The Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1860-08-22 00:00:00

attended a sale of gas shares, and bought for the
deceased four shares, paying a deposit of £25. In May
last he called at the office, and wanted to know how the
shares might be transferred to his name, as Mrs. James
wished it, and was very ill and not likely to recover.
I asked him if she had made a will. He replied no ;
and then I told him that it might be done by will or
the ordinary transfer, but the matter being a question of
law, I must refer him to Mr. J. B. Lloyd, our attorney,
and he said he would go to him at once.

William Tennyson Lloyd, nephew of Mr. J. B. Lloyd,
said—l am an articled clerk to my uncle. On the 28th
of May last the prisoner came to our office, and said that
a person named Mrs. James, residing in Vauxhall-road,
was dying, and wished to make her will. I went over
to the house in company with Thomas Ashton, a clerk.
We went into the bedroom of the deceased, who requested
Mrs. Cafferata to leave the room. The prisoner was not
there. We received her instructions. On the following
day, having prepared the will, we went again. The
will was read over to and signed by the deceased, and
was witnessed by myself and the clerk. The witness, in
continuation, said—l suggested that a second will should
be executed; but the deceased said that she had every
confidence in Winslow: She stated that she had shares
in the Gas Company, and a good deal of gold in the
room. _ .

Cross-examined—We did not see the prisoner there
at all. Mrs. Cafferata was in the house.
The clerk then read the will of the deceased, which
left all her personal effects, furniture, goodwill of trade,
&c., to the prisoner, whom she appointed as her sole
executor; and the remainder of her property to be
divided into thirds, between the prisoner, Mrs. Caffe-
rata, and her daughter Jane.
At this stage of the proceedings the court adjourned
for a short interval, in order. to afford the jury, and
others connected with the ease, to take some slight

refreshment.
The case having been resumed, witnesses were called
to trace the cups taken from the deceased's house by the
police, and afterwards given to Dr. Edwards for ana-
lysis.
The next witness called was Mr. Lowe, the house-
surgeon to the Southern Hospital. He deposed to the
reception of the deceased at that institution, and also
that she was especially under Dr. Cameron's care.
Instructions were given to preserve her vomitings, &c.,
which was done daily until the day of her death. Ile
described the deceased's general appearance, and also
the nature of her attacks—how she was better one day,
and worse another, until she died. She became more
exhausted each day, and died on the Sunday. The
prisoner visited her, but did not see any other person.
Cross-examined—I consider a pulse of eighty mode-
rate for her age. All the symptoms I saw while the
deceased was in the hospital were consistent with cancer
of the stomach, tl..e disease under which she was suffer-
ing, and might also be attributable to poison.
Re-examined—The state of her pulse was such as I
should have expected from a person so much prostrated
as she was when she was admitted. He then explained
bow he had labelled the bottles containing the urine,
vomiting. &c., and forwarded them to Dr. Edwards.
Several other witnesses were called to trace these
bottles from the Southern Hospital into the hands of
Dr. Edwards at his laboratory in Colquitt-street.
Dr. Edwards was called, and stated that he was an
analytical chemist, &c. &e. &c. He deposed to having
received the bottles from the several witnesses on the
undermentioned days, and they gave the following
result Thursday, the 7th June, I received a bottle of
urine, in which I found a trace of antimony. It was but
a trace, a small quantity, but from the tests I did apply
I have no doubt but that it was antimony. On the 9th
June I received from Dr. Cameron two bottles, one con-
taining faeces. I analysed this and found a trace of
antimony. I analysed the other containing vomit, and
from it I obtained two considerable deposits of antimony.
On the 12th June I received a bottle of vomit. I
analysed this, and obtained two considerable deposits of
antimony ; also a bottle of faeces, and found a trace of
antimony. On the afternoon of the same day, I
received two other bottles ; one contained vomit.
I analyeed this, and found a trace of antimony in it.
The other bottle containing. urine. I analysed and
found a trace of antimony in it. On the 13th June I
received three bottles. One contained vomit : this did
not give a recognisable trace of antimony. The second
bottle contained faeces, from which I obtained a trace of
antimony. The third bottle containing urine had also
a trace of antimony. I also received from Inspector
Horn two cups containing cooked sago food—about a
tablespoonful. I analysed that sago, and found two
considerable deposits of antimony. On June the 14th,

