The Sun.
London, England, 1859-11-26 00:00:00

POISONING BY MISTAKE.

CANTERBURY, FRIDAY EVENING.
On Sunday last a young man, named Thomas
Benjamin Cole, living in St. Dunstan's-street,
Canterbury, died within 12 hours after swallowing
a black draught, purchased at the shop of Mr. John
Reeve, chemist and druggist, in that city. The
illness of the deceased previous to taking the
draught appeared to be of a trifling character, and
the suddenness of death gave rise to unfavourable
rumours, in consequence of which a coroner's in-
quest was held on the body on Tuesday, a post
mortem examination being previously made by Mr.
A. B. Andrews and Mr. Reid, surgeons, under the
direction of the Coroner, Mr. T. T. Delasaux. At
the inquest Mr. Andrews expressed the opinion
that the deceased died from epilepsy, and the jury
accordingly returned a verdict of " Natural death."
In consequence, however, of circumstances which
afterwards transpired, the case was made the sub-
ject of inquiry before the mayor and magistrates of
Canterbury this morning. The court was crowded.
Mr. Wilkinson, solicitor, appeared for the family
of the deceased ; and Mr. Callaway for Mr. Reeve.
The following is a condensed report of the evi-
dence, the hearing of which occupied four hours :
Inspector Spratt, of the Canterbury borough
police, stated that on Tuesday morning last, in con-
sequence of suspicions he entertained, he bought at
Mr. Reeve's shop a draught and a box of pills.
The shopman who served him took the bottle from
a drawer in which there were others already made
up. On the evening of the same day he attended
the inquest on the body of the deceased, and when
returning Mr. Reeve met him and caught hold of
his arm, seeming very much excited. Witness
mentioned the result of the inquest and told him to
calm himself, as there could be nothing wrong. Mr.
Reeve said, "Oh yes there is,'' adding, " You have
got a draught. if you will give it me I will give
you a sovereign ror it, ana i wm maze you up one
which will look exactly like it." Witness refused
to give up the draught, but at Mr. Reeve's request,
he went with him to his house, and there Mr. Reeve
said, " The draught you have got is not a proper
draught." Witness asked,. " What about the one
that Cole had ?" Mr. Reeve replied, "It was not
a proper draught, it wis the same as yours." Mr.
Reeve again pressed him to give up the draught,
stating that he would have an agreement drawn up
to keep the witness and his family if he got into
any trouble through him. Witness, however, re-
fused, and reported the case to his superintendent.
In cross-examination the witness said he did not
promise Mr. Reeve that anything he (Reeve) might
tell him, should not be repeated. Mr. Reeve spoke
positively about the draught purchased by witness
being similar to the one which was given to the de-
ceased.
Re-examined--Mr. Reeve said there had been a
mistake with the bottle. The label had come off
from damp.
Jame Sophia Cole, sister of the deceased, said that
on Saturday last she bought a black draught at
Mr. Reeve's shop. Mr. Reeve himself served her.
She gave the bottle containing the draught to her
brother,"the deceased. It was similar to the empty
bottle produced.
Henry C. Cole, a little boy, 11 years old, brother
of the deceased, said that on Saturday he saw the
last witness give his brother a bottle, which he
(witness) took down stairs. On Sunday morning,
about half-past 8, he fetched the bottle, at his
brother's request, and the latter drank the contents.
About a quarter of an hour afterwards witness said
that his brother looked very pale and was snoring
very hard. He told his mother, who sent directly
for a doctor. His brother died at 20 minutes to 6
o'clock that evening.
Mr. A.B. Andrews deposed that he was a surgeon
practising at Canterbury. On Sunday morning,
about half-past 8 o'clock, he was called to the de-
ceased, Thomas B. Cole. He found him quite in-
sensible, and almost black, he might say. He was
told that the young man had been taken ill immedi.
ately after taking a black draught. From the ap.
pearances, and what was told him,witness believed it

,
to be a case of epilepsy. He treated it for epilepsy.
There was great obstruction to the breathing. Wit-
ness went away in half an hour, and saw the de-
ceased at 10 o'clock, when he ordered leeches. He
oxatnined the eye to see whether he was labouring
under the effects of opium, but found nothing to in-
duce that opinion. Witness saw the deceased
again at four o'clock, and saw leeches again ap-
plied, the deceased having remained all day in the
same state of insensibility. That was the last time
he saw him alive, and at six o'clock he was informed
of his death. On Tuesday witness made a post
mortem examination of the body with the aid of
Mr. Reid. He found very great congestion of all
the larger vessels of the head: The brain showed
no apoplectic clot. There were remains of old in-
flammation in the chest, and the lungs were con-
gested, but there was no evidence' of tubercle. The
heart was much distended, but the valves were
healthy. The liver and kidneys were empty.
There was a small quantity, of liquid in the sto-
mach, which was examined, but no smell of opium
could be detected. The result of the examination
led-witness to believe that the deceased died from
epilepsy. :The symptoms differed from any case of
opium he had seen. He still believed the deceased
had had an epileptic fit. On Thursday he removed
the deceased's stomach, sealed it, and gave it into
the custody of the police.
The witness went on to state certain admissions
made to him by Mr. Reeve after the inquest similar
to those made to Inspector Spratt. Mr. Reeve told
witness that the draught which the deceased had
taken contained one-third of liquor opii, a prepara-
tion of opium which was not easily detected by the
smell. The quantity named was amply sufficient to
cause death. The mistake arose from the label of
the bottle dropping off.
Mr. Reid, surgeon, corroborated the evidenca of
Mr. Andrews as to the appearance of the body at
the post mortenz examination, but differed from him
as to the cause of death. He said that death might
have been caused by either apoplexy, opium, or
epilepsy. There as nothing at the post mortem
examination to indicate death from epilepsy.
Mr. Linford, chemist, deposed to having analysed
a twelfth part of the draught brought by Inspector
Spratt. II: found that part to contain two grains
of extractive matter—morphia and meconic acid,
which are the constituents of opium.
The Bench said they did not for a moment im-
pute to Mr. Reeve any intentional poisoning, but
they felt that they had no alternative but to com-
mit him for trial at the Maidstone Assizes on a
charge of manslaughter. They would take bail,
the defendant in £lOO and two sureties in £5O each.

