The Sun.
London, England, 1867-07-25 00:00:00

rence £507 15s. 5d., I could not account for, or that she was about to get discharged from prison,
from whom or by whom it was received. and should then go on to make to a perfect stranger
Re-examined by Mr. Besley.—ln 1864 the priso- a confession which, if true, could only take her from
ner's deficit was £1,896 7s. 9d., against which there the gaol to the scaffold. The rest of the evidence
was the £l5O and the major part of the £507 15s. bore very slightly against the prisoner, and, but for
sd. I have credited all the doubtful sums, as if the the fact that she had given sago to the child, was
prisoner had paid them in. In 1865 there was again quite consistent with her innocence. As for the
a deficit of £6,408 6s. 3d., and in 1866 of 2,333 sago, if that contained the coloured arsenic, it was
4s. 7d. The total deficit is £14,293 15s. 9d., and rather strange that none of the witnesses noticed
includes, among others, all the sums of which evi- any colouring matter either in the child's vomit or
dente has been given in this court. in the cup which had contained the sago.
By the Court—l find many errors in the additions The jury retired to consider their verdict, and
in the cash-books and the carrying over of the ba- after a very brief absence returned into court with
lances. These occur constantly. In some cases the a verdict of not guilty, wiling that they considered
numbers on the counterfoils did not correspond with the father much to blame for the c irelessness he had
the numbers in the books. In the ledger account of displayed in dealing with the poison.
1865, under date of the sth of April, there is an His lordship said that he quite concurred in that
entry of cash £lO 10s., received by the prisoner ;it opinion.
is the same in the cash-book, where it refers to the The announcement of the verdict was received
I number of the check as 402, which check is for with some slight applause.
_

£2,io, and not for £lO 10s.
On hearing from Mr. Oke, the chief clerk to the
Lord Mayor, a recapitulation of the charges, and
on receiving the usual caution from the Bench as to
anything he might say being used against him on his
trial, the prisoner replied that he had had large
transactions with Seymour and Co., and incurred
heavy losses, which were settled by the payment of

£2,000 by himself and his friends. The rest of his
defence he left to his counsel.

Alderman Sir Robert Carden committed the pri-
soner to Newgate to take his trial at the Central

Criminal Court.

There was another indictment against the prisoner
for the wilful murder of Martha Tomlinson, another
child of the same parents of the age of twelve years,
but
Mr. Stephen, who (with Mr. Cave) appeared for
the prosecution, stated that as this case was weaker
than the former he should offer no evidence upon
it.

ASSIZE EV ELLIGENCE.

His lordship concurred in the propriety of this
Course.

MIDLAND CIRCURIT.—DERBY, July 22.
CROWN COURT.
(Before Mr. Justice Lush.)
Elizabeth Wheeldon, a girl 17 years of age, was
indicted for the wilful murder of Joseph, the infant
child of Joseph and Ann Tomlinson.
Mr. Stephen and Mr. Cave appeared for the
Crown ; Mr. V. Blackburn and Mr. Mellor defended

A HIGHLAND SLANDER.

