Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1857-07-10 00:00:00

THE GLASGOW POISONING CASE

TRIAL OF MISS M. SMITH, FOR MURDER

HIGH COURT OF JUSTICIARY, EDnatrzan.

NINTH DAL-TM:MD iY .

The Court met this morning at nine o'clock, when

The Lord Justice-Clerk proceeded with his charge to the jury.
Remarking on the recovery of the letters found in the repositories of
L'Angelier, he said that although the method of procedure which was
adopted had been loose, irregular, and slovenly, it did not appear that
the panel had suffered any prejudice from the want of any of them,
As to each letter being in its proper envelot e, in the first part of the
correspondence it did not much signify whether such were the ease,
because there was no doubt that these passionate letters, witless by
the prisoner, declaring such strong love for L'At gelier, and some of
:hem expressed in my licentious teemr, had been written by her at
some time or other. Complaints had been made as to the diffi, /elm
cif getting access to the correspondence on the part of the prisoner.
On the whole it appeared to him that the facili,ies afforded to her for
conducting her defence were such as no other panel had ever had.
Commenting on the evidence of the female servants, he observed that
a material part of this evidence was, that it showed that on ore
occasion an interview took place between prisonerend deceased in the
house, and that there were ample facilities for the prisoner admitting
L'Angeiier to the house, if she wished it, without any one in the house
know ng of it; so that if there was evidence otherwise sufficient
to satisfy the jury that he went to the house on the night of Sun-
day, the 22nd of March, there was nothing in the fact that he was not
heard. On this point there was also the fact that the, prisoner got
out of the house on the Thursday morning without this be ng known
by any one. As to the story about nsing the arsenic es a cosmetic, he
looked on it as a false pretence altogether, and an excuse for the
possession of r he arsenic ; this story, therefore, was not of the s'ightest
importance at All. There was no doubt that on the nighttof the 22nd,
after his return from Beidge of Allan, he went out in the direction of
the panel's house. With reference to the illegibility of some of the
postmarks on the letters, he observed that the attention of the post-
office authorities had been called to the necessity of their being ma le
more distict by Lord Campbell in a similar case, and by himself ; and
considering the importance of this point to the end of Owl and
criminal in& e, he trusted this would be the last occasion on which
these marks would be so carelessly impressed. Reverting again to
the probability of an interview between the prisoner and deceased on
Sunday, his lordship remarked that as tem had waited for him one
teght according to appointment, and ancthsr night after that, and
then wrote another letter, imploring him in terms profess-
ing ate mg passion for him, to come and clasp her to
his heart, it wend net be wonderful if she exeected
that he would come on the Sunday night, though. the
appointment was for Saturday night. Coming next to Miss Parry's
evidence, he remarked on the fact that L'Angelier had said to her
that on two occasions before he took ill he had got coffee or cocoa
and chocolate from the panel. They had no prof that the panel had
arsenic in her possession on the 19th February, and there was no
evidence of any meettne, on the 19M, except what was drawn from
the letter, the date of which the Lord Advocate Heel for the Wednes-
day. But here was a stateMent made by the dead man, good and
competent e. Hence; and the jury must judge of the weight of it. He
mentioned at Portobello that he was ill after getting coffee and cocoa,
and that be thought he had teen poisoned, and again. to Miss Perry
he said, e I can't think wey I was so unwell atter getting that coffee
and chocolate from her." This most unqu,stionably referred to two
different illne-ses, each following the getting of coffee or chocolate
from the prisoner. The jury must judge whether this conversation
wtrh Miss Perry was of importance She did cot interrogate him on
the subject, mad she seemed very properly to wish to banish the
thought from his mind. Still this was said in earnest, and Miss
Perry stated on oath that she thong, t he entertained some suspi-
cion of the panel, though not a serious suspicion. It was
true that Miss Perry knew that the intimacy between the
two parties was clandestine ; that vms strange conduct
in a person of her respectability and of her age; but sometimes they
wool I and that ladies at her time of life had a good deal of absurd
sentimentality about them, and this lady seemed to have had consi-
derable pleasure in bring the confidant to the attachment between
these two young persons. It might be explained in this way; but he
did not think it could be doubted that she was a truthful witness.
The j ary must, however, consider whether all this amounted to more
than to give rise in their mindsto very great suspicion, which might
not warrant them in coming to a conclusion that he did get poison.
They must remember that though he was ill on these occasions, and
seemed to ascribe it to cocoa, there was ne proof that the attack was
really caneed by arsenic on either of these two occasions. The symp •
toms corresponded with those of irritant palm, no doubt, but then
they might also be the syMpterns of bilious attack; and the jury
must consider whether they were warranted in confiding on his state-
ments, however strongly made, to Miss Terry, that these attacks
arose from some poisonous substance, it did not signify what. Pri-
soner bought arsenic on the 21st of February, before the second
illness,and therefore the fact of her possessing it on that occasion of
coarse gave much greater strength and point to his remark, that he
did receive something which had made him ill, oat the 27th Fab..
As to the evidence for the defence, that he hal on one o casion
threatened to throw himself from a window in the Rainbow Teirern,
his Lordship observed that as the witness was in bed at the time, the
deceased had ample opportunity to have thrown hims,lf over, if he
