The Sun.
London, England, 1857-07-10 00:00:00

rHE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVE'r4ING, JULY 10,1 1857

have interfered ; and the jury 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, that he wank' drown himself if he
were jilted, they did not amount to much, when it
was known on one occasion ho bad been ji:ted and had
not drowned himself. He also treated the story as to

night, where the fact of their meeting i 3 the foundation been so taken by him, and was thus mur le lel by title
of a charge of murder. You therefore must reel that the said Madeleine Smith.
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 there-
fore the poison was administered to him by her at that
time, is another, and a most enormous jump in the cate•
gory of inferences. Now, the question for you to put to
yourselves in this, can you now, with satisfaction to
your own minds, come to the conclusion that they did
meet on that occasion, the result being, and the object
of coming to that result being, to fix down upon her the
administration of the arsenic by which he had died ?
Now, then, gentlemen, let us take the three charges in
the indictment : the first -charge is, that she adminis-
tered 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
importance to is that there is no medical testimony by
analysis of the matter vomited that that illness did pro-
ceed from the administration of arsenic. If the doctor
had examined the matter vomited, and said that there
was certainly arsenic here, I am afraid tee case would
have been very strong against her as having given him
coffee or something immediately before his illness on
that occasion. But it is not proved that the illness
arose from the administration of poison ; arsenic she bad
not, and there is no proof of her having possessed any-
thing deleterious. Therefore I have no hesitation in
telling you that that charge has failed. He had twice
before been seized with illness of this description, which
was not alleged to have been caused by arsenic. And
therefore I have no hesitation in telling you that I think
that charge has failed. I think it my duty to tell you,
as Judge, that on that charge you find her not guilty.
But we are in a very different situation as to the
illness of the 22.1 or 23d of March. In one respect it is
not proved to be from the administration of any delete-
rious 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 poisonous
substance. But what would connect the prisoner
with that is I think much stronger—that is to say,
connect her with a meeting with him that night. It
you should think you can acquit her of the first, and
that there is too much doubt to find the second
proved, why, then, you will observe how much that
weakens all the theories that may be raised in the cor-
respondence of a purpose and a desire of revenge or some-
thing rising from the change of tone, and a desire to al-
lure him again to her embraces and fascinations which
cannot be accounted for excepting on the supposition.
In that view, undoubtedly, the foundation of the case is
and will not lead you to suppose that
der was cherished on the 22d. Then,
tvheerypumrupcohsesobfakmeunr,
as to that charge of murder, gentlemen, the 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 pro-
pounded to you." Still, are you prepared to say that you
find an interview proved against her with the deceased
on the night of the 22d March. She had arsenic before
the illness of the 22d February, and I think you will
consider that all the excuses which she made about hav-
ing arsenic, aro just as groundless as those which she
stated to the apothecaries. She bought arsenic again on
the 6113, and certainly it is a very odd thing that she
should buy more arsenic after she carne back to Glasgow
on the 18th of Marcb. Fur unless you are to take the
account, to be sure, that fhe used it as a cosmetic, she
has it before the 22d, and that is a dreadful fact it you
create
view o
ft
thhea greatest
mater,
are quite satisfied that she did not get it and use it for
the purpose of washing her hands and face. It may
that reluctanceshe a,
guiltyyou r
ofadministering
mina to t ke this
it somehow, though the place where may not be made
out, or the precise time of the interview. But, on the
other hand, you must keep in view that arsenic could
only be administered by her if an interview took place
swili
it 01,1
a'Ange
ninfel ireer, andthat
n,
ee that view ho
may satisfy
yghy
oi t may be the e-
u morally thatr
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 gull y is to
rest. Gentlemen, you will see, therefore, the
necessity of great caution and jealousy in deal-
ing with any inference which you may draw from
this. You may be perfectly satisfied that L'Angelier
did not commit suicide, and of course it is necessary for
you to be satisfied of that before you could find that any-
body administered to him. Probably, though none of
you may think fur a moraent that he did go out that
night, and that without seeing her and without knowing
what she wanted to see him about, if they had met, that
he was to swallow above 200 grains of arsenic on the
street, and the; be was carrying it about with him.
Probably you will discard that altogether, though it is
