Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1857-07-04 00:00:00

THE GLASGOW POISONING CASE

TRIAL OF MISS M. SMITH, FOR MURDER

HIGH COURT OF JUSTICIARY, EiHNBIIRGH.

The following is the concluding evidence given on Wednesday :

Professor Christison, examined by the Lord Advocatee I recollect
Dr. Penny speaking to me about various substances found in the body
of M. L'Angelier. I made an analysis of these sub stances, with the
view ofascartaining whether they contained any poison. The witness
then read the report, which stated No. 1 was " a small tube contain-
ing powder from the contents of the stomach." The powder was
oxide of arsenic. No. 2 was a" bottle containing prepared fluid from
contents of stomach." The fluid contained oxide of arsenic, and in
considerable quantity. No. 4 was a "bottle containing portion of
contents of small Intestine." The contents contained oxide of arsenic.
No. 7 was a common gallipot "jar containing portion of liver." The
contents, being about four ounces of a liver, were subjected to a
modification proposed in 1852 by Dr. Penny, of the process of
Reinsch for detecting arsenic in such matters. The liver h tying been
cat into small pieces, and boiled in hydrochloric acid and distilled
water iu a glass flask, to which a distilling apparatus of glass was
connected, the whole texture was gradually reduced to a fine pulp,
and a distilled liquor was obtained which was collected in divided
portions. These liquors were colourless, and nearly clear. The two
first portions obtained did not contain any arsenic, the third gave
faint traces of it, the fifth and sixth portions, when separately sub-
jected to the action of copper gauze, gave characteristically the usual
dark grey encrustation; and this again was driven off as usual by
heat and a small glass tub e and yielded in each case a white, spark-
ling ring of crystals, which were regular octoedres or forms derived
from octoedre. The liver, therefore, contained oxide of arsenic.
Having obtained unequivocal proof of the presence of arsenic in
the contents of the stomach, in the contents of the small intestine,
and in the liver, itdoes not appear to be necessary to examine the
other articles delivered to me by Dr. Penny. These are-3.
Prepared fluid from the textures of stomach ; 5. Portions of the
small intestine; Eh Portion of the large intestine; 8. Portions of the
heart and lungs; 9. Portion of the brain.—Could you give any
opinion as to the quantity of arsenic found in the body ? Only as to
what was in the material from the stomach. There was more than
sufficient to destroy life. I have had considerable experience in
regard to the effects of poisons, and have published a work on
the subject. The Lord Advocate then read two paragraphs
from pages 301 and 303 of Dr. Christson's work, the first of
which stated that, when sicknesses caused by arsenic began, or
about the same time, the region of the stomach was affected with pain
of a very violent kind, followed by violent fits of vomiting, a sense of
blindness, and a tightness of the throat, creating an incessant desire
for drink; and also hoarseness and difficulty of speech. His lordship
then resumed the examination : —These are the usual, though not the
invariable, effects of arsenic. If you found an the effrts described in
these passages in a case, would it lead you to suspect the presence of
arsenic? Yes, or some other polson.—Supposing a person hal taked
a small dose of arsenic on the lgth of February, and] again on the
22nd of February, and again on the 22nd of March, what would be the
symptoms 3on would expect to find? These are:exceedingly variable;
sometimes the effects pass off very quickly, and at otht rs continue
for weeks and months. When they continue, the symptoms are 'mils
gestion, pain in the stomach and bowels, some times diarrhae, loss
of strength, general lassitude and debility, and thirst. —lf you found
erosions with a braised edge, would that lead you to the:opinion that
there had been one or more administrations of poison ? Such an ap-
PeranCES would, at least, have made him expect the existence of some
pernicious disease. The Lord Advocate then read an extract from the
medical report, drawn up by Drs. Steven and Thomson, on the 3rd
of April, beginning at the words " The duodenum and a portion of the
small intestine" to the conclusion of the report, and asked—Are these
the effects you would have expected to find after a repeated doses of
arsenic? They are the natural appearances which would follow after
a repeated administration of sneh poison ; but I am not prepared to
'say that, from these symptoms, there must have been a repeated
adrnieistratien of poison.—If you had known there had been
a previous administration of arsenic, would you have considered
these effects the result of it? Certainly.—Are the symptoms which
I have now described to you those you would have expected to find
after such cases of continuous doses. They are such as would have
occurred by the administration of poisons in doses singly insufficient
to cause death. The witness was cross-examined by the Dean of
Faculty, but it only tended to an explanation of the ordinary results
of arsenical p. isoning, as regards the quantity swallowed, and the fre-
quency of the doses. Amedee Thuau wasexamined through Francois
Schuman, an interpreter. lam a clerk at Glasgow. I lodged with Mrs.
Jenkins in March last. I knew M. L'Angeller, who lived there. We
took our meals together in the same room. I knew at the end of
December last that L'Angelier intended to marry a young person. I
knew the contents of same letters. I never read any of those letters.
What was the subject of these letters? He told me that in one of
these letters the lacy demanded back some of her letters. I do not
know when that was. It was a pretty long time before L'Angelier's
death. I know Blythswood-square, Glasgow. In a street close by
L'Angelier delivered a letter. He knocked with his stick on the
window, while I was waiting for him at a short distance. Ido not
know the number of the house. I walked on while L'Angelier was
at the window. It was the second window from the corner of Blyths-
s. eeu-square. After the aeatn ca L Augener, a :news 1 111 M
t.n T wan 111 the habit of going out at night
sometimes. L'Angelier told me where he went on some of these occa-
sions. He went to his intended's hcuse. I, recollect one morning,
after he had been out, finding he had been very ill through the night,.
I can't say when this was. I visited L'Angelier that morning. I
asked him if he had seen the lady the night before ? He replied that
he had. I asked, then, if he had been unwell last night ? I remember
he said he was unwell in her presence. I recollect a second illness
of L'Angelier's. Ido not think that L'Angelier had been out the
night before on that occasion. L'Angelier did not say what was the
matter with him, but insisted upon me going for a doctor—his own
doctor. At L'Angelier's request I went for Dr. Thomson, on the
occasion of the second illness. I recollect his going to Stirling.
Before he went he left instructions as t sending his letters. One
letter came in his absence, and was sent to the Bridge of Allan ; and
another that came was sent to Stirling. I could not know the letter

