The Sun.
London, England, 1861-07-27 00:00:00

DEATH FROM ARSENIC.

vEendign
An investigation of a somewhat serious nature took
Edgware
George road, before Mr. 1
at the Carpenter's I'
George S. Brent, deputy coroner for West Middle-
sex,
in reference to the death of Charles Williams,
place Arm s, opnrincess.
aged 33, an eating-house keeper, at 63, Princess- .
street.
From the evidence adduced it was shown that on
Thursdaystree te,
Saturday last Mr. Reece Williams, brother of the
deoeased, and deceased, entered the shop of Mr.
Boothby, chemist, of 72, Crawford-street, and pur-
chased a pennyworth of arsenic, for the avowed
purpose of killing vermin. At a late hour that
night, or rather at an early hour in the morning,
the two brothers returned to deceased's house,
seemingly inebriated, and a violent quarrel ensued
between deceased and his wife. Immediately after-
wards the wife saw her unfortunate husband drink-
ing from a glass, and believing it to contain
poison took it away, and handed it to a
female servant, who found a lu
pm of arsenic
therein, and consequently . locked uP the glass
to prevent his again having it. In conse-
quence of the quarrel Mrs. Williams refused to sleep
with her husband that night, In the morning he
was discovered to be suffering excruciating agony,
corresponding with the usual symptoms of arsenical
poisoning, and the wretched man asked a neigh-
bour to get him twopenny, orth of laudanum to
make him sleep, but she declined to accede to the re-
quest. His suffering continued for nearly 40 hours,
when he died. The death was proved to be from
the effects of arsenic.
Mr. Boothby swore that the arsenic was pur-
chased of him in the manrer above described, and
that he himself sold it to Leece Williams, and duly
registered it as the law directs. His registry-book
showed that it was sold for the purpose of destroy-
ing mice.
Mrs. Williams admitted, that although cognisant
of her husband's illness for the length of time
stated, she procured no medical assistance whatever
until four o'clock on Tuesday morning, and then
she herself went for Dr. Robinson, and on her
return she found him dead.
The evidence elicited, and the absence of Reece
Williams and other important witnesses, rendered
the whole circumstances of the case too unsatisfac-
tory, in the opinion of the deputy-coroner and the
jury, to close the investigation, and it was accord-
ingly adjourned to afford sufficient time for the
production of further evidence.

HOME CIRCUIT.—MAIDSTONE, July 26.
Henry Sherry, 22, labourer, was charged with
the capital offence of feloniously setting fire to a
dwelling-house, John Sherry, his father, and Eliza
Sherry, his sister, being therein at the time. The
prisoner was also charged upon two other indict-
ments with the offence of arson.
Mr. G. Francis conducted the prosecution. The
prisoner was defended by Mr. Ribton,
The circumstances connected with these charges
against the prisoner appeared to be very extraor-
dinary.