I received three bottles ; one containing vomit con•
taining no antimony; the second bottle contained urine
from which I obtained a trace of antimony ; the third
bottle containing faeces, had a trace of antimony. On
the 15th I received three bottles. The first contained
vomit with a trace of antimony. The second bottle con-
tained knees; from it I obtained a deposit of anti-
mony. The third bottle contained urine ; but it did not
contain sufficient antimony to show a certain trace.
On the 16th I received three bottles, the first
contained faeces, and no antimony ; the second urine,
which was mixed with that of 'the previous day,
and from the two combined I obtained a trace of anti-
mony. The third bottle containing fasces had a decided
trace of antimony. On that day I obtained from
Inspector Horn a quantity of old uncooked sago. I
examined about a quarter of a pound of it, but found no
trace of antimony. On the 18th of June I received
a bottle of faeces. I obtained a mere trace of
antimony in it ; a bottle of urine, from this I obtained
a decided deposit of antimony ; also a bottle of vomit,
and from this I obtained no deposit. I also obtained a
bottle of faeces, which contained a distinct trace of anti-
mony, and a bottle of urine which contained a trace of
antimony. On the 19th of June, the bottle containing
urine had a distinct trace of antimony; the second con-
tained urine, no antimony ; the third contained vomit,
no antimony. On the 21st, of three bottles, one con-
taining fcee,o, I obtained a deposit of antimony. The
second contained vomit, a deposit of antimony; urine, a
trace of antimony. On the 22nd June, three bottles—
one contained faeces, a faint trace of antimony; the second
contained urine, a slight trace of antimony; the third
vomit, no antimony. On the 23rd, three bottles
one contained faces and a decided deposil< of antimony ;
the second. Urine and a distinct deposit of antimony ; the
third contained vomit, scarcely a trace of antimony. On
the 26th of June I received four jars ; the first contained
the brain, the heart, the lungs, and spleen; the second, the
liver and kidneys ; the third the intestines ; the fourth
the stomach, a portion of diseased ccecum, and a portion
of the oesophagus or gullet. I also received four bottles
—one containing bile ; the second blood ; the third
fluid from the stomach ; and the fourth fluid from the
abdominal cavity. I analysed a portion of all these, and
from one half of the stomach I obtained five antimonial
deposits. From more than one-half the intestines I
obtained the same results ; from one kidney, four antimo-
nial deposits ; from about two pounds of the liver, three
antimonial deposits. From about two pounds of brain, and
three ounces of the bile, I obtained no antimony; from four
ounces of theblood I obtained a distinct antimonial deposit ;
from the fluid in the stomach, measuring about a pint, I
obtained one considerable deposit of antimony; from the
fluid from the peritoneal cavity, measuring about twelve
ounces, I obtained a slight trace of antimony. I did
not obtain any antimony from any of the medicine. To
obtain this result I applied the most severe tests, which
I am ready to name.
Cross-examined—l have no doubt that the deposit I
obtained from the urine of the 7th was antimony, but it
was so very slight that I could not speak positively
without further practical experiment.
Re-examined—I examined the body of the dog found
in the house, but did not find a trace of antimony in the
body of that dog.
Cross-examined—If there was no vomiting I should
expect to have found the presence of antimony.
Mr. Clarence Pemberton attended the deceased at the
Southern Hospital, and paid much attention to her symp-
toms. I fully agree with Dr. Cameron as he described
these symptoms. I made the post nzortent and agree
with the explanation given by Dr. Cameron.
Mr. Aspinall—Taking the symptoms which you ob-
served during the life of the deceased, with the appearance
of the post mor•tem examination, and assuming the
evidence of Dr. Edwards to be correct, can you form an
opinion as to the cause of death.
Witness—The rupture of the ccecum.
Mr. Aspinall—And, do you think, that being the case,
that death would be accelerated by the administration of
small doses of antimony.
Witness—The administration of antimony would un-
doubtedly accelerate death.
Cross-examined by Mr. Seymour—l was present at
the post-mortem examination. I found certain appear.
antes which might be attributable to the disease or to
poisoning by antimony. Softening of the liver is a
sign which I would expect to find as the result of slow
poisoning. Redness of the small intestines, and con-
gestion of the brain are signs which I would always
look for. There was a slight redness of the small intes-
tines ; I do not agree with Dr. Cameron in saying that
they were perfectly healthy. In a case of an admini-
stration of antimony I should expect to find a darkening
of the coats of the stomach ; this sign was also absent.
Re-examined—The best proof of the cause of death,
is the finding of the poison after death.
By the Judge—There was not any appearance at the
post-mortem examination exclusively to attribute death
to poison or any particular cause.
Mr. Francis Ayrton was also present at the post-
mortem examination. I have heard the evidence of Dr.
Cameron and Mr. Pemberton, and I consider that death
was accelerated by the administration of antimony.
Cross-examined—lf the viscera had been in spirits of
wine, it would be sate to give an opinion upon it. It
all depended upon the time it had been there. lam a
physician, and a member of the College of Surgeons in
Scotland. It would have been better to have seen it
before. What I did see was compatible with death
from natural causes.
Re-examined—From what has transpired after the
finding of the antimony in the body, I should certainly
say that death resulted from antimony,