The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1886-04-24 00:00:00

THE MYSTERIOUS LONDON POISONING
CASE.

ACQUITTAL OF THE WIDOW.

Continuing the trial at the Old Bailey of Adelaide
Bartlett for the murder of her husband at Pimlico,
the evidence was completed on Friday morning, after
which Mr. Clarke addressed the jury for the defence.
He said that in Adelaide Bartlett's name he claimed
from them a verdict of not guilty, for he .had seen
the effect of the evidence upon them. He would
take them through the record of evidence of suspicion
which pointed to her guilt. Although he called no
witnesses, and had to content himself with comment-
ing upon the evidence, the leader of the English bar
would have the opportunity of pointing to topics of
suspicion or of proof, which he (Mr. Clarke) might
not have been able to deal with. That privilege was
anomalous. The case would long be remembered
because of the number of remarkable incidents in it.
One of those incidents was the transference of one who
was a prisoner from the dock into the witness-box
at the request of the prosecution. It was in a
great measure upon the evidence this witness had
given that the jury were asked to rely in sup-
port of the charge against the prisoner. They were
asked to believe that the woman who had lived in
affection for years with her husband, and sacrificed her
rest, and spent night after night in carefully watching
and comforting him, was by a sort of inspiration
transformed into a murderer, committing a crime not
only without excuse, but without an object—a crime
to commit which it was admitted an operation must
be performed which was most delicate and difficult.
This was the first case of which the world had ever
heard in which it had been suggested that a person
had been murdered by the administration of liquid
chloroform. The evidence of distinguished authorities
showed that the vast majority of deaths front
chloroform were either cases of suicide or of acci-
dent. And yet the jury were asked to say that
Adelaide Bartlett had committed an offence abso-
lutely unknown in the history of medical juris-
prudence, and the possibility of which had never
been suggested in any book upon the subject.
There might have been sufficient chloroform in the
deceased's stomach to cause death, but on this point
also there was room for doubt. The jury, however,
could not conclude that the prisoner poisoned her
husband, as was implied, unless they first concluded
that she produced insensibility by causing the de-
ceased to inhale chloroform, and that she then poured
down his throat the substance which caused his death.
That suggestion could not be sustained, because it in-
volved an operation wllich was almost an impossi-
bility. Mr. Clarke then cited a number of recorded
cases to support his contentions, and to show that
when attempts were made to administer chloroform
to sleeping persons in nearly all cases the persons
awoke. He next remarked that the appearances
discovered at the post-mortem examination—which
examination it was no fault of the prisoner
did not take place at the earliest moment after
death—were not consistent with death from the
inhalation of chloroform. Of all the indications of
such inhalation before death which were recognised
in books of authority, and by the witnesses, not one
was found. Having shown the almost insuperable
difficulty of administering chloroform by inhalation to
a sleeping person without awakening him, he said that
even supposing such a miracle had been effected, and
the man to have passed quietly into a state of insensi-
bility, there were still not present in the case of the
deceased the conditions which the medical witnesses
and authorities stated followed in the four stages of the
administration of chloroform. Those four stages were
—first, the person became excited; secondly, incohe-
rent ; thirdly, unconscious and the muscles rigid; and,
fourthly, the muscles were completely relaxed, and
the patient became entirely insensible. The jury were
asked to believe that the prisoner, living alone with
her husband; Wormed upon him that which would
be really a marvellous operation for Dr. Stevenson,
with his extensive experience and great know-
ledge, and who admitted that the operation would
be a most delicate and difficult one. These con-
siderations, he believed, would make it impossible
for the jury to find a verdict of guilty against the
prisoner. Counsel then passed from the scientific
aspect of the case to the other evidence given in the
court. Proceeding to comment upon those matters
about which there appeared to be some suspicion —the
leaving by the servant of the beef tea outside the
bed-room, the dress of the prisoner, and the state of
the fire on the night of the deceased's death—Mr.
Clarke said that in cross-examination he had shown
that there was in them nothing more than that which
was obviously usual. Another matter of suspicion
against the prisoner was the allegation of her having
made untrue statements about Dr. Nichols; and that
brought him to the consideration of the position
of Mr. Dyson, for the charge mainly depended
upon his recollection of the matter. He could
not comment upon that part of the case without
saying that if the making of an untrue statement
was evidence of guilt it was a little odd that Mr.
Dyson was in the witness-box and not in the dock.
As to what Mr. Dyson had said concerning himself,
there were grounds of suspicion that he had been
anxious to protect himself. Considering the marital
relations between the prisoner and her husband, and
that the latter had given her over to Mr. Dyson, it
was perfectly natural that a woman of delicate and
modest feelings should not tell Mr. Dyson the real