had been so inclined, before the witness could have interfered; and
tit ejury would consider whether, when going about the room in an
excited state, he had only thrown open the window to get some air.
As to the other stories, thathe would drown himse f if he were jilted,
they did not amount to much, when it was known that on one occa-
sion he had been jilted and had not drowned himself. He also
treated the story as to giving arsenic to horses on ajourney in France
as very unimportant ; it was nonsense to say that it made them long-
winded if only given to them once, because it was only the constant
use of it which could produce that effect. Altogether, he did not tee
the importance or materiality of this evidence. It was brought to sup-
port the notion that he poisoned himself with arsenic; but if he was
in the habit of taking it in small quantities, he knew its qualities, and
this did not aid the notien that he took an immense quantity on 22nd
March for the purpose. of desmoying himself. No doubt the prisoner
was not bound to prove that he poisoned himself—it was enough for
her to satisfy them that there was not evidence to bring home to her
the guilt of poisoning him ; but it was a hazardous thing to set up in
defence that L'Angelier went out that night carrying su‘h a quantity
of arsenic in his pocket, and that he swallowed it how, where, orevhen
no human being could conceive. And therefore he thought the case
stood far better for the prisoner on her real plea, that the guilt was
not brought home to her, which was truly the matter at issue. 'Pro-
bably the jury would hold that the notion of his having poisoned
himse'f was in reality groundless, and did not strengthen the case.
Proceeding to the evfdence of the drugeists at Coatbridge and Baillie-
ston, he remarked that they had against that Mr. Ross's evidence that
he walked with him all the way to Glasgow, that he never complained
of being ill, and that he had not gone into any shop on the way.
There must, he thought, be a mistake oa the part of these people as
to this being L'Angelier at all. It must also be remembered that he
went home and took tea, and never complained that anything was
wrong with him. As to the evidence that he bought a white
powder in Kirk's shop, Gallowgate, his Lordship said it was
not even suggested that this was arsenic ; if it was arsenic, she
was bound to write it down; and he did not think the jury could
believe that he bought a .senie there just after he left Ross and before
he saw the panel, or knew what answer he would get from her. The
witness Kirk identified L'Angeller's purse as that from which he had
taken the money to pay for the powder; but it was very probable, his
Loalship thought, that some of tee jury might have a purse in their
pockets exactly like it. As to the third letter put in for the defence,
written by the prisoner to L'Angelier, denying that the conversation
of young ladies at sceoel had reference to certain subjects, his Lord-
ship remarked that this seemed to have been written in reply to some
complaint by L'Angelier as to the . impropriety of her con-
versation, and with the view of correct ng her fruits. As
to the evidence with •reword to the 'arsenic kept In great
c Anoint works, he observed that there was no evidence that
L'Angel er was ever seen about these works at all. Alluding to Dr.
La,urie'e exp rirnents with arsenic, he observed that in these experi-
ments the bends and face were immediately afterwards washed with
cold ware-, which might prevent any irritation, bat if it was so used
In this case, what effect could it have as a cosmetic? His Ihmdship
next directed attention to the correspondence. On this point he ob-
served:—The Lord Advocate states his theory of the case thus : Tee
panel thee= acquainted with L'Angelier, the acquaintance went on
vary ra„illy, and ended in an engagement; they corresponded fre-
quently and clandestine y; on the 6,11 May, 1856, he got' poss salon
of her person; the engagement was discontinued once or twice; the
letters continued on her part in the same terms of passionate love for a
very considerable time—l say passionate love, because, unhappily,
'they are written without any sense of decency, anal in most licentious
terms. After a certain time Mr. Minnoch's attentions to the girl
tecame very marked; she saw there was no 'chance of marrying
L'Angelier' eyed' if• she continued to like him sufficiently ; but the
other was certainly a most desirable marriam for her to make. The
Lord Advocate says that her object then was to extricate herself frem
the petition show: s in; she first makes an appeal to L'Angelier to givo
up her letters ; she writes then very coldly, and says the att a ehm trot has
cea•ed on her part, and she thinks on his part also. Certainly there was
no reason to suppose thate'though he frequently blamed her conduct;
but that is what site states. The Lord Advocate says that by these
c .11 letters she was trying to make him give her up and to give up
her letters. She failed in that. The Lord Advocate says that the n
she pre: ended to write in as e arm terms as ever, and to talk of their
crabraces as she had done before. She does not suceed in that t ne,
and then else receives brim as he says must be inferred and is proved,
into her house for rise purpose of succeeding in this. She less to
leave Glasgow, and he, too, has to go ter Edinburgh. She returns,
and she understaads that he returned. ani she writes letters for
the purpose of having interviews with him. The Lord Advocate
says tha , on the former occasions, when she failed in getting
the letters, out of resentment she had administered the
poison to him on the 111th and 22nd; and, aware that
no allurements, or enticements, or fascinations from her world get
the letters from him, she lead prepare 1 f r the interview which she
had expected on the 22nd March, by another purchase of ars elle,
and with the i ,tention to poison him. The Lord A 'rotates theory
acid statement is that the interview having taken place, site did
,PMrdiugl,y a :minister th,t dose of arsenic from which, howsoever
administered, be died. All this, on the other hand, is treated as a,
Intally-Itiereatble suppeertiva by th., co,tiniol for the prisoner. It is