At the Jury Court, Edinburgh, on Monday,
before the Lord President, a case was tried in which
Mr. K. W. S. Mackenzie, of Seaforth, Ross-shire,
was pursuer, and Mr. H. Dundas Drummond, 12,
Devonshire-place, Portland-place, London, was de-
fender. The case was presented on four issues—
namely, Ist, Whether, on the 22d of October last,
within the railway station at Dingwall, the defen-
der, in the hearing of Mr. Cash, Adjutant, Ross-
shire Rifle Volunteers, and Dr. M‘Lean, Dingwall,
said of the pursuer, " You are a-- liar ;" 2d,
Whether defender, on same occasion, s lid of the
pursuer that he was "A -- lying thief ;" 3d,
Whether he had said the pursuer was a" scoun-
drel ;" and 4th, Whether defender had said of pur-
suer, " Your word is not worth a —, and it is a
wonder they don't turn such a beggar out of the
country." Damages were laid at £l,OOO. The pur-
suer depOsed he was at Dingwall railway station with
his wife sad family on the 22d October. He saw Mr.
Drummond there, whom he knew slightly. Ile ad-
dressed him, saying, " How are you?" and defen-
dant replied, " I am surprised you should speak to
me. You are a liar ; you tell one story in Lon-
don and another in the north." Witness asked him
what he meant by such language, when, taking a
paper out of his pocket, defendant said, " You are a
lying thief—a greatscoundrel—ablackguard;"
adding that he was a disgrace to the country, and he
wondered they allowed such a beggar to remain in
it, and that his word was not worth .a —7in Lon-
don. Several other witnesses were called'to prove-
the use of these abusive appellations. The defen-
dant, on being placed in the box, stated he had, on
one occasion, taken a lease of Inchroe shootings, on
Seaforth's estate, but could find no grouse in them.
He had mentioned this to Mr. Mackenzie, who said
that he (defendant) must be mad, for it was a fish-
ing place and not a shooting place at all, and that
he let the place to an innkeeper named Finlayson
(who had sublet it to Mr. Drummond) for £5O a
year for the fishings, giving him the shootings for
nothing. In an action defendant had raised against
Finlayson pursuer gave evidence to quite an oppo-
site effect. Accordingly when pursuer accosted him
on one occasion in 1865, saying " How are you
defender replied, saying "I don't see how my health
can affect you. A man who cannot speak the truth
is not a fit acquaintance for me. I decline to shake
hands with you." On 22d October last he saw pur-
suer again at Dingwall railway station. Pursuer
pointed out witness with his stick and laughed,
which he believed he was in the habit of doing.
NN' hen the train stopped, Seaforth said, " How are
you, Drummond ?" when witness said, " Mac-
kenzie, after what has passed between you and
ine the state of my_ health cannot concern you very
much." lie said, " How's that?" Witness said,
" I told you a year ago I did not want to say
anything to you about it, but since your memory
is so defective, there." With that the witness pulled
the paper which he had got in Inverness out of his

