The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1876-08-15 00:00:00

THE BALHAM MURDER.

A TERRIBLE VERDICT.-OPINIONS Or THE MIMI&

The discreditable case which for the last month has
been stimulating all the morbid curiosity of which
the world is so full ended on Friday in a verdict
which, unhappily, leaves it still a "mystery." The
Jury at Ballown have found that the late Mr. Charles
Bravo did not meet his death by misadventure ; that
he was wilfully murdered by the administration of
tatar emetic; but that there is not sufficient evidence
to fix the guilt upon any person or persona. Not-
withstanding the enormous and, it must be added,
irrelevant MAO of evidence of which this verdict is
the result, the main facts upon which it is based are
comparatively simple. It will be enough to state
that Mr. Bravo was apparently in full health on the
morning and afternoon of the 19th of ApriL He
drove into the town from Italham with his wife, took
luncheon with one friend at St. James's Hall, and
walked with another to the station; and the friend
who there left him, and who was en very familiar
term with him, declares that there was nothing in his
manner or conversation to suggest the idea that be
was in bad spirits. On his return home he went
for a ride on one of his wife's horses, which
bolted with him, and he returned home tired.
He dined as usual with his wife and her companion,
and they retired to their bedrooms before him. 04
his way upstairs he saw some wine being taken to his
wife, and he is said to have remonstrated with her on
the quantity of wine she drank—this being a somewhat
sore point between then,. They had also had some dis-
agreement in the carriage as they went home to town
in respect to a very painful secret of his wile's; but all
the evidence goes to show the absence of any such
depression or desperation as might tempt a vigorous
and not unsuccessful young man to commit suicide. In
a short time, however, after he had retired to his own
room, he was heard crying out in great pain for some
hot water. Mrs. ('..x, his wile's companion, who
went to him, deposed that he said to her, "I have
taken 'sawn; don't tell Florence," or, as she after-
wards repeated the words, "I have taken poinen for
Dr. Gully; don't tell Florence." These statements,
however, besides the important discrepancy in their
terms, are difficult to reconcile with some very
distinct evidence given by the medical men who
attended. Several doctors were summoned in aucces-
Rion, among thern being Dr. George Johnson,
_of
Savile-row. Dr. Joh n M nso at once detected that r.
Bravo wee suffering (min some irritant metallic
poison; and he also says that after he had been there
about half an hour he was summoned to hear a state-
ment which Mrs. Coa hal only just communicated to
another doctor, this statement being that Mr. Bravo
had spoken of having taken poison. Dr. Johnson
says he went back to the led-side and asked what this
statement meant, when Mr. Bravo replied, " I don't
remember having sis'ken of poison." He afterwards
iaid that he had rubbed some laudanum on his gums
for neuralgia, and might have swallowed some of it.
Dr. Johnson and Sir William Gull, the latter of
whom was subseipiently called in, agree in stating
that, though they repeatedly, and even solemnly,
adjured him to tell them if he had taken any poison,
even pointing out to him that his silence or his
negative answer might lead to suspicions being thrown
on other persons, he replied invariably that he was
not conscious of having taken anything but
laudanum, and that lie was aware of the possible
consequences of his statement. The Jury, therefore,
had the distinct and solemn assurances of the
deceased that he had 11.4 intentionally taken Any
poison but laitilannin. But, upon an examination
being made of his voinit and of the contents of his
stomach, conclusive proof was obtained that he had
died of poisoning by antimony. The evidence of the
physicians as to the symptoms before death and of
the ehymista as to the results of the analysis after
death was such as to leave no doubt upon this point.
With these facts before them, the Jury could have
little difficulty in coming to the conclusion that Mr.
Bravo did not commit suicide, and that his death was
due to his having, by some means or other, swallowed
a dose of antimony. There remains only the question
whether the poison sauce to be swallowed by mere
I accident, or whether it was wilfully administered, and
it is not equally clear upin what considerations the
Jury have conic to the conelusion that the administra-
tion was not accidental, but wilful, except, perhaps,
that in aces of joisoning by so rare a drug as antimony
the presumption must be in favour of wilful adminis-
tration. It was alas proved that a coachman who left
Mrs. Bravo's service last January had employed
ve
aehixei
rt e i
presses tnheevhie,,
eke
:suctleatb I,ae:sh.
" Thet length,l.lu:ouiyuca
ed, however,loieuiv.nr
,e
their
I min&

The .Inry have not felt themselves justified in affixing
suspicion to any persons in particular, and, of course,
in commenting upon the case their reserve must be
imitated with redoubled scrupulousness. But it is
impossilde to ignore the fact that the larger part of the
evidence taken was directed to establishing the
existence of possible motives either for suicide on the
part of Mr. Bravo or an attempt to make away with
him on the part f other persons. The result of this
Part of the iliac has, however, simply been to drag
before the public a most melancholy and discreditable
revelation of the secret life of the persons chiefly con-
cerned. Nothing has been established, as we have
said, which could be deemed by the Jury as justifying
a charge against any one. But it must be allowed
that, although, as we Aitll observe, the right of ex-
amination was 6,r0.1v abused, a story was elicited
respecting the lifs of Mr. and Mrs. Bravo and of Dr.
Gully which gives the two latter persons no right to
complain of having been asked to explain circumstances
of apparent suspicion. A more distressing picture of
the consequences of indulging unlawful passion has
never been drawn, and we wish we could hope that the
true lesson would be deduced from it by the thousands
who have devoured its unwholesome details. It was
proved that after the death of Captain Richardo, Mrs.
Bravo's finst husband, she yielded to a fatal passion
for Dr. Gully, who was nearly twice her age, and that
she was on terms of criminal intimacy with him. In
consequence of this, or of a suspicion of it, she was
alienated from her family; and she was induced at the
end of hat year to break off the connexion and to
marry Mr. Bravo. She states that Mr. Bravo was
made acquainted with the nature of her relations with
Dr. Gully before his engagement, and on her part she
was made acquainted with the fact of Mr. Bravo's
having maintained an irregular intimacy with another
woman before his attachment to herself. They thus
entered upon married life with • consciousness that
each had a dark corner in their past lives, and they
mutually resolved to draw a curtain over IL But
Mrs. Bravo alleges that her husband was unequal to
this resolve, and that his jealousy of Dr. Gully became
• consuming passion with him "morning, noon, and
nighL The evident suggestion is that he might have
been thus led to commit suicide ; but the fact is
obviously open to a different interpretation; and the
case was further complicated by evidence that, not-
withstanding Dr. Gully's separation, he continued to
live near her house, which was her residence before
as well as after her marriage, and that he several that*
during the brief married life of Mrs. Bravo sent her
medicines through Mrs. Cox, though his interviews
with her were generally accidental. Mrs. Cox even
called to consult him during Mr. Bravo's illness, and
took back suggestions for the treatment, It is idle to
deny that these circumstances were sufficiently
suspicious to demand explanations, and to render It
necessary that the relations between the various parties,
and their C..nduct about the time of Mr. Bravo's death,
should be investigated. The Jury base held that
the suspicions in question ha% e not Leen established,
and all who have followed the evidence must entirely
agree in their conclusion.