years chaplain and secretary of St. Luke’s Hospital. The prisoner was brought to Lewes Gaol on the 9th of August. There was a rule that if the chaplain noticed anything indicating unsoundness of mind in a prisoner, it should be entered in the chaplain’s journal, and reported to the governor and other persons. He made an entry of this kind respecting the prisoner, and reported it. The prisoner was under his care until Christmas. He noticed a very peculiar formation and movement of the eye. She had a vacant look at times. Her conversations were perfectly coherent, but they struck him as extraordinary, considering the situation in which she was placed. He found in her the most unnatural calmness and exceeding levity. When he spoke to her of her position, she broke out into a very extraordinary laugh. She seemed to have no power to fix her mind upon any grave subject. She would suddenly change from tears to laughter upon frequent occasions. She did not appear to realize her position in the least. His opinion was that the prisoner was of unsound mind.

Alice Over, living at Brighton, deposed that she had known the prisoner six years. She had resided at witness’s house two years. Prisoner’s demeanour while in her house was ladylike, quiet, and kind in every way. Noticed some time before she left that she was not so quiet. About March or April last year she appeared very strange, and said she thought she was going mad. Her eyes were very large and dull.

Cross-examined - Last saw the prisoner before she went to Margate. Mentioned the fact of prisoner’s strange demeanour to her husband.

George Over, husband of the foregoing witness, noticed the prisoner’s eyes. They were full, and had a wildness of expression. Her manner was excitable.

Dr. Woods, physician to St. Luke’s Hospital, had had long experience in cases of insanity. Had seen prisoner a fortnight ago. Was much struck at her absolute indifference as to her position, and he failed altogether to impress her about her serious position. He believed her to be quite incapable of estimating her position. Her mind was so weak that she was incapable of judging between right and wrong in the same sense as other people would. Was an hour and a half with the prisoner.

Cross-examined - Prisoner knew the object of witness’s visit to her. Had told her that he came to ascertain the state of her mind. She appeared to understand that. He said to her, “Do you know the consequences of a conviction?” She said, “I would rather be convicted than brought in insane.” Witness said, “Do you think it wrong for any person to attempt to destroy the life of another because you believe that individual wished to get rid of YOU?” Afier some hesitation, she said she thought it was wrong, but she did not say it in a manner that led witness to believe that she really thought so.

The witness was here pressed as to other questions which he put to the prisoner, but as he could not remember any special question, the prisoner stood. up in the dock and said, “I remember the question.”

His Lordship, however, said he could not take it from the prisoner.

Cross-examination continued - Could not remember any other questions but those he had mentioned, and the answers he had received formed part of the ground upon which he gave it as his opinion that the prisoner was of unsound mind.

Re-examination - Dr. Robertson and Dr. Maudsley were present. Dr. Robertson put most of the questions. Was still of opinion that the prisoner was not in a sound state of mind.

Dr. Robertson sworn - Had a very great difficulty in coming to any conclusion as to the state of the prisoner’s mind. Regarded her as bordering between crime and insanity. Regarded her intellect as quite clear and free from any delusion. Thought her moral sense deficient from what he had observed in the descendants of sane persons. Failed to impress her with the gravity of the position in which she was placed. Knowing the history of her life, he was led to regard her as morally insane.

Cross-examined - Was visitor in lunacy to the Court of Chancery. Was specially appointed to that court. There was not an absence, but a deficiency of moral sense.

His Lordship - Do you mean to say that if she administered poison for the purpose of destroying life she would not know it was a wrong act?

Witness - I believe she would know it was a wrong act intellectually.

Dr. Maudsley sworn - I found a deficiency of moral feeling. She did not appear to me to realize her position. In reference to her moral sense I consider her mind to be impaired.

Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant Ballantine - What do you mean by the term “impaired moral sense”?

Witness - I mean a want of moral feeling with regard to events or acts regarding which a perfectly sane person might be expected to exhibit feeling. I should say that anybody who deliberately committed crime was deficient of moral feeling. Do you consider that insanity? — Certainly.

Re-examined - The prisoner absolutely laughed at the idea of her life being in danger, or of anybody thinking it. Her only real distress that she seemed to evince was about the treatment she received in Newgate.

Mr. Serjeant Parry addressed the jury on behalf of the prisoner. He drew the attention of the jury specially to the evidence that had been adduced in reference to the prisoner’s history, and to the probability of her having inherited the insanity which existed in her family. It had, he said, been clearly shown that she had herself declared she was going mad. It had been proved that she suffered from hysteria, and it was well known that persons so afflicted had irresistibly been guilty of crime, for which they could not be held responsible. It was a most melancholy fact to think that the prisoner being tried for so terrible a crime should be a member of a family which he might say was saturated with hereditary insanity. They had had undoubted proof of disease existing in her family, and he (the learned serjeant) was sure that it would receive the weight of their consideration to which it was entitled.

God knew whether the wretched woman at the bar was suffering from insanity. He (the learned counsel) did not affirm it. It was for the jury to say whether she was or was not, but he entreated them to remember that they were trying a case unparalleled, and a woman whose father, whose brother, whose sister, all had died in a state of insanity. The learned serjeant then reviewed the evidence he had called in support of his opening, and concluded an earnest appeal to the jury that they would feel it competent to find the prisoner innocent of the crime with which she stood charged.