I forwarded to the Bridge of Allan, if I saw it. In conversing with
L'Angelier about his intended, I am not sure that the name was ever
mentioned. The engagement was against the consent of the lady's
family. I understood from L'Angelier that the house where he left
the letter was the one where the lady lived. Cross-examined—I have
seen L'Angelier take laudanum several times. Once when I spoke to
him about it, he said he could not sleep without taking it. When
L'Angelier told you he took much laudanum, did you understand
him to refer to a habit, or only three, four, or five occasions ? I never
saw him take laudanum except when he was. ill. Auguste Vauvert
de Mean, chancellor of the French csnsnlate in Glasgow : I was
acquainted with the late M. L'Angelier. I first became acquainted
with him three years ago. I know the lady now sitting at the bar,
Miss Smith. I knew her family. I knew there was a correspondence
going on during 1855 bAween deceased and prisoner. L'Angelier
confided to me his relations with Miss Smith. I did not ask him
about her or seek his confidence. Mr. Smith had a house at the Row,
Helonsburgh. I lived at Helensburgh. L'Angelier lived with me one
night before I was married. Some time after L'Angelier had spoken
of his relations with Miss Smith, I told him I thought he should go to
Mr. Smith, and tell him he was in love with his daughter, and that he
wanted to marry her. I said I thought that was the most gentlemanly
course he could follow. Ho said that Mr. Smith was opposed to it,
and that Miss Smith had asked Mr. Smith for his consent several
times, but that he was very angry at it. I remember, a fow weeks
before L'Angelier's death, he came to my office, and in his conversa-
tion spoke of Miss Smith. I told him I bad heard Miss Smith was
going to be married to somebody else—to a Mr. Minnock. When 1
mentioned that, L'Angelier said that it was not true ; that it must be
false, and that if it did go the length, he had documents which would-
be sufficient to forbid the banns. Ido not recollect whether he had
heard from Miss Smith on the subject of her reported marriage. I did
not see L'Angelier again before his death. I heard of his death. I