very important, no doubt, if you come to the conclusion
that he did not swalow arsenic : yet, on the other hand,
gentlemen, keep in view that that that will not of itself
establish that the prisoner administered it. The matter
may have remained most mysterious—wholly unex-
plained. You may not be able to account for it on any
other supposition, but still that supposition or inference
may not be a ground on which you can safely and satis-
factorily rest your verdict against the panel. Now, then,
gentlemen, I leave you to consider the case with refe-
rence to the views that arc raised upon this correspond-
, ence. I don't think you will consider it so unl,kely ass
was supposed that this gill after writing such letter.
may have been capable of cherishing such a purpose.
Still, although you may take such a view of her charac-
ter, it is but a supposition that she cherished this mur-
derous purpose—the last conclusion of course that you
ought to c ,me to merely on supposition, and inference,
and observation upon this varying and wavering corre-
spondence of a girl in the circusustences in which she is
placed. It receives snore importance no doubt when you
find the purchase of arsenic just before she expected,
or just at the time sfie expected L'Angelier.
But still these are but suppositions—these are
but suspicions. Now, the great and invaluable
use of a jury after they direct their atten-
tion, seriously to the oases with the attention you
have done, is to separate firmly—firmly and clearly
in your own minds suspicious from evidence. I don't
say that inferences may not competently be drawn ; but
I have already warned you about inferences in the ordi-
nary matters of civil life, and such a case ac this, and
therefore if you can't say we satisfactorily find hero Gill.
deuce of this meeting, and that the poison must have
davhyowever the weight and load
you may have
to
of
been administered by her at any meeting, whatever may
be o
ueru perform your best and
bounden suspicion from truth,
that you don't find este-
hagainst her. I am quite satisfied
you may give, after the attention
yn Oer struggle
duty
u suspicion q pt
isl
y to C
gi
as
against
gnt
a a ,
j hn
rid
jury
rt of
wov iteLir,s
en ypa hg
ona
that anduj eh proceedaitne
ve
evidencer v
eruponj ct nothing
to
tr
which 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 band, as I said at the out-
in , that of the evidence you are the hestjudges, not only
point of law, but in point of fact, and you may be setper-
fectly confident that if you return a verdict, you need
,yaunuduteovyeoruerancolulanytery., and may feel
not fear any consequences from any future, or imagined,
You have done your duty under
or fancied discovery.
Preserve
Justice-Clerk's address the syactuisrfioeadththsautnrdeeurl
reserve her usual demeanour.
abohut,lo minutes after 1 o'clock, im-
mediatelyadis_crsion. Aboutleh fiwvaesmaitnufitresst
wine the audience in Court fell into
pri-
soner Throughout
appeared t
to
oe
upon
hell rung, which
and a deep thrill of anxiety
signal from the jury that they were
thought to be the
The jury retired
ut the Court—although the prisoner
was visible through°
remorse
akfeteenr the excitementretir e retirement,
turned her head for a moment. During
only slightly
ready with their verdict,
the whole of the period for
remaining
which the jury
were absent, she showed no parteaular symptoms of agi-
tation—although, about thirty-five minutes past one, a
second bell, which proved to be that of the Judges,
causel a repetition of the same scene.
At thirty-two minutes past one, the jury bell rung,
and the entered the box three minutes afterwards.
y
The prisoner still gave no symptoms of emotion.
The Lord Justice-Clerk intimated that it must be un-
derstood that there 11211 St be no expression of feeling by
the audience, whatever the verdict.
The names of the
jury having been called, Mr. Moffat,
j
of the High School, was announced as Chancellor, and
read the verdict as follows :
In regard to the FIRST CHARGE, the jury, by a ma-
jority, find a verdict of NOT GUILTY; which charged
Ma feline Smith, or Madeline Hamilton Smith, with
wickedly and feloniously administering arsenic, cr
some other poison, with intent to murder; as also with
Furder, in so far ae, fir-t, an the 19th or 20th days of
February last (Thursday or Friday), in the house in
Blyths wood-square, Glasgow, occupied by James Smith,
her father, she did wickedly and feloniously administer
to, or cause to be taken by, Emile L'Angelier or Pierre
E:niie L'Angelier, now deceased, and then, or lately
before, in the employment of w. B. Huggins and Co.,
merchants, Bothwell-street, Glasgow, as a clerk or in
some ether capacity ; and then, or lately before residing
with David Jenkins, a joiner, and Ann Duthie, or Jen-
kins, his wife, in Franklin-Street, Glasgow, a quantity
or quantities of arsenic or other poisons, to the prose
tutor unknown, in coda, or coffee, or some other arti-
cle or
-articles of food or cf drink, to the prosecutor
unknown, with intent to murder the said Emits
or other
e L'Anife er
said -
lier ; and that he having taken the
arsenic
poison, or part thereof, so administered or caused to be
taken by her, he did, in consequence thereof, and imam-
ciately or soon after taking the same, suffer severe
illness.