said that she could not have had such a purpose—that it is someth'ng
too monstrous to believe or Inquire into. Centlemen,it is very difficult
to say what might not occur to the exasperated feelings of a female
who had been placed in the situation in which this woman was placed.
And there it is that the correspondence comes to be of much impor-
tance is ascertaining what sort of feelings this girl cheriehed,lwhat
state of mind and disposition she was in, and whether there is etay
trace of moral sense or propriety to be found in her letters, or
whether they do or do not exhibit eurh a degree of ill-regulated,
disorderly, distempered, licentious feelings as to show that this is not
a persoa quite capable of caerishing any o-ject to avoid disgrace and
exposure, and to cherish any revenge vr:.,lch such treatment might
excite in the tithed of a woman driven nearly to madness as she says
sho was. I shall not read many' of these letter_, but there are some
characteristics of the character of the panel to show her mina and
feelings which I think it is of importance to place b fore you, as
showing the progress of this attechement, and the manner in which
it was ca,red on. It is very curious that the fa=t letter is written
by her; end then he ranked as you might expect a young man of his
temperament to do. His Lordship then read one of the letters,
remarking that it seemed that the girl's ill-regulated passions broke
out months before any sensual interuou se had taken place ; the
expressions used in that and following lettrs were most singular as
passing between two unmarried peop'e. We heard, said his Lordship,
a good deal said by the Dean of Faculiy as to the character of this
panel; we have no evidence on the subject except what these
letters exhibit, and no witne,s to character was brought; but
oert inly these letters show as extraordinary a frame of mind and
of passion es, perhaps, er r appearad in a court of j notice. Can you
be surpri•ed, alter such letters as thoso of the tentla April and 3rd May,
that on the 6th of May, three days afterwarkis, he got possession of
her person. On the 7th of May she writes aaain, and in that letter is
there the slightest aapearanre of grief or of remorse? None what-
ever. It is the letter of a girl rejoieng in what had passed, and
alluding to it in one passage in part cu ox in terms which I will not
read, fer perhaps they were never previously committed to paper as
having:passed between a man and a woman. What passed must have
Paged owl of doors, not in the house, and she to ks of it as hers as
mach as his. His Lorsdhtp here read the letter, cud •observed—this
Is a letter frog a girl, written at fi a in the morning, just after she
had submitted to his embraces; can you conceive- or picture any
worse state of mind than this lette, exhibits? Is other letters she
uses the word "love" underscored, shos log clearly what ehe
meant by it; and in one lean* she uses the meat disgusting
and revolting lan uage, exhibiting a state of -mind most
lamentable to think of. After reading several other letters, he
Lordship came is those of February 1857, as to which he observed that
it was pl dn she was then playing a part. She had been writing to
"My dearest Will'am"—referring to Mr. Minnoch—talking of the
happiness of her expected marrage with him. As to the last letter
which brou‘ht L'Angeller trom the Bridge of Allan, she s ti'l it was
written to inf ,rrn him of the engagement to Mr. Minnoch ; but how
strange that she should not vay a word about it. He remarked on
the fait that in the let er iu which the prisoner said she would give
him a 10-f of Inead the next time be came, she said she would give
him it before he went " out "—showing that it was intended he
shou dbe !et into t e house. His Lordsh p observed that there could
b no doub that it was the prisoner's letter which brought L'Anae-
liar from the Bridge of Allan, and he then proceeded. In ordinary
matters of life, after that, you could not have any hesitation its com-
ing to the conclusion that they did meet accordingly. But that
becomes a very serious questloa in a case where that meeting is sup-
posed to end in the administration of poison and death follows. That
may be a very natural inference, that looking at the thing morally, no
one can doubt that he went to see her, and woald see her that night,
for she ha I no difficulty in making arrangements to see him, and if
she waited the second night after the first letter, it would not be sur-
prising that ihs should look out for an interview on the second night
after the second letter. _ _ _