Mr. Serjeant Ballantine then replied by saying that he commenced with the words at which his learned friend had concluded, that the public would be satisfied with the verdict the jury might return, in the full assurance that that verdict would be founded up0n the evidence which had been adduced. While he sensibly sympathized with the position of his learned friend, still there was a duty that they all owed to the public, and in his endeavour to do that duty he was afraid that he would have to call their attention to the many acts of the prisoner, and should be obliged to ask them to bring that knowledge to bear upon their verdict, by asking themselves whether there was the slightest ground for assigning the acts of the prisoner as a consequence of insanity. The learned serjeant then called the attention of the jury to certain parts of the evidence which he asked them to consider, and concluded an able address by expressing his conviction that their verdict would be in accordance with the evidence laid before them.

His Lordship then summed up. There were, he said, two important questions in the case to which the jury would have to direct their special attention. The first and the most important was whether the prisoner had contrived to substitute for the chocolate creams which she sent the boy for other creams which were poisoned; and if the child Barker had died from eating one of those creams, the prisoner was undoubtedly guilty of murder. The second point was whether the prisoner was in a state of mind to be responsible for her actions. There was no doubt that on the 12th of June the uncle of the child Barker bought a quantity of creams at the shop of Mr. Maynard, and that he gave one of those chocolates to the child, who afterwards died from its effects, and died, too, of symptoms such as the poison strychnine would produce. Evidence had been given that Mr. Maynard never had any poison or other deleterious matter on his premises. Therefore, assuming that this child had died from the effects of strychnine, the would have to say whether it was the prisoner who administered that poison. If they believed the evidence of Mr. Garrett and others, it was shown that the prisoner had been in possession of strychnine, which she had obtained upon several occasions by giving a false name and address. Then, again, if they believed the documents that had been produced and spoken to, she had sought to disguise her acts of purchasing the poison by surreptitiously obtaining Mr. Garrett’s poison salebook and abstracting therefrom the leaves containing the register of the sales, These were all points to which the jury would have to give their best attention, which would of course guide them in their verdict. If they should believe that she was the person who acted in this way, then they would have to consider the defence which had been set up - namely, that she was not of sound mind, and was, therefore, not responsible for her acts. But in considering this point, they must bear in mind that the law requires that it shall be clearly proved that the accused at the time of the act is labouring under a state of insanity. The learned judge then reviewed the evidence of the different witnesses, and after reminding the jury that there was certain evidence in support of the prisoner’s insanity, concluded his summing up by requesting that they would carefully consider the various points he had referred to, reminding them that if they were satisfied that she was insane, they would, of course, find that she was not responsible for the act; but if they were not clearly satisfied of this, why then they would find her guilty.

The jury retired at ten minutes to four to consider their verdict, and returned into court at ten minutes to five.

The Clerk of the Arraigns said - Have you all agreed to your verdict?

The Foreman - Yes.

The Clerk of Arraigns - Do you find the prisoner guilty or not guilty?

The Foreman - Guilty.

The prisoner then said in a low voice - I wish to be tried on the other charges brought against me, and I want my whole connexion with Dr. Beard gone into. I am sure Serjeant Ballantine will go on with the case. It is owing to the treatment that I have received from Dr. Beard that I have been brought into this trouble.

The Judge - I am not at all disposed to disbelieve you, but it simply goes to confirm the truth and justice of this verdict. I am satisfied that since you became acquainted with Dr. and Mrs. Beard, you turned your attention to the poisoning of these innocents. But I have but one duty to perform, and in the performance of that duty I must say that I entirely concur in the verdict of the jury. There is no doubt that you had no desire to kill this particular little child. It is true; as you state, and it is also true, as I believe, that you got into a morbid state of mind in consequence of the relationship existing between you and Dr. Beard, but I wished to keep this case entirely separate from the others, in order that you might have as fair a trial as possible. I cannot believe that any doubt can possibly be entertained that the boy was subjected to those poisonous sweets, and that they came through you; nor can I doubt that the jury were wise in rejecting the evidence of insanity which was set up; indeed, on that part there was no evidence to go to the jury. I do not, however, mean to distress you more. I can only repeat that the verdict is a just one, although it can be no pleasure for me or any one to place you in your present position. His Lordship then passed sentence of death in the usual way, amidst breathless silence. The prisoner evinced no emotion,  but listened to all his Lordship said with calm resignation.

The Clerk of the Arraigns - Have you anything to say in arrest of the judgment - are you pregnant, or is there any other cause?

The prisoner here muttered something, which could not be heard. She was asked to repeat what she had said. Her reply was equally inaudible, where upon the female warder and Mr. Jonas, the governor, stepped towards the unhappy woman, and asked her what she had said. She muttered to them that she was pregnant.

This announcement created considerable excitement in the court. The prisoner was relegated to her seat in the dock, and in the course of ten minutes or a quarter of an hour a number of ladies, some of whom had been in the court during the trial, were assembled, and were requested to go into the jury box, which they did, and they were sworn amid dead silence to inquire whether the prisoner was “with quick child.”

The prisoner was then asked if she wished to call anybody to prove that she was with child, and she replied, “I do not wish to call anybody.”

The jury of matrons then retired, and a few minutes afterwards they sent for a medical man, and one being forthcoming, he went to the room in which they were. A few minutes afterwards they returned into court.

The Clerk of Arraigns - Are you agreed in your verdict, and do you find whether the prisoner at the bar is with quick child?

The Forewoman - We say she is not.

While this was going on, the prisoner looked wildly round the court. The Clerk of Arraigns directed that she should be removed, on which she turned towards him, as if she would have said something; but the gaoler, taking her by the arm, said “Come on,” and she was led away.

The sentence was afterwards remitted on the ground of insanity.