Instantly on the announcement cf these last
a vehement burst of cheering came from the audience,
especially from the galleries, which was again and again
renewed with increasing loudness in spite of the cffeits
of the judges and the officers of court.

giving arsenic to horses on a journey in France as very
unimportant ; it was nonsense to say that it made them
lon-winded if only given to them once, because it was
only the constant:use] of it which produced that effect.
Altogether, he did not see the importance or materiality
of this evidence. It was brought to support the notion
that be poisoned himself with arsenic ; but if he was in
the habit of taking it in small quantities, he knew its
qualities, and therefore this did not aid the notion that
he took an immense quantity on 22d March for the pur-
pose of destroying himself. No doubt the prisoner was
not bound to prove that he poisoned himself—it was

Whilst the Chancellor wa3 reading the verdict, the
prisoner gazed at the jury steadily, but with no signs
of agitation, and when the verdict of Not Proven on
the third charge was pronounced, her head slightly fell,
her face broke into a bright but somewhat agitated
smile, and her hand was warmly grasped by her agent,
Mr. Ranken, on one o'de, and the jail matron on the
other—expressions of sympathy which seemed to affect
her more deeply than any incident of the nine days
trial.

enough for her to satisfy them- that there was not evi-
dence to bring home to her the gn It of poisoning him ;
but it was a hazardous thing to set up in defence that

The Lord Justic3-Clerk, in thanking the jury for their
services, (and intimating that they would be ralieved
from similar duties for five years), stated that they
would have perceived from what ho had said to them
that his own opinions quite coincided with the conclu-
sion at which they had arrived.
The prisoner was then dismissed from the bar.