The D laN of FacuLtY—She did not wait the second night a:ter the
tint letter. S:e waited only one night.

The LORD JUSTICE-CLERK—I am sure the jury understood what I
meant,

The DEAN—It is t'..e turning paint of the case, becAnse the
slightest dtherenee of expression may occasion a different meaning.

The LORD Jusrice-Crass -She says ;—" I shall wait again
to-morrow night, same hour and arrangement." And I say there is
no doubt, but it is a matter for the jury to consider, that after writing
this letter the would wait another night —that is the observa-
tion I made. And therefore it was very natural he should
go to see her that Sunday night. But, as I said to you
that is an inarence only. If you think it seemed a just and
satisfactory inference—that you can rest your verdict upon
it—it is quite competent fo: you to draw such an inference
from such letters as these, and from the conduct of the man coming.
to Glasgow for the purpose of seeing her, for it is plain that that was
his object in coming to Glasgow. It is sufficiently proved that he
went out immediately after he got tea, ant had changed his coat.
But then, gentlemen, in showing an inference, you mast always look
to the important character of the inference which you are asked to
allow. If this had been an appointment about business, and you
found that a man came to Glasgow for the purpose of seeing another
upon business, and he went out for that purpose,. having no other
object in coming to Glasgow, you would probably scout the notion of
a person saying 1 never saw or heard of him that day
that he came; but what you are asked to draw is this
—the inference that tEey met upon that night, where
the fact of their meeting Is the foundation of a charge of murder.
Yon therefore must feel that the grounds of drawing an inference in
the ordinary matters of civil business, or the actual intercourse of
mutual friends, is one thing, and the inference from the fact that he
came to Glasgow, that they did meet, and that, therefore, the poison
was administered to him by her at that time, is another, and a moat
enormous jump in the category of inferences. Now, the question
for yon to put to yourselves is this, can you now, with sstisraction
to your own minds, come to the c mclasion that they did meet on
that occasion, the result being, and the oleject of coming t ) that result
being*, to fix. down upon her the administration of the arsenic by
which he died ? Now, then, gentlemen, let ne take the. Mee
charges in the indictment: the first charge is, that she administered
poison on the 19th or 20th February, 1857. Can you come to the
conclusion, on the evidence of Miss Perry and others, that he did see
her on that occasion ? She was not proved to have had arsenic or
any other poison in her possession, and what I attach very great im-
portance to is, that there is no medical testimony by analysis of the
matter vomited, that that illness did proceed from the administration
of arsenic. If the doctor had examined the matter vomited, and sa d
that there was certainly arsenic hero, I am afraid the case wou d
have be^u very strong against her, as having given him coffee or
something immediately before his illness on that occasion. Bat it
is not proved that the illness arose from the administration of poison;
arsenic she had not, and there is no proof of her having pcesessed
any hing delete i ous. Therefore, I have no he-it aloe in telling you
that that charge has failed. He had twee before been seized with
irness of this description, which was net alleged to have been caused
by arsenic. And therefore I have no hesitation in telling you that I
think that that charge has failed. I think it my duty to t ell you, as a
Judge, that on that charge you find her not guilty. But we are in a
very different situation as to the illness of the 22nd and 23rd of March.
In one respect it is not proved to be from the administration of any
deleterious substance, and perhaps you may think it safer not
to hold, in such a case as that, that it was the result of the
'administration of arsenic or any pois onaus substance. Bat what
