The Express.
London, England, 1847-04-08 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, THURSDAY EVENING, APRIL 8, 1847.

having them, referred him to Mr. Bell, of Oxford-street,
was next examined, but he merely proved that having
been in business as a chemist for a great many years, he
had never heard of bitter almond water being used in com-
pounding medicine—Mr. Jacob Bell depend that be re-
ceived en order from Mr. Corfleld for the bitter almond
water and the strychnine powder. He had none of the
powder, and therefore he only sent the bitter
almond water, a formula of the powder that he
found in a ook to which he referred. There were
twenty-two different descriptions of bitter almond water,
and looking at the prescription he should not know what
description was required, and if such a prescription had been
• sent to him he should not have made it op without commu-
nicating with the physician. Different distilled waters were
made use of to mix medicine, some being poisonous and
others harmless, but in the former cue he should expect the
prescription would denote the strength that was to be used.
Chemically speaking, he wu of opinion that the omission of
the strychnine powder would not at all affect the quality of
the mixture in question' excepting that the omission of a poi-
sonous ingredient would have rendered it less poisonous.
This powder wu • preparation from nun vendee,
hit the quantity mentioned in the prescription
would in itself have been perfectly harmless.—
Crors.examined If he had seen the prescription
he should have kek,wn that the bitter almond water was
vehicle for the administration of the
merely intended as a
medicine, and he would have made use of a harmless des-
cription of bitter almond water. In that case no mischief
would have happened. He had no means of knowing
whether it was to be used interna2ly or externally, or in met
to whet purpose it was to be apphee. If he had known that
the bitter almond water he Pent was to have been used in-
ternally, he should not have put the wo:d " poison" upon the
bottle, because he should think a cheroist would be aware
of the fact ; but if he had known that he was
dealing with a person who admitted, although in that
profession, that he was entirely ignorant of the qualities
of the article, then he should certainly have put the word
" poison " on the bottle. The article he nut was a concen•
tested bitter almond water, but there was some of a more
powerful description.—Mr. Justice Coleridge inquired of the
witness whether, when chemists sent out the concentrated
. .

almond water, it was not customary to label it as such ?
The witness said it was not customary to do so. In answer
to further questions put by Mr. Clarkson, the witness said,
that although he did not consider the quantity of bitter
almond water that be sent was sufficient to kill a bone, that
there was quite enough to destroy a human being. Ile
likewise said that there was no doubt the physicians of the
present day were infinitely in advance of the ex-
isting pharmacopeis.—Re-examined : In his opinion
the prescription should have defined the strength
of the bitter almond water that was to be made
use of.—Mr. John Edward Suet, chemist, deposed
that be kept fire descriptions of bitter almond water, two
English and three foreign. He wee in the habit of making
up physicians' prescriptions, and constantly used, bitter
almond water. If the word concentrated was not mentioned
in the prescription, he should use the strength staed in
" Gray's Pharmacopeia," which would be quite harmless.
—Mr. Justice Coleridge: Then in your opinion the omis-
sion of the word concentrated wan an induction that the
weak description of bitter almond water was intended to be
used in the prescription ?—Witness: Certainly, if this pre-
scription had been sent to me, I should have used the weak
compound.—Mr. Justice Coleridge : And if you had done
that, would the mixture have been harmless 2—Witness I
emotive is.

The learned Judge here inquired of Mr. Payne whether
he thought the ease ought to be carried any further?—Mr.
Payne said he certainly thought after the evidence that had
just been given that the matter was too doubtful to justify a
eouviction.—His Lordship observed that it appeared per-
fectly clear that a chemist possessing the ordinary knowledge
of his profession must have known that a weak description
of hitter almond water wee intended to be used for the pre-
scription. Mr. Corfield did not appear to have known any-
thing upon the subject, and he did not give the prescription
a fair chance,
The jury then deliberated together for two or three
minutes, when Mr. Clarkson observed that perhaps it
would be more satisfactory t• all parties that another me-
dical witness should be examined.—Mr. Robert Venables, a
member of the College of Surgeons and lecturer on forensic
medicine, was accordingly called, and after having stated
that upon analysis he discovered sufficient prussic acid in
the liquid of which the deceased had partaken te account for
her death, he said that looking at the Prescription he
should have expected that the ordinary weak compound
of bitter almonds would have been used, and that
was perfectly harmless. He also said that if the strych-
nine powder had been added, although it would not
have had any chemical effect, it would have acted
physiologically upon the system, and would have had a
similar effect to ammonia in neutralising the prussic acid.—
The jury here interposed, stating that they were quite satis-
fied with the evidence that had been adduced, and they at
once returned a verdict of Not Guilty.
Mr. Clarkson observed that if the case had gone further,
be had twenty chemiats present to prove that bitter almond
water was constantly an ingredient in the prescriptions they
made up for physicians.—Mr. Justice Coleridge ordered the
defendant to be immediately discharged.