reason for which she wanted the chloroform. There-
fore, it was excusable if she had said, as alleged, that
she obtained the chloroform through the medium of
Annie Walker for some other purpose than the real
one. The statement, which thus became perfectly
intelligible, should not therefore be considered criminal
becauso it was untrue. Me. Clarke next dwelt
upon some portion of the evidence of Mr. Bartlett,
sen., and said that the idea of murder had pos-
sessed him, and he worked upon it, and did not
shrink from going into the witness-box and slander-
ing his dead son's wife. (Slight applause.) That
witness was a most valuable one for the defence.
(During this portion of the counsel's address the
prisoner was visibly affected, and with difficulty sup-
pressed her emotion.) Mr. Clarke then read the
letter from Mr. Bartlett in which he addressed Mr.
Dyson as "Dear George" for the first time, and ex-
pressed his feelings as a brother. The letter con-
tained the remarkable passage: "Would that I could
find words to express ray thankfulness to you for the
very beautiful and loving letter you sent to Adelaide
to-day." That letter was such that nothing could be
more important to his case. There was no con-
ceivable explanation of the letter but this—that
the relations between himself and his wife were
not the relations of marriage in its deepest and
closest sense, but that they were such that he
could, quietly and calmly, without a pang of
jealousy, look upon the rising and the growth of an
affectionate attachment between his wife and another
man. The prisoner and her husband were living as
loving and faithful Companions, and nothing more.
That letter was the key of the whole case, for without
it it might not be possible to believe the prisoner's
statements as to her marital relations; but with it it
was impossible to disbelieve the statement. The evi-
dence of Dr. Leach was next commented upon. Mr.
Clarke said that the statements made by the prisoner
to her medical man was made in circumstances of con-
fidence, and was never intended to be published to the
world. That statement, havever, so far as the evi-
dence related to it, was supported by it. The ex-
planation which she made to Dr. Leach was, no doubt,
a strange and delicate one, but it was true, and
she stood by it now. The Attorney-General had
said that there were only three hypotheses
to account for the finding of the chloroform in the
stomach of the deceased—viz., either he must have
taken the chloroform by accident, or it must have
been taken with suicidal intent, or it must have been
given to him by someone else with intent to murder.
The first of these hypotheses had been disposed of by
the medical evidence. As to the third, it was not
sufficient for the jury to find that it was correct; they,
must be satisfied from the evidence that the chloro-
form was given to the de?,eased by the prisoner, and
with a murderous intent. Mr. Clarke then spoke of
the attention given by the prisoner to her husband
during his illness. Coming to the statements by the
witnesses as to what took place on the night of the
death of Mr. Bartlett, counsel read the account which
Dr. Leash stated the prisoner had given to him as to
the conversation with her husband on the last night
of the year, and of her going to sleep and on
awakening finding her husband, was dead. The
facts of, the case fitted in perfectly with that
statement of the prisoner. Sketching in imagina-
tion what might have taken place. Mr. Clarke said
that while the prisoner was out of the room it was
very easy for the deceased to have reached out, ob-
tained a wine-glass, and taken chloroform sufficient to
cause his death. There was nothing difficult or
unreasonable, as shown by the authorities quoted, in
his passing into a state of coma; and when the pri-
soner awoke or came back there might have been the
heavy breathing which attracted her attention, and
after sho wont to sleep again he might have turned
over on the pillow and died. Directly she ascertained
that she could not awake him she rushed to give him
brandy, which, however, was of no use. (During
these observations the prisoner was crying throughout
although almost immovable and endeavouring to
suppress her feelings.) The action of the prisoner
after the death was, Mr. Clarke urged, thoroughly
consistent with that of an innocent and loving wife;
and her conduct to Mr. Dyson was far better than his
conduct to her. Apart from all scientific difficulties,
there stood forth the fact that from the moment of the
death every word and act and look of the prisoner had
been that of a woman conscious of her innocence, al-
though naturally she shrank from the suspicions
which at last she saw would gather with force around
her. And it was remarkable that the first challenge
to the world to bring the charge against her came
from her when she indignantly exclaimed to Mr.
Dyson, " Don't mince matters; say I gave him chlo-
roform if you think so." Mr. Clark concluded by
saying that, although the prisoner bad lost her
greatest friend in her husband, she was not without a
friend, for she would find a friend in the spirit which
guided the jury in their judgment upon this occasion.
The spirit of justice was among them, and it would
speak with firm and unfaltering voice when their
verdict told to the whole world that in their judgment
Adelaide Bartlett was not guilty. Upon the conclu-
sion of the address there was considerable applause in
the court, and not only the prisoner but a number of
persons in the court appeared to have been much
affected by Mr. Clarke's peroration.
The Attorney-General on Friday exercised his right
of reply, and pointed to the probability of tile pri.