The prosecutor, the prisoner's father, wa3 an in-
firm man, occupying a small farm at Stourmouth,
near Canterbury, the only inmates of the house
being himself and his daughter, the prisoner's
sister; but the prisoner was in the habit of coming
to the house to take his meals, and he and the old
man frequently quarrelled on account of his getting
drunk, and not doing any work upon tho farm. On
the 21st of March the prisoner went to his father's
to dine, and after dinner the latter complained to
his son of his going so much to the publichouse, and
prisoner became very much excited, and as he left
the house he exclaimed with an oath that he would
burn it down. The old man and his daughter went
to bed about 9 o'clock at night, and very soon after-
wards the latter was alarmed by hearing a noise,
and upon her getting up she discovered that a barn
belonging a neighbour named Harrison was in
flames. She immediately aroused her father and
they proceeded down stairs, and she then saw that
their own house was on fire, and that part of the
thatched roof was burning. She procured some
water and succeeded in extinguishing the flames.
At this time she heard the voice of the prisoner
calling out " Fire !" and when, as she supposed,
the fire on the house was extinguished, she went
indoors again, and in a very few minutes it was
found that the house was again on fire, and in less
than two hours it was burnt entirely to the
ground, together with a barn, stable, cart-lodge,
and piggeries' that were attached to it. It was
proved that about 6 o'clock on the night of the
fire the prisoner, who was intoxicated, went to
the shop of a shoemaker in the village named
Andrews, and told him tnat he had had some words
with his father, and made use of threats towards
him. This witness saw the prisoner again when
the alarm of fire was given, and at this time it ap-
peared that two barns belonging to farmers adjoin-
ing the prosecutor's premises were in flames, and
the prosecutor's house was burning nearly all over,
and the prisoner accosted him again, and said he
was going to give the " other place" a touch. An-
drews then said to him, "You don't mean to say
that you set your father's house on fire ?" and he
replied, " Yes, I did ; and so I did Mr. Harrison's ;
and so I did Mr. Dowker's." The prisoner, it ap-
peared, had purchased a box of lucifers shortly before
the fires broke out, and when he was taken into
custody by Mr. Stokes, the superintendent of police
of the district, and told that he was charged with
setting fire to his father's house, and also to the pre-
mises of Mr. Harrison and Mr. Dowker, he said,
" I did set them on fire ; at least, I helped ;' but I
won't tell who was with me. I shall tell at some
future time." There was no doubt that at the time
the acts were committed the prisoner was very much
intoxicated, and when he was before the magistrates
he volunteered the following statement :—" I can
say the reasons that I did it. Yesterday about two
minutes past one, I went home to my father's to
dinner. He says, ' You don't do any work at all.
your eyes, you only come to get your food ; that
is all you care about.' He said, ' You shall never
come in this house any more, and I'll lock the door.'
Then he said, ' You can go to —' if you like." The
prisoner, it appeared, had served in the Crimea, and
had been wounded, and drink was, in consequence,
said to excite him in a most fearful manner.

Mr. Ribton, at the close of the case for the pro-
secution, said it would be idle for him to attempt to
struggle against the facts that had been put in
evidence, and there could be no reasonable doubt
that it was the hand of the prisoner that bad caused
all the mischief. He could not, at the same time,
however, refrain from expressing his opinion that
the prisoner could not have been in a sane state of
mind when he committed the atrocious outrage of
endeavouring to destroy the life of his father and
also that of his sister, the latter of whom did not
appear to have given him the slightest cause of
offence.