night the defendant came home, and having abased
him very mach, seised a heavy brine candlestick
and beat bias esout the head with it. IThe land-
lord deposed that, hearing the cry of "murder," he
attempted to enter the room by the door, bat finding the
door locked, got in at the window, when he found the old
gentleman crawling away from defendant, who was striking
him with a candlestick. Complainant was bleeding from
several wounds in the head.—A constable proved that defen-
dant was drunk atthe time she committed the offence.—The
amid said the complainant took the candlestick up in her,
bat lee haver struck him.—Mr. Broderip committed her for
Mele bet said he would take bail.
TRAMS.— BlOARY.—George Alison Overton, alias
George Alison, was charged with feloniously intermar-
rying with Hannah Louisa Foster, he, at the same time
having a former wife living.—Joseph Pearson Dixon, clerk
of the parish church of St. John's, Bethnal-green, produced
the ho dr in which die marriages of that church are regis-
tered, in which was an entry of the marriage of George
Alison Overton with Harriet Hannah Ives, a minor, on the
9th of June, 1839. The certificate was numbered BA.—
Mary Ives surd she was aware of her niece's marriage with
the prisoner, and had herself seen the marriage certificate.
Shortly after the marriage had taken place, they came to
reside with her for the space of two or three weeks,
during which period Overton had always acknowledged and
treated her as his wife. In consequence of some misunder-
standing, they had separated about three years and eight
months since. Her niece latterly being compelled to go out
every day to earn a subsistence, she was unable to attend ; a
note to which effect, in her handwriting, was handed to the
magistrate. On being shown her niece's signature, she
immediately recognised it.—Mr. Pelham, who appeared firr
the prisoner, endeavoured to elicit from this witness the fact
of his client having reason to suspect his wile's fidelity,
but her further evidence only went to show that the prisoner
had treated his wife with great brutality. it appeared,
however, that the two parties, before marriage, had been
near relatives, the mother of the prisoner having married
the father of his wife.—Hannah Louisa Foster stated that
iv the 22nd of July lest she was married to the prisoner at
Whlteehapel Church. She had been acquainted with the
primmer about a twelvemonth prior to their marriage, and
he had invariably represented himself to her to be a single
man. After the marri'ge had been consummated, he had
lived with her about eight months, hot deserted her on the
23rd of February last. About a month or six weeks before
he left her, he had told her he was a married man, but she
had not informed her friends of that circumstance till after
his desertien of her.—Kendall, an officer of the detective
force, produced the certificates of both marriages, which he
found in a trunk belouging to the prisoner, on board the
Evergreen, the vessel in which he was about to sail when
captured—Robert Shepherd proved that he was at White-
chapel Church on the *swim of the prisoner's being married
to his second wife and witnessed the ceremony duly pee-
fonned.—Mr. Pelham applied for the prisoner to be ad-
mitted to bail, saying he had fates to offer in the defence
which would give the ease a totally different aspect, but
which it would be prejudicial to the prisoner's interest to
urge bow.—The bail, however, was firmly refused.
CRURLTY TO A PAUPER LUNATIC.—James DOWN and
Samuel Garrett, two keepers belonging to Grove-house, Lu-
natic Asylum, at Bow, were charged with having caused the
death of a pauper lunatic, named Rank. Most of the details
appeared in our report of the inquest on Monday. W.
Pride gave additional evidence showing that the deceased
had been most cruelly treated by Garrett, while in the
ward, Garrett having knelt upon him and struck ten or
twelve violent blows on the side, at the same time using
moat abusive language; Downs was standing by, encourag-
ing Garrett. The prisoners were remanded on a charge of
manslaughter, Mr. Yardley refusing to take bail.