L'Angelier went out that night carrying such a quantity
of arsenic in his pocket, and that he swallowed it how,
where, or when no human being could conceive. And
therefore he thought the case stood far better for the
prisoner on her own real plea, that the guilt was not
brought home to her, which was truly the matter at
issue. Probably the jury would hold that the notion of
his having poisoned himself was in reality groundless,
and did not strengthen the case. Proceeding to the
evidence of the druggists at Coatbridge and Baillieston,
he remarked that they bad against that Mr. Ross's evi-
dence 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 on the part of these people as to
this being L'Angelier at all. It must also be remem-
bered that he went home and took tea, and never com-
plained 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
thej ury could believe that he bought arsenic 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'Angelier's purse as'that from which he had
taken the money to pay for the powder ; but it was very
probable, his Lordship thought, that some of the 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 conversatiou of
young ladies at school had reference to certain subjects,
his Lordship remarked that this seemed to have been
written in reply to some complaint by L'Angelier as to
the impropriety of her conversation, and with the view
of correcting her faults. As to the evidence with regard
to the arsenic kept in great chemical works, he observed
that there was no evidence that L'Angelier was ever
seen about these works at all. Alluding to Dr. Laurie's
experiments with arsenic, he observed that in these ex-
periments the hands and face were immediately after-
wards washed with cold water, which might prevent any
, irritation, but if it was so used iu this case, what effect
could it have as a cosmetic ? His Lordship next directed
attention to the correspondence. On this point he ob-
served :—The Lord Advocate states his theory of the
case thus : the panel became acquainted with L'Ange-
lier, the acquaintance went on very rapidly, and ended
in an engagement; they corresponded frequently and
clandestinely ; on the &h May, 1856, he got possession
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, and in most licentious
terms. After a certain time Mr. Minnoch's attentions
to the girl became very marked ; she saw there was no
chance of marrying L'Angelier even if she continued to
like him sufficiently ; but the other was certainly a
most desirable marriage for her to make. The Lord
Advocate says that her object then was to extricate
herself from the position which she was in ; that she first
makes an appeal to L'Angelier to give up her letters ;
she writes then very coldly, and says the attachment has
ceased on her part, and she thinks on his part also.
Certainly there was no reason to suppose that, though be
frequently blamed her conduct; but that is what she
states. The Lord Advocate says that by these cold let-
ters she was trying to make him give her up and to give
up her lettere. She failed in that. The Lord Advocate
says that then she proceeded to write in as warm terms
as ever, and to talk of their embraces as she had done
before. She does not succeed in that tone, and then she
receives him, as he says must be inferred and is proved,
into her stu=n for the purpose of succeeding in this.
She has to leave Glasgow, and he too has to go to Edin-
burgh. She returns, and she understands that ha re-
turned, and she writes letters for the purpose of having
ieterveews with him. Tee Intel Advocate says that on
the former occasions when she failed in getting the let-
ters, out-of resentment she had administered the poison
to him on the 19th and 221; and aware that no allure-
ments, or enticements, or fascinations from her would
get the letters from him, she had prepared for the inter-
view which she had expected on the 22.1 March, by an-
other purchase of arsenic, and with the intention to
poison bum. The Lord Advocate's theory and statement
is that the interview having taken place, she did accord-
ingly administer that d ise of arsenic from which, howso-
ever administered, he died. All this, on the other hand,
is treated as a totally incredible supposition by the
counsel for the prisoner. It is said that she could not I
have had such a purp me—that it is something too mon-
strous to believe or inquire into even. Gentlemen, it is
vary difficult to say whet 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 importance in aetertaining what sort
of feelings this girl cherished, what state of mind
and disposition she was in, and whether there is any
trace of moral sense or propriety to be found in her let-
ters, or whether they do or do not exhibit such a degree
of ill-regulated, disorderly, distempered, licentious feel-
ings as to show that this is not a person quite capable
of cher:shing any object to avoid disgrace and exposure,
and to cherish any revenge which such treetment might
excite in the mind of a woman driven nearly to madness
as she says she was. I shall not read many of these
letter:', but there are some characteristics of the charac-
ter of the panel to show her mind and feelings which
I think it is of importance to place before you, as show-
ing the progress of this attachment and the manner in
which it was carried on. It is very curious that the
first letter is written by her; and then he replied as you
might xpect 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 passioes broke out
months before any sensual intercourse had taken place ;
the expressions used in that and following letters were
most singular as passing between two unmarried people.
We heard, said his lordship, a good deal said by the
Dean of Faculty as to the character of this panel ; we
have no evidence ou the subject except what these letters
exhibit, and no witness to character was brought ; but
certainly these letters show as extraordinary a frame of
wind and of passion as perhaps ever appeared in a court
of justice. Can you be surprised, after such letters as
those of the 29th April and 31 May, that on the 6th of
May, three days afterwards, he got possession of her
persor. On the 7th of May else writes again, and in
that letter is there the slightest appearance of grief or of
remorse ? None whatever. It is the letter of a girl re-
joicing in what had passed, and alluding to it in one pas-
sage in particular in .terms which I will not read, for per-
haps they wore never previously committed to paper as
having passed between amen and a woman. What passed
must have passed out of doors, not in the house, and she
tales of it as hers as much as his. His lordship here
read the letter and observed—this is a letter from a girl,
written at five in the morning, just after she had sub-
mitted to his embraces ; can you conceive or picture any
worse state of mind than this letter exhibits ? In others
she uses the word "love" underscored, showing clearly
what she meant by it; and in one letter she uses the
most disgusting and revoltiog language, exhibiting a
state of wind most lamentable to think of. After read-
ing
several other letters, his Lordship came to those of
February 1857, as to which he observed that it was
plain she was then playing a part. She had been
writing to "my dearest Williatn"—referring to Mr.
Minnock—talking of the happiness of her expected mar-
riage with him. As to the last letter which brought
L'Angelier from the Bridge of Allan, she said it was
written to inform him of the engagement to Mr. Min-
noch ; but how strange that he should not say a word
about it. He remarked on the fact that in the letter in
which the prisoner said she would give him a loaf of
bread the next time he came, She said she would give
him it before he went "out"—showing that it was in-
tended he should be let into the house. .His Lordship
observed that there could be no doubt that it was the
prisoner's letter which brought L'Angelier from the
Bridge of Allan, and he then proceeded. In ordinary
matters of life, after that, you c iuld not have any hesi
tation in coming to the conclusion that they did meet
accordingly. But that becomes a very serious question
in a case where that meeting is supposed to end in the
aduanistration of poison and death follows. That may
he a very natural inference, that looking at the thing
morally, no one can doubt that he went to see her, and
would see her that night, for she had 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 she should look out for an interview on the
second night after the second letter.
The Dean of Faculty—She did not wait the second
night after the first letter. She waited only one night.
The Lord Justice-Clerk—l am sure the jury under-
stood what I meant.
Toe Dean—lt is the turning point of the case, because
the slightest- difference of expression may occasion a
different meaning.
The Lord Justice-Clerk—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 she should
wait another night—that is the observation I made.
And therefore it was very natural that he should go and
see her that Sunday night. Bat, as I said to you, that
is an inference only. If you think it seemed a just and
satisfactory inference—that you can rest your verdict
upon it—it is quite competent for 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 was his object in coming to
Glasgow. It is sufficiently proved that he went out
immediately after he got tea and 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 ap-
eointtusnt 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 purposes having no
ether object in coming to Glasgow, you would probably
scout the notion of a person saying I never saw or heard
of him the day that he came but what you are
asked to draw is this—the inference that they met that