The jury, without any hesitation, returned a ver.
diet of Guilty upon the capital charge.
Mr. Justice Blackburn then directed that judg-
ment of death should be recorded against the pri-
soner, but he at the same time gave instructions
that the state of his mind should be inquired into,
and that a report should be made to the Home-
office upon the subject before the fate of the pri-
soner was finally decided upon.
Ambrose Chittenden, a genteel, intelligent-look-
ing boy, apparently about 12 years old, surrendered
to take his trial upon the charge of maliciously and
feloniously setting fire to a stack of hay, the pro-
perty of Gilbert Goulder.
Mr. Deedes prosecuted. The prisoner was de-
fended by Mr. Barrow.
Thomas Wood, a boy 10 years old, was the prin-
cipal witness in support of this charge, and, accord-
ing to his evidence, he and the prisoner were in the
garden of the father of the prisoner on the after-
noon of May 4, when the prisoner said to him,
" Let's go and set somebody's -- stack on fire ;"
he then went into the field where the stack was and
set fire to it with a lucifer march. Tbe only addi-
tional evidence was that of a police sergeant named
Mayhew, who stated that when he took the prisoner
into custody he inquired of him whether he had
apprehended the boy Wood, as he was as bad as he
was himself.
Mr. Barrow severely cross-examined the lad
Wood, and elicited from him the following extra-
ordinary admissions for a boy of his age. He said,
—I used to go to the parish school last year, but I
was expelled twice for thieving. The first time I
was charged with thieving I tried to throw the
blame upon another boy, but he had nothing to do
with it. After this I stole a hymn-book from the
church. I know a Mrs, Lamb, who lives at Min-
der, and remember once going to her and telling her
that her little boy had gone to Ramsgate to deliver
some parcels, and that he would not be home that
night. This was all an invention. (Laughter.)
I remember robbing Mr. Freeman's orchard. I
tried to throw the blame of that upon little Tommy
Lamb. (Laughter.) I know Mrs. Young. I once
went to her and told her that there was a lady waiting
at the railway station to see her about some lodg-
ings she had to let. She gave me a penny for
bringing her the message, but it was all a lie. (Re-
newed laughter.) I never stole a half-sovereign
out of a box belonging to Mr. Smith, but I did take
one off a box. (The perfect coolness with which the
young rascal made these admissions was quite ex-
traordinary, and he did not seem to be in the
slightest degree impressed with the idea that his
conduct had been improper in reference to the
transactions to which he had alluded.)
In further cross examination be said—l will
swear that when it was found out that I had got the
half-sovereign, I did not say that Tommy Lamb had
given it me. lam quite sure that I never accused
another boy of stealing ray dinner when I had eaten
it myself. (Laughter.) A piece of cane about eight
inches long, and burnt at one end, was here shown
to the witness, and he said that boys were in the
habit of using such pieces of cane for smoking, and
he had done so himself, but he denied that he had
used this identical piece of cane himself to set fire to
the stack with.
Mr. Barrow, in his address to the jury for the
defence, said he should have felt that it was quite
unnecessary to Fay a single word on behalf of the
prisoner but for the evidence of the constable with
regard to the admission, but he submitted that in
reality the charge rested entirely upon the evidence
of the boy Wood, and he felt confident that the jury
would not convict the young lad at the bar upon
the evidence of such an atrocious young villain as
he had confessed himself to be. The jury had heard
him admit that he had on several occasions charged
other boys with committing offences of which he
himself alone was guilty, and the statement of the
prisoner was—although, of course, it was impossible
for him to prove it—that the boy Wood actually
set fire to the stack by placing the piece of cane
lighted at one end into it, and then blowing it into
a flame, and then turned round and endeavoured to
fix the guilt upon him and procure his conviction for
a crime of which he was entirely innocent.
The Rev. Mr. Wheeler, the vicar of the parish of
Minster, in which the act was committed, was. then
examined as a witness for the defence. He sa —I
have known the prisoner for eight years, nearly the
whole of the time that I have been vicar. He used
to attend my school, and I know nothing but good
of him. He was a little idle and slow at his lessons,
but I always considered him a
moral, good boy.. The
other boy who has been examined is an exceedingly
bad boy, and from what I know of him I would
not believe him on entertained oath ; that I believe is the
opinion generally of him throughout
the neighbourhood.
By Mr. Deedes—The boy Wood has attended the
ochoola good many years, and every means both by

coercion and punishment and kindness were tried
to reclaim him, but in vain. He was three times
guilty of theft, and on the last occasion he broke
open the school missionary-box and took out the
money, and for this offence he was summarily
expelled.
Mr. Deedes inquired who the boy Wood was.
Mr. Wheeler said that he was an illegitimate
child ; that persons who were supposed to be his
parents lived in the neighbourhood, but they did
not acknowledge him.
Mr. Justice Blackburn here interposed, and said
he thought the jury would hardly convict the
prisoner upon the evidence of such a witness as the
boy Wood, particularly when it was remembered
that the prisoner strongly charged him with being
the author of the crime, and he himself admitted
that he had on previous occasions made false
charges against others.
The jury immediately returned a verdict of Not
Guilty, and the prisoner was ordered immediately
to be discharged from custody.