the prisoner.
The deceased was born on March 6th last. His
father is a farmer at Shirland Delves, near Alfreton,
in this county, and in the beginning of April his
family consisted of himself, his wife, their seven
children, of whom the eldest, a girl, was 12 years
of age, and the prisoner, who came into their ser-
vice in the end of last January. The child Joseph
was of a healthy constitution. On Tuesday, April
9, the mother was left at home with the deceased
and the prisoner, the other children having gone to
school at 9 o'clock, and the husband having gone to
Alfreton at 11 to attend the County Court. After
the other children had left for school the mother
prepared some sago with milk and sugar, and, hav-
ing taken some herself, placed the remainder in
teacup in the living-room for the purpose of giving
it to the child when it had been dressed. As soon,
however, as it was dressed the child went to sleep,
and the sago remained unconsumed. About 3
o'clock in the afternoon the mother went out of
doors to hang up some clothes to dry, leaving the
child asleep on the sofa. After an absence of ten
minutes she returned, and found the prisoner walk-
ing about the living-room with the child awake in
her arms. Mr. Tomlinson asked the girl, who said
that the child had begun to cry, why she had not
given it the sago in the cupboard. The girl said
she had done so, and pointed out the teacup empty.
Her mistress complained that she had given the
child too much, as the cup was,three parts full, not-
withstanding which the child appeared very hungry,
and took the breast eagerly. It then fell asleep, and
so remained until 5 o'clock, when it woke up and
was sick. After a little while it appeared better,
and dozed again. Waking up a second time the
child vomited again, and appeared to be in great
pain. It continued to suffer until about 8 o'clock,
when Mr. Turner, a surgeon of Alfreton, was sent
for. On coming to the child and making inquiries,
Mr. Turner was led to believe that the child was
suffering from indigestion in consequence of
too much sago having been given to it, and
having recommended a warm bath, he left, pro-
mising to send some anti-spasmodic medicine.
The medicine duly arrived, but in the interval the
child had become much worse. The vomiting
and purging increased greatly, the limbs twitched
convulsively, the eyes rolled, the child struggled, then
grew weaker and weaker, and finally died between
10 and 11 o'clock on the same evening. Subse-
quently, in consequence of suspicious excited by the
death of another of Mr. Tomlinson's children, the
body of the infant was exhumed, and on the 7th of
May the viscera were taken out and forwarded to
Professor Taylor, of Guy's Hospital, for examina-
tion. It was then discovered that the whole of the
viscera contained arsenic in large quantity. It
turned out that some time about the middle of
January Mr. Tomlinson purchased some arsenic,
which had been coloured with an imitation of smalt,
for the purpose of killing rats. The arsenic was
kept upon a shelf in the cellar at such a height that
none of the children could reach it, but the cellar
door was not locked, and any member of the family
who could reach the shelf could get at the poi • son.
After it was purchased the poison was used from
time to time down to the middle of March by
mixing portions of it with oatmeal and placing it on
a plate about the house or outbuildings, leaving it
there the last thing at night and removing it again
the next morning. Somehow or other, however,
some fowls got to the plates r_nd poisoned them-
selves on one occasion, and a dog did the upo
n
another. e
another. On the latter occurrence Mr. Tomlinson
was much put about, and cautioned the prisoner and
another woman who was in the house washing
against the careless use of so dangerous an article.
Mr. Tomlinson thenceforward discontinued the use
of the arsenic, and, having purchased some mineral
poison of another person, used the latter in the de-
struction of the rats by which he was annoyed.
This poison, however, was all consumed, and the
paper in which it was contained burnt, some time
before the infant died. Although the use of the
arsenic was discontinued its place was not changed,
and it was still kept on the shelf in the cellar, ac-
cessible to airy grown-up inmate of the house.
For the purpose of connecting the prisoner with
the crime, it was shown that she had admitted hav-
ing administered sago to the child about 3 o'clock
on the day of its death, the only occasion on that
day, according to the evidence of the mother, when
anything was given to it except the breast, the
mother having given it no other food all day, and
the other children having been away from home
from 9 o'clock in the morning until after the child
was taken ill. The arsenic in the parcel on the
shelf was coloured blue, and in the stomach of the
child a similar colouring matter was found. The
motive was suggested to be a desire to be rid of the
trouble the children gave, and a witness was called
who deposed to a conversation with the prisoner, in
the course of which she expressed satisfaction at the
death of the child, as it would no longer give her
trouble. The most important evidence upon this
point was, however, given by a witness named
Matilda Webster,
who was summarily convicted of
stealing boots and sentenced to three months' im-
prisonment in Derby Gaol on the 10th of April.
This witness stated that she was in gaol when the
prisoner was there, and that upon one occasion they
met at the foot of the stairs leading to the prison
school-room and had a few minutes' conversation,
waiting for the school-room door to be unlocked.
The witness first observed that she had then only a
fortnight to remain in gaol. The prisoner answered
that she should be out soon after. The witness said,
"Then, did not you poison the children ?" The
prisoner said yes, she had poisoned them with some
arsenic bought to kill mice with, and that she did it
because they were so troublesome. The witness
added that she did not know the prisoner before,
and that it was the only occasion of their speaking
together. Upon this part of the case one of the
female warders of the gaol was called and stated that
it was quite impossible that any such conversation
as that deposed to by the witness Webster could
have taken place, inasmuch as during her stay in the
gaol the prisoner was in the infirmary, and was
always let out last and accompanied by the witness
to and from the school-room.
His Lordship, in summing up, commented upon
the improbability of Webster's story, pointing out
how unlikely it was that a prisoner fihotild first state

shooting coat pocket, and put it into the prisoner's
hand. Upon which he turned round and said, "It is
a pack of lies." Witness sAid, "Nobody is better
aware of that than you are, because they are lies
of your own making, with your own signature to
them." Seaforth then said, " Everybody knows
what sort of a fellow you are." 'Witness answered,
" Thank God, I am an English gentleman. You
call yourself a Highland chief, but it would take a
dozen of you to make an English gentleman." lie
would swear he never called Seaforthathief. Coun-
sel were heard at length, Mr. Young, for the pur-
suer, maintaining that defender's statement in the
witness-box was only a partial repetition of the
slander, and afforded no extenuation or apology,
while Mr. Fraser, for defender, denounced the action
as contemptible, and said that although the fourth
charge was partially admitted, that would notjustify
the jury in finding damages. The Lord President
summed up, pointing out that such language, which
when used by persons in a low condition of life

might not be thought much of, became serious when
used by one gentleman of birth and station to an-
other. The defender had met this case on the record
not by apology but by denial, although he had made
a partial admission in the witness box. The duty of
the jury under the issues was to find whether the
words were used ; they had not to consider the cause
of the irritation, though they must keep in view the
fact of irritation. If the jury found for the pursuer,
the damages must be more than nominal, though
not extravagant or vindictive. The jury found for
the pursuer, with £3,000 damages.