THE TRIAL OF MISS SMITH.

(From the Times.)
The dead man L'Angelier is not one whose fate
there is any need to commiserate. His conduct to
one who had been his victim was base and unmanly
in the last degree, and can only be excused on the
ground stated by the Lord Advocate, that by the
law of Scotland an irregular marriage might be
held to have taken place, and that L'Angelier had
a right to consider Madeline Smith as his wife and
to prohibit her union with another man. That
the jury should declare the crime Not Proven is
hardly surprising ; for the circumstances are as
mysterious as any that have ever been related in a
court of justice. If on the one hand the prisoner
purchases arsenic, and thinks of her complexion for
the first time when she is distracted with terror
respecting her good name, on the other hand she
buys it so openly that a juryman might well think
her conduct incompatible wtth a murderous inten-
tion. In her first letter, after the purchase of
arsenic in February, she tells her lover that "I
am taking some stuff to bring back the colour."
Qf course, the prosecution look upon this as a proof
of consummate cunning ; the defence declare it to
be a corroboration of the prisoner's statement. If
L'Angelier indeed poisoned himself he must have
been the most extraordinary of men ; for he not only
makes two unsuccessful attempts, and goes to the
country for his health afterwards, but he relates how
he was made ill by his paramour's chocolate, says
jokingly he would forgive her if even she were to
poison him, and a month afterwards, just before he
is supposed to poison himself, he tells his friends
be is going to Blytbswood-square and actually
loiters in the neighbourhood for the purpose of
making the world be'ieve he is poisoned there.
Was L'Angelier likely to commit self-murder, and
i n such a manner as wilfully to bring on Madeleine
Smith the suspicion of the deed ? These questions
are now beyond human investigation. The jury
by their verdict have declared their inability to
decide. In this verdict we must concur ; yet we
see no reason for the cheering and the manifesta-
tion of joy which greeted it. Madeleine Smith
goes forth free from the penalties of the law—that
is all.