Boner having administered the fatal dose-under the
pretence that it was the proper medicine for the de-
ceased.

Mr. Justice Wills summed up the case. He said
he desired first, on public grounds, to say a word as
to the undoubted right of the Attorney-General to
have a reply. The rule had existed for many years
that where the Attorney or Solicitor-General repre-
sented the Crown he should have the right of reply.
It was in a certain sense anomalous; but on grounds
of public advantage it was no doubt desirable to
retain this particular right. In some cases
the right was strained too far, no doubt,
but on the whole it was certain not to be abused. In
this case the Attorney-General had exercised the pre-
rogative vested in him most fairly. He (the judge)
would like also to comment upon the fact of no
evidence having been produced against Dyson, and
of his having been put in the witness-box. The
interests of the prisoner had certainly not suffered
by that course of procedure. The case had been in
the hands of the highest acknowledged representa-
tives of the Bar, and, approaching it with justice, he
thought it not desizable to proceed against Mr.
Dyson. Therefore he (the judge) should conduct his
remarks from a consideration of the fact that Mr.
Dyson was innocent; although, had he stood in the
dock, he would have had a great deal to get rid of.
Had he been there, he would have had to get rid of
the great suspicion against him; but that would
undoubtedly have told against the prisoner as well
as Mr. Dyson. But all that was now gone. The
history of the prisoner and Mr. Dyson and of Mr.
Bartlett was then gone into by the judge, who said
that the prisoner was a foreigner and had been
imperfectly educated, first in England and then
in Belgium, during the first few Tears of her married
life. In 1878 she was living with her husband at
Herne-hill, where they were joined by the father of
the deceased, who soon after quarrelled with the pri-
soner. That quarrel had left its traces in considerable
animosity. He would not inquire into the merits of
the dispute which took place in 1878. The deceased's
state of health in 1880 was excellent, as he was in-
sured as a first-class life. In 1881 his child was born
under very remarkable circumstances. Speaking
of the evidence in the case, the judge said
that unfortunately the prisoner had been brought
into acquaintance with Mr. Dyson. But for that ac-
quaintance Mr. and Mrs. Bartlett would have doubt-
less been now living happily together. They must
look upon Mr. Dyson as guiltless; but be took advan-
tage of the husband's absence to pay frequent visits
to the prisoner, and to kiss her. Under the guise of
giving her lessons he passed hour after hour in her
presence for three or four days a week, letting her
sit at his knee with her head upon his lap, and he
justified all that by the miserable pretext that he was
listening to the maudlin nonsense of the husband and
accepting his invitation to succeed him when he was
no more. The chief actors in such a drama certainly
would have no cause to complain if any suspicion
against them were entertained. The judge then
severely commented upon the evidence of Mr. Bartlett,
Ben., and of Mr. Dyson, and said that very little of
the latter's evidence came unadulterated before the
jury. Much of it was discreditable to himself as well
as to Mr. and Mrs. Bartlett. As to what Mr. Dyson
said, the judge observed that if there was one person
in the world whom he (Mr. Dyson) would wish to
suffer as little as possible, it was Mr. Dyson him-
self; and whatever he said affecting himself they
would no doubt exercise great reserve in accepting.
Much of his evidence presented features of revolting
improbability. The letter of apparent affection
addressed to Mr. Dyson by the deceased did not (the
judge argued) bear the construction put upon it by
Mr. Clarke; and, properly interpreted, it was a letter
of no great importance. As to his statements re-
specting the occurrences at Claverton-street, much of
it was all moonshine. Regarding the health of the
deceased, his partner, Mr. Baxter, said that tie only
knew of the deceased having one illness. The illness
just before his death did not appear a very serious
one, but was apparently due to overwork, and had all
the symptoms of a nervous breakdown. And in the
last days of his life there was no reason to suppose
that his illness was of such a nature as to cause appre-
hensions of death. There was little foundation for the
statement of the prisoner to Mrs. Matthews that
"Edwin thought he was going to die soon." Having
put the case as it told against the prisoner, he would
turn to another aspect respecting the circumstances
attending the illness of the deceased; and these were
of the strongest and most favourable character for her.
Everything throughout the case pointed to the con-
duct of a most devoted wife, and was perfectly
natural; and this was supported by evidence from
different sources. For over three weeks prior to Mr.
Bartlett's death, and during a critical time, she
scarcely ever took off her clothes. From the fact
that he (the judge) had once for a twelvemonth been