thought it right then, as I had been received at Mr. Smith's house, to
tell him of L'Angelier's relations with his daughter. I did not feel at
liberty to break L'Angelier's conadence while he was alive; but now
I heard he was dead, I thought it my duty. as a gentleman, to let Mr.
Mr. Smith be aware of the correspondence between L'Angelier and
Miss Smith, in order that he might be able to save his daughter's
honour if anything came of it. I called on Mr. Smith on the evening
of the day of L'Angelier's death, and I apprised him of the death of
L'Angelier, and told him the deceased must have in his possession a
great number of letters from his daughter, and that I thought it right
to acquaint him with the fact. In consequence of what passed be-
tween myself and Mr. Smith, I went to Mr. Huggins's. That gentle-
man was not at his office; but I saw two other gentlemen there, to
whom I stated that I came on the part of Miss Smith's father, and
that I was desirous of getting any of her letters which were in
L'Angelier's lodgings. Thsy told me that they were not at liberty to
give me these letters without the consent of Mr. Huggins. I then
requested them, in the name of her father, that they would keep the
letters under seal. That was, I think, on the day after L'Angelier's
death—on the Monday ; but I am not sure. I don't think I went
back to Mr. Smith that day, but I went on the next. I had heard
some rumours which induced me to go. I cannot remember the day
on which I saw Miss Smith ; but shortly after I did see her, I went to
Miss Smith's house, and I saw Miss Smith in the presence of her
mother. I apprised Miss Smith of L'Angelier's death. She asked
me if it was of my own will that I had come to the house. I told her
it was not of my own will, but at her father's special request, and
that having been charged to do co, I wanted to know whether she
could tell me what would put me in possession of authority to
contradict the statements that had been made to me as to her
former re.ations with L'Angelier. I asked Miss Smith if she
hal seen L'Angelier on the Saturday night, to which she replied
that she had not seen him. I told her that it was said that L'Angelier
had come from the Bridge of Allan to Glasgow on a special engage-
ment with her, given in a letter written to him. Miss Smith told me
she was not aware that L'Angelier was at the Bridge of Allan ; she
thought 'ne was in Glasgow, and denied that she gave him any ap-
pointment for Sunday. She said she wrote to him on the Friday
evening, giving him an appointment for the following day, Saturday.
Site said to me that she expected him on the Friday, but he did not
come, and she certainly had not seen him on Sunday. I put the
question to Miss Smith, perhaps five or six different times, and in
different ways, for I was much interested in the matter, but got the
same answer. I told Miss SMith that my conviction at that mfsment