(From the Daily Nays)

The nature and effect of this verdict appeirs to
be as follows. In Scotland, as in England, a cri-
minal trial is a " wager of law." Tue Prosecutor
undertakes to convince a jury that the accused is
guilty ; the accused, to satisfy the jury that he (or
she) is innocent. The jury are not expected to do
mire than express the conviction produced on their
minds by the statements of the witnesses and the
arguments of the lawyers. Their conviction may
be such as they would find it difficult to assign
a reason for ; still it is held to be conclusive as
to the facts. In England the jury are call-
ed upon to declare distinctly either that they
hold the accused guilty or that they hold him
innocent. The more considerate law of Scotland
makes allowance for that neutral state of mind in
which plain, unprofessional men may have an im-
pression of the accused's culpability too strong to
admit of their conscientiously declaring him,inno-
cent—too weak to admit of their incurring the re-
sponsibility of exposing him to punishment. In
this case they are allowed to have recourse to the
temporising declaration—" not proven." Of this
privilege the Jury on Miss Madeleine Smith have
availed theinselves, and the rather tantalising re-
sult of a protracted and exciting inquiry is simply
this :—Tuat L'Angelier die] of poison, but not of
poison administered by himself ; that sufficient
evidence has not been ob+ained to carry home con-
viction to the guilty, though suspicions have pointed
strongly in a certain direction.

(Prone the Horning Herald.)
The Lord Advocate declared that in this case
"there was not a link wanting in the evidence
that " there was no loophole at which the unhappy
prisoner could escape." Such was certainly not
the opinion of the legal profession in this country,
nor, as we are informed, in Scotland. And that
was rather racklyss language to be used by the first
law officer of the Crown, in a case of life and df-a,h ;
it was language which should hardly be used if tLe
case was clear and cogent. But was this such a
case 1 The case of a girl, accused of poisoning her
lover—a man who was not proved to have been
with her on the fatal occision ! Circumstantial
evidence must often be resort--d to, and inferences
must be drawn from tact?. But the inference of
guilt must arise from the facts proved. And
here—even if the man had been seen at the
house on that night—the reception of the
poison could only have been an infer-
ence. Then, however, it would have been an infer-
ence from a fact ; here it was sought to make an
inference upon an inference—nay, rather against
the facts. Fur the evidence rather tended to show
that he was not there on that night—at any such
hour as is supposed; or that if he were, she could
not have seen him. Was this a case to characterise
as one in which there was not "a link wanting,"
and in which there was no "loophole for escape 1"
We rejoice that the jury thought otherwise.