without one decent night's rest, he knew to some
extent what she had gone through. There was no
legitimate trace which would point to suspicion as to
the possession of books about poison by the prisoner,
or that she was conversant with its use; but that was
just the class of evidence which cases of this sort
generally wanted. Apart from the possession of
chloroform, there was an utter absence of suspicion.
The administration of chloroform was a difficult
and dangerous operation, even when performed by
eminent medical men; but ignorant persons might
make the attempt and might stumble into success.
The medical testimony further showed that no adult
person had yet been successfully experimented upon
with liquid chloroform. If the prisoner did really
administer a fatal dose of chloroform to the
deceased, the jury must be satisfied that it was done
with a criminal intent; and if they took the evidence
under those two heads, the evidence would seem to
make it impossible. Therefore they were within the
reach of speculation in which one man's opinion was
as good as another's. He knew, perhaps, more from
his own experience of the terrible effects of sleepless-
ness than eitner of the counsel for the defence or the
Attorney-General, and he could say that it was scarcely
possible to imagine the strength of mind, will, and
purpose necessary to resist the impulses of a person
who was unable to obtain sleep to take narcotics.
Whatever the jury's suspicions as to Mr. Dyson's
obtaining the chloroform, they must discard the point.
There was no difficulty in the deceased, in his rest-
less craving for sleep, getting the chloroform and
himself taking it. It was a very important fact
that there was no attempt to clean out the glass found
in the room. If the prisoner poured the chloroform
from the glass into the deceased's mouth, she must
have been strangely constituted, if not desirous of ob-
literating the traces of it. Her conduct was strik-
ingly unlike that of a criminal who had poisoned her
husband in betraying no anxiety in getting rid of the
last traces of the cause of death. With regard to
Dr. Leach, he desired to speak with all the respect
that his duty permitted. His self-consciousness had
made the investigation a most difficult one.
They could not safely trust his impressions or state-
ments. No doubt he desired to speak the truth. But,
without having more than an average intellect, his
instinct must have told him that when a man was
lying dead before him mysteriously from some cause
which he had seen nothing to account for, surely it
was his first duty to ascertain with care whether
there was anything close at hand and in the room to
account for the death. But Dr. Leach's evidence, by
the telegram he sent to Dr. Green, proved beyond
doubt that the prisoner was most anxious for an
immediate enquiry, and that it was not her fault that
the man's body was not examined on the day of his
death. With regard to the possession of the chloro-
form, so great was the uneasiness of Mr. Dyson that
on Jan. 3 he sanctified the Sabbath by throwine away,
on his way to chapel, the bottles which had contained
that whiCh he had purchased. The conversation
between the prisoner and Mr. Dyson when
interrupted by Mrs. Matthews was an important
one; but the jury did not know the whole of the cir-
cumstances, and the key to it was lacking. It was
with every appearance of honest indignation that she
said to Mr. Dyson, "Don't mince matters; say I
chloroformed him if you think so." Having !everted
to the manner in which Dr. Leach had given IT;
evidence, the judge impressed upon the jury their
duty to deal out justice careless of results. If they
could place their hands upon their hearts, and before
Almighty God, before whom the drama was being
enacted, acquit the prisoner, they should do so;" but
if not, they must not fear to express their opinion, no
matter what the consequence. If, after looking at the
case from all sides, they still honestly doubted, the
prisoner should have the benefit of that doubt.
The jury retired to consider their verdict at 2.53
o'clock. They were absent two hours and 10 minutes,
during which time the most marked anxiety for the fate
of the prisoner was evidenced by the behaviour of all in
court, and by the large concourse of persons throng-
ing the vicinity of the court, many eagerly expressing
opinions as to what the verdict would be. When the
jury returned to the court at 5.3 a deathly silence
pervaded the precincts of the Hall of Justice itself.
Mrs. Bartlett, who was between two female warders,
almost fainted when the foreman of jury was asked
by the Clerk of Arraigns, "Have you agreed upon
your verdict, gentlemen ?"
In reply to the clerk's question, "Do you find the
prisoner-, Adelaide Bartlett, guilty or not guilty of the
murder of Edwin Thomas Bartlett ?" the Foreman at
once said: We have well considered the evidence,
and although we think there is grave suspicion
attaching to the prisoner, we do not think there is
sufficient evidence to show how or by whom the chlo-
roform was administered.
The Clerk: You say, then, the prisoner is not
guilty?
The Foreman: NOT GUILTY.