would connect the prisoner with that in, I thjek, much stronger—
t sat is to say, connect her with a meeting with hi n that night.
If you should think you can acquit her of the first, and that there is
too much doubt to fled the second proved, why then will you observe
how much that weakens all the theories the, may be raised in the
correspondence of a purpose and desire of revenge or something
rising from the change of tone, an a desire to allure him again to
her embraces and fascinations which cannot be accounted for, except-
ing on the supposition. In that view undoubtedly the foundation of
theMase is very much shaken, and will not lead you to suppose that
the purpose of murder was cherished on the 22nd. Then as to
that charge of murder, gentleman, this points for you to
consider are surrounded as the panel is with grave
suspicion, everything that seems to militate against the notion of
innocence, upon any theory that has been propound° i to you.
Still, are you prepared to say that you find an interview proved
against her with the deceased on the night of the 22nd March? She
had arsenic before the illness of the 22nd February, and I think you
will consider that all the excuses which she. made about having
arsenic, aresjust as groundless as those wh oh she stated to the
apothecaries. She bought arsenic, again on the 6th, and certainly it
is a very odd thing that she should bay mare arsenic after she came
back to Glasgow on the le h of March. For unless you aro to take
the acccunt, to be sure, that she used it as a cosmetic, she has
before the 22nd, and that is a dreadful fact, if you are satisfied that she
did not get it and use it for the purpose of washing her hands and face.
It may create the greatest reluctance in your mind to take this view
of the flutter, that she was guilty of administering it somehow, though
the place where may not he found out, or the precise tans of the
interview. But on the ether hand, you must keep in view that
arsenic could only be administered by her if an interview took place
with L'Angelier, and that view, though it may be the result of an
inference that may satisfy you morally that it did take place, still
rests upon an inference alone, and that inference is to be the ground.
and must 'be the ground, on which a verdict of guilty is to rect.,
Gentlemen, you will see, therefore, the necessity of great caution and
jealousy in dealing with any inference which you may draw from this.
You may be perfoctly salirfi .d that L'Angeher did not commit suicide'
and of course it is necessary for you to be satisfied of that before
you could fled that anybody administered to bins. Probably,
though none of you may think fo- a moment that he did go out that
night, and that without seeing her and without knowing what she
waste ' to see him about, if they had met, that he was to swallow
above 2ae grains of arsenic on the street, and that• he was carrying it
abant with him. Probab'y you will discard that altogether, though
it is very important, no doubt, if you come to the conclusion that
he did not swallow arsenic ; yet, on the other hand, gentlemen,
keep in view that that will not of itself establish that the prisoner
administered it. The matter may h ive remained most mysterious
—wholly unexplained. You may not be able to account fur it on
any other supposition, but still that supposition or infesence may
no.; bs a ground on which you can safely and satisfactorily rest
your verdict against the panel. Now then, gentlemenel !ewe "you to
consider the case with reference to the views that are raised upon this
correspondence. I d in't think you will consider it so unlikely as was
supposial that this girl, after writ ng stash letters, may have been•
capable of cherishing such a purposes Bat still, alhoagh you may
take such a view of her character, it is but a supposition that
she eheeshad this murderous purpose true last contusion of
course that you 0.41 a to Male to merely ea supposition, and wer-
e ~et anti o,ervation upon this varying and wavering corresponil-
ence pf g 041 In tan Orcanestiaete to Which she •wnq placed. it