(From the Morning Post)

The case against Miss Smith, legally considered,
was lame and defective in the extreme. That she
desired to be out of the power of L'Angelier, and
married to her other admirer, was perhaps estab-
lished. It was proved that, at dates corresponding
with the illnesses of the deceased, she had bought
arsenic for some unknown and as yet ill-explained
purpose. The arsenic bought at one shop was
coloured with soot, and that purchased at another
with indigo. There was an entire want of proof of
administration. Drs. Christison and Penny, while
they looked for and found arsenic in the stomach,
neither looked for nor found soot or indigo. Al-
though seen in the neighbourhood of Miss Smith's
house at half-past nine p.m. on Sunday night,
there is no proof of his having had an interview
with her. From that hour till he was found in
agony and weakness at two a.m. next morning, he
is not accounted for. There is a great chasm iu the
evidence. The presiding judge point2d this out.
The jury acted upon this conviction.

( From the Caledonian Mercury of Wednesday.)

If on Monday the interest of the public had par-
tially declined, it was greater than ever on the 7th
day. From an early hour, a crowd besieged the
doors of the Justiciary Court ; standing room was
hardly to be obtained ; and the pressure from be-
hind became very severe. At lair, the doors were
opened. Like a pent-up mountain torrent, when
swollen by melting snows, it sweeps away au ob-
stacle interposed by accumulated ice and boulders,
the multitude surged in, and would, half-bewil-
deied, havelost themselves in the passages, had
they not been prevented by iron inner gate-i, and
the policemen who stood by each, as the genii loci.
In a minute the whole of the portion of the court
allotted to the public was filled. At ten, when the
proceedings were resumed, the hall was more
crowded than ever. The side galleries appeared,
by a curious process of compression, to have ac-
quired the power of holding nearly double the
number which they had formerly contained,
crowds were standing near the further ends ; and
even the gallery passage behind the judges, where
the .anopy projecting above the dais forbids a view
of the speakers, was filled with attentive listeners
Of advocates especially there were present a greater
number than Incd previously attended, eager to be
witnesses of the single contestin which were now to
be engaged two of their foremost leaders.
In the earlier stages of the trial the ability of the
counsel engaged was conspicuously displayed in the
rapid examinations of the Lord Advocate, the
searching questions of the Dean .of Faculty, and
the confident assumptions of Mr. Young, so diffi-
cult to deny. Yesterday, however, the great battle
really commenced. Hitherto there bad been, as it
were, marching and counter-marching, manoeuvring
and concentration of forces; now the leaders began
to marshal in array the opposing bodies of evidence
for the struggle on which the fate of the prisoner
depended.

In regard to the SECOND CHARGE, the jury find, by a
majority, a verdict of NOT PROVEN ; which charged
that Madeleine Smith, on the 221 or 23d of February
(Sunday or Monday), in the house at Blythswood-square
aforesaid, did administer, or cause to be taken by the
said Ernila L'Angelier, a quantity or quantities of
arsenic or other poison, in cocoa, or in coffee, or in
some other article of food or drink, or in some other
manner, with intent to murder him, and that is couse-
MURDER], the jury, by
conse-
quence of taking the said poison that he again suffered
severe illness.
In regard to the THIRD CHARGE [the charge of
a majority, find a verdict of
NOT PROVEN ; which charged that Madeleine Smith,
en the 221 or 23d of March (Sunday or Monday), in the
house in Blythewood-square aforesaid, did administer
to, or cause to be taken by the said Emile L'Angelier,
in some other articli or articles of food or drink to the
prosecutor unknown, or in some other manner to the
prosecutor unknown, a quantity or quantities of arsenic
or other poison to the prosecutor unknown, and the
said Emile L'Angelier having taken the said arsenic or
other
poison, or part thereof; administered or caused to
be taken by the prisoner, he did immediately or soon
after suffer severe i:loess, and died on the 231 of March,
in consequence of the said arsenic or other poison raaviLg

nin When the Lord Advocate rose to address the
jury,. the accused turned towards him, and watched
I uneasily and restlessly. Soon
she recovered
her self-possession, and retained it during the
greater portion of his speech. kler veil, however,
which had been raised as she ascended the stair
into the court, bad ww fallen, and this was not to
be wondered at. A universal silence prevailed in
the court, The Solicitor-Cieuerai sat motionless,