On this being announced there was an instant out-
burst of the most hearty cheering which is possible to
be conceived, in which almost all took part; indeed,
such a scene has hezdly ever before been witnessed in
an English Court of Justice. The intensity of the
excited feelings of the spectators for the unfortunate
woman was too great, too strong, to wild to heed the
stentgrian demands for silence made by the ushers of
the court. While the applause was continuing Mrs.
Bartlett was gently removed from the dock to the
waiting-room.
_ - _

On silence being at last gained the judge remarked
that the expression of delight at the acquittal of Mrs.
Bartlett was an outrage. "This," said he, "is a court
of justice, and not a theatre. It only remains for me
to express my great sense of the attention you have
given to this case. The scene in this court just now
is disgraceful, and such conduct is inexcusable on
the most solemn occasion on which men are called
upon to perform a public duty. I think it is due to
you that you should be free for five years from attend,

ing on a jury.' The court adjourned and rapidly
emptied.
Immediately the verdict was known to the crowds
outside tumultuous yells of approval followed, which
were quickly succeeded by loud and deep groans for
Dyson, whose conduct throughout was considered by
the people as most deeply reprehensible.

In reply to some criticism the following letter has
been addressed to a London paper:
Sir,—The expression of the jury preceding the
verdict upon which you comment in your leader to-
day was in this, as in many other cases, the result of
a compromise. Eleven of our number were in favour
of a verdict of not guilty, with a rider that " we were
of opinion that, considering the state of health •Mr.
Bartlett was in, or imagined he was in, and the state
of mind the evidence showed him to be in, he admin-
istered the chloroform to himself with a view of
obtaining sleep or committing suicide; but the twelfth
juryman would only consent to a verdict in the form
in which it was given; and the majority, rather than
subject Mrs. Bartlett to all the agony and expense of
a second trial, gave way upon the point.— Your
obedient servant, _ _ _