receives more importance no doubt when you find the purchase
of arsenic just before she expected, or just at the time she ex-
pscted L'Angelier. But still these are but suppositions—these
m• but snap:dons. Now, the great and invaluable use of a
jury, si,ter they Olivet their attention seriously to the case with the
attent on you have ~`one, is to separate firmly—firmly and clearly in
your own minds—sus.vicions from evidence. I don't say that infer-
ences may not be conapetently drawn ; but I have already warned
you about inferences in the ordinary matters of civil 1 fe. and such a
case as this, and, therefore', if you can't say W 3 satisra torily find here
evidence of fits meeting, an el that the poison must have been admi-
nistered by her at any meeti'ng, whatever may ba your suspicion,
however heavy the weight and load of suspicion is against her, and
however you may have to struggle to get rid of it, you perform your
b st and boncden duty as a jury io separate suspicion from truth,
and to proceed upon nothing that ;'on don't find established in evi-
dence against her. Tam quite sat, d that whatever verdict you
may give, after the attention you have bestowed upon this case will
be the best approximation to truth, at which we could arrive. But
let me say, also, on the other hand, as I saitl'at the outset, that of the
evidence you are the bestlndges, not only in point o' law but in porn
of fact, and you may be-perfectly csnfideut OW' if you return a ver-
d ct, you need not fear' any consequences from any future or
imagined, or fancied discovery. You have done your duty under
y :ur oaths under God, and to your country, and may feel satisfied
that remorse you never can ave.

The jury retired about ten minutes after.- one o'clock,
Immediately upon which the audience in Court fell into
keen excitement and discussion. At thirty-two minutes
pat one, the jury bell rung, and they entered the box
three minutes afterwards.

The•nemes of the Jury having been called, Mr, Moffat
of the High School was announced as Chancellor, and
read—

THE VERDICT',

In regard to the F MST C 11411044 the Juty, by a majority,
find a verdict of NOT GUILTY..

In regard° to the SECOND CHAPATI:. the Jury faid, by a
majority, a•verdict of NOT PROVEN.
=ln •regard to the THIRD CHARGE {the charge of
Munozn], the Jury, by a majority, lied a verdict of