' was that she must have seen him on Sunday; that he Caine on pur-
pose from the Bridge of Allan on a special invitation to see her; and
that I did not think it likely that he would have come south without
knowing why she asked him to come to Glasgow. I had heard at the
,ti ne that there had been a letter from her to L'Angelier. I said to Miss
• Smith, " I'l4ll give you the best advice s friend can give, and that is, in
these circumstances, to tell all the truth, because it is a serious affair,
and will lead to an inquiry of justice; and if you- do not tell the truth
now, it might, in theseeirenmstancea be proved by the servant, or a
policeman, or some one who might be passingbefore L'Angelier left
the house, that he had been there, and it would lead to a very st song
suspicion as to the motive that would lead her to hide the truth."
Miss Smith then said she had not seen L'Angelier for three we eke,
or even six, I put the question to her five or six times, as I had great
interest in it, and she gave me always the same answer. I asked
Miss Smith as to the letter by which L'Angelier WPM engaged to come
and see her, and said,. "How is it, when you are engaged to a gentle-
man, that you should have carried on a correspondence with your
former sweetheart ?" She told me she did it in order to get back her
letters.. What I had, said referred to the letter about which I was
asking her. I asked her whether she had been in the habit of meet-
ing L'Angelier, and if it were tree that he had appointments with her
in the hense. She told me that L'Angelier had never entered into the
house, meaning, as I understood, the house in Blythswood-square.
I asked Miss Smith. how she had her appointments of meeting
wi.h L'Angelier. She replied, that when L'Angelier came he went
to the street, of which, I don't know the name, at the corner
of the home, and that he had a signal—knocking with his stick at the
window—and that, when she heard it, she went and talked to him.
Did you speak about the former correspondence or letter at all ? I
did. Was there anything said about her using L'Angelier's name ? I
asked Miss Smith if it was true she signed letters with L'Angelier's
name, and- she said, Yes. She dd not say why she had done so.
Cross-examined by Mr. Young—You mentioned that you lived at
Helensburgh Yes ; before I was married I went, in the summer of
1855, to Helensbnrgh, where I had lodgings. M. Isakagolier was
there that summer. Do you remember his being ili on one occasion
when you were there ?• Once M. L'Angelier came on a Saturday
evening to my lodgings; we spent the evening together. In the
course of the evening 1 saw that he was [terribly pale, and I asked
him what was the matter with him, and he said he was •dreadfnlly
sick, and had been vomiting downstairs. Dld he complain to yon of
being bilious ? Yes ; but I cannot recollect at what period. He com-
plained several times. Once he told me he had an attack of cholera.
Do you know whether he was in the habit of taking laudanum? I know
that L'Angelier, whenever he came to my house, had a bottle of landa-
num in his carpet-bag. I never saw him come without it: I do not
know that he had made use of it, but I heard that he did. I know
that he had it always in his bag. Did you ever hear him speak about
arsenic ? I remember heating him once speak of it. When was that ?
It must have been in the w.nter of 1854 ; I was residing then in Glass-
ford-street, Glasgow. I remember little about it, but I recollect it
was on a•Sunday. We had a long discussion on the possibility of a
eerson taking arsenic without being injured by it. I thought at the
t'me that it was not possible. I ridiculed the idea of taking it with-
out danger, and said that it was a most violent poison. L'Angelier
maintained that it was possible to take it in small. quantities.
I cannot tell what led to the conversation. Did he say any-
thing about the purpose for which it was taken by persons who
took it in small quantities ? Not that I recollect. I would
be afraid of making any statement about it, for I have
read since something en the subject in a French dictionary. What
was the name of it? It was about all sorts of things—chemistry and
other matters. I don't recollect the title of it. I think. I have it in
nay office. Did L'Angelier ever speak to you about liming been ill-
used by an English lady? Yes; he made a statement about once
having been jilted by a rich English lady, a person of fortune; and
he said on account of that deception he was like mad for a fortnight,
running up and down, and got food from a farmer in the country,
Was he of an easily excited temperament ? I think so. When hehad
any cause of grief he was much depressed. The Ls rd Justiee-Clerk—
Youhave said that after your marriage you had very ;it tle intercourse
with L'Angelier ; was that on accounted his character and habits ? It was
on this account; I thought that M. L'Angelier might be led to take some
harsh steps in regard to Miss Smith, and as I had some young ladies
in my house, I did not think it was proper to have him there so often
as when I was a bachelor.—What do you mean by "harsh?" (M.
Chamont having explained the meaning of the phrase to the witness
in French, he sail he meant " some rash steps.")—What rash steps
do you allude to? I thought he would propose to Msss Smith anelope-
meet. I was sure he would do so. ilf. L'Angelier, when in my
office, several times made professions of what he would do if Miss
Smith's fat (maw ould not consent to his marriage.—Did you under-
stand that Miss Smith had engaged hes'self to him? I under-
stood so by what he told me.—You used the expression that
you thought it right to go to Mr. Smith and warn, him to
take steps to protect his daughter's honour ; when you used
that expression, had you in view that the letters might contain
an engagement, or that she had made a clandestine engagement ?
What I meant was, that as these letters were love letters, it would be
better for them to be in possession of the family.—What were
Las ngeller's usual character and habits? I thought M. L'Angelier,
at the moment of his death, was a most regular young man,
religious, and, in fact, that he was most exemplary in all his
conduct. The only fault he had was boasting excessively. He was
vain—a vaunter, a boaster. Ile would boast of the influence he had
over persons, &c. Thus he would say, with referenee to Mis
Smith: "Oh, I shall forbid Madeleine to do such and such a thing
I shall forbid her to dance with such a person."--Did he ever
toast of his success with females? Never. Did he seem to be jealous
of Miss Smith paying attention to others? No; he was jealous of
asms I • • • • • • •
on account of any levity in his character that you disiaaraged his
intimacy after your marriage ? No : it might have done well enough
while I was a bachelor, but not for a married man. Oa what account
was it? It was on account of his relations with Miss Smith, and the
con.equences which would follow. How long was it since you had
seen him till he came to yon a short time before Ma death ? I cannot
recollect; there was a long cessation, but when he cams to me it was
to my office. The examination of this witness being closed, the
court rose at a quarter past six o'clock.