OXFORD CIRCUIT.—STAFFORD, JULY 25.
CIVIL COURT.
(Before Mr. Justice Keating.)
Rachel Withenshaw, 24, potter, was charged
with attempting to murder her child, Elizabeth
Withenshaw, by casting it into a canal on the 15th
of May, 1861, at Wolstanton.
Mr. Motteram conducted the prosecution ; Mr.
Cook Evans, at the request of the learned judge,
watched the case for the prisoner.
It appeared from the evidence of a boatman.named
John Davis, that a little after six o'clock on the
evening of the 15th of May last he was with his
boat on the Trent and Mersey Canal. As he ap-
proached the mouth of the Harecastle. Tunnel
at Tunstall, in the parish of Wolstanton, ~e saw
the prisoner sitting on some steps on the bankside
of the canal with a baby in her arms. She got up
and went into the tunnel, but sha came back again
and looked about her, and when the witness with
his boat had entered the tunnel the girl had followed
for some distance, and appeared to be doing some-
thing by the iron rail which separated the towing-
path from the canal. When the boatman had got
about 300 yards into the tunnel he looked back to
the mouth of the tunnel and saw the prisoner jump
into the canal. He at once gave the alarm, stopped
his horse and ran to her assistance, and succeeded in
getting her out while his boy secured the baby. As
soon as she was taken out of the water the prisoner
cried out, " Oh, my baby !" but she became insen-
sible, and was not restored to consciousness for an
hour and a half. She was taken to an inn, and when
she came to herself she asked after her baby, and it
was given fo her, and both of them were restored.
The boy who was with the boatman said that about
ten minutes after the prisoner was got out of the
water he found a bonnet tied to the iron rail, and
another witness said he had seen a young man loi-
tering about with the prisoner during the afternoon,
and that he had left her only a few minutes before
she plunged into the water. The prisoner bad a mise-
rable appearance, and the suggestion on the part of
the prosecution was that she had been abandoned, and
thrown herself and child into the water in a fit of
despair. When taken into custody the policeman
charged her with attempting to murder Elizabeth
Withenshaw, her daughter, and after wards attempt-
ing to commit suicide by jumping into the canal.
The prisoner then said two men were going into the
tunnel with a boat, and one young man asked her to
go with him, and she said " No.' He then asked
her if that was her child, and she said it was. She
then added, " As to murdering my child, I never
intended to do that. I accidentally slipped into the
water."

Mr. Cook Evans, for the prisoner, said there was
nothing in the evidence to show that she had any
motive for destroying her child, and he thought
that that suggestion was negatived by the fact,
that her first thought when taken out of the
water and restored to consciousness was to call for
her baby. He contended that the account given
by the prisoner herself was the most likely one—
viz., that she had accidentally slipped into the
water; and he appealed to the jury not to convict
the prisoner in a capital case, when her guilt was
left in doubt.

Mr. Justice Keating summed up the evidence to
the jury, and left it to them to say whether or not
the prisoner had thrown herself and child into the
water, or, as she herself had said, had slipped in.
His lordship concluded by reminding the jury that
they ought to discharge their duty, however pain-
ful it might be ; and that, if they were satisfied
that the prisoner threw the child into the water
with the intent charged, they ought to find her
guilty.
After considering their verdict for some time, the
jury wished the policeman to be recalled and ex-
amined as to the state of the towing-path. This
was done, and he said it had a coping of stones on
the side next the canal, and was protected by an
iron rail resting on supports at intervals.
The jury thereupon found the prisoner guilty,
with a strong recommendation to mercy.
Mr. Justice Keating said the recommendation of
the jury should certainly be attended to, and de-
ferred passing sentence till the close of the criminal
business, when, after addressing the prisoner in
feeling terms on the offence which she had commit-
ted, his lordship sentenced her to six months' im-
prisonment with hard labour.
Having disposed of all the criminal business, Mr.
Justice Keating proceeded this day to assist in the
trial of the remaining common jury causes.