Bail was immediately tendered, and the defend-
ant left the court with his friends.

L INTELLIGENCE.-Nov. 25.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
V. THOMAS.-BREACH OF PROMISE OF

MARRIAGE.

Mr. Baron Martin having come into court for the
purpose of hearing a motion in this case, which was
tried before him two days ago, and fully reported
in our columns,
Mr. Millward, counsel for defendant, moved to
extend the time for a rule for a new trial, under the
following circumstances. It was an action brought
by the plaintiff to recover damages for a breach of
promise of marriage. The defendant had pleaded
that at the time he made the promise the plaintiff
was a married woman, and to that plea the plaintiff
had put in a replication that the promise had
been renewed after the death of her hus-
barid. It was proved by the plaintiff's sister at the
trial that the plaintiff's husband had died at sea
in 1853, having previously gone on board a vessel
called the Mermaid, and that there was no com-
munication between the plaintiff and the de-
fendant, until 1855. It therefore followed that the
promise was made after the death of the husband.
The defendant's attorney had, however, received a
letter, probably from the notoriety this case had
received through the newspapers, the contents of
which he had communicated to his London agent
by telegraph. It was from a person named S. Allen,
of 5, Dorchester-place, Bryanston-square, who wrote
that he had seen the plaintiff's husband alive in
1857. If that was the case, away went the plain-
tiff's story.
Mr. Baron Martin—Oh, no; your assignment
comes into play then. _ _ _

Mr. aid—lt was never pretended that there
was any evidence of the death of the plaintiff's
husband, except in 1853 ; and if he did not die
until later, then the seven years on which death
could be presumed had not elapsed, and the law
would apply. We have now received this informa-
tion about the husband, and although inquiries
were made at the-residence of the person who sent
this morning, he had left, and no one knows
where he is gone to. I have, therefore, to apply
that the- time for making this motion be extended,
so that we Zhall have further opportuiaity to make
inquiries.
The Lord Chief taron—Yon apply on the ground
of surprise?
Mr. Millward—Yes, my lord. The case is of
considerable importance to the defendant, for
though he was represented as a rich man—
Mr. Baron Martin—lt is quite a new thing to
attend to telegrams.
Mr. Millward—lt is not a telegram. It was a
letter written by this person to the defendant's at-
torney, and he has communicated to us by telegram.
Mr. Baron Martin—lt is perfectly beside the
case. She entered into the contract to marry bona
fide. The rule is, that no motion can be made for a
new trial unless within four days after the trial,
nor in any case after the term in which a causa has
been tried.
Mr. Millward—Yes, my lord ; but if we had four
days we could move to-morrow, and then we could
get the information we want. The accident is that
this is the last day of term.
Mr. Baron Martin—lt is an accident of your own
seeking ; I had to press on the case.
Mr. Baron Bramwell—Can you not bring a writ
of error, and assign error in fact .!
Mr. Baron Martin—A writ of error, and assign
error on the non-jointure of a husband in a breach
of promise to his wife. (Laughter.)
Mr. Millward—The plaintiff will issue execution,
and we may then take out a writ of error with
what benefit we may.
Mr. Baron Martin— You have only a letter refer-
ring to a man in some square or other, and that is
nothing.
Mr. Millward—The letter states that the plain-
tiff's husband was alive in 1857.

Mr. Baron Martin—You ought to have been pre-
pared with the evidence at the trial. Defendant
thought she was a widow.
Mr. Millward pressed on theirlordships the great
hardship to his client if the application were refused.
The Lord Chief Baron—lf you can make out a
case of fraud the court could do something for you
next term. All we can now do is to say we cannot
help you; and if you are in abetter position another
time we may consider your application.
Mr. Millward—Will your lordships stay exe-
cution P

The Lord Chief Baron—That is an application
which should be made at chambers.

Mr. Millward—l also move on another ground—
that the damages, £l,OOO, were excessive.

The Lord Chief Baron—ls £l,OOO down too much
for a wife's share in from £2,000 to £3,000 a-year ?

• Mr. Millward—All that the evidence went to
show was that the defendant's property was between
£2,000 and £3,000 a year two years ago. While his
father was alive he had not a penny except what
he was allowed by his father.
Mr. matou maritii—Have 3ou uffiditylib alat, In;
had less property than alleged ?

Mr. 111111w-ard—No, my lord.
Mr. Baron Bramwell—Then really you should
not state so.

Mr. Millward—The plaintiff keeps a public house
at Aberdare.

Mr. Baron Martin—Yes, " The Pelican."

Mr. Baron Bramwell—That only shows how very
unlikely it is that she will get such a chance again.
(Laughter.)
Mr. Millward—She is a very tempting lady.
(Laughter.)
The Lord Chief Baron—We cannot meddle with
the damages:
Application refused: