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

night, where the fact of their meeting is the foundation
of a charge of murder. You therefore must reel that Ito
grounds of drawing an inference in tie ordinary matters
of civil business, or the actual intercotose 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 I.9de 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 bad 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 tie 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 had
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 231 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 Eder 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. If
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.
I In that view, undoubtedly, the foundation of the case is
very much shaken, and will not lead you to suppose that
the purpose of murder was cherished on the 22d. Then,
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 221 February, and I think you will
consider that all the excuses which she made about hav-
ing arsenic, are just as groundless as those which she
stated to the apothecaries. She bought arsenic again on
the 6th, and certainly it is a very odd thing that she
should buy more arsenic after she came back to Glasgow
,on the 18th of March. ..?or unless you are to take the
account, to be sure, that the used it as a cosmetic, she
has it before the 22d, and that is a dreadful fact if you
other
h atn hedeprecise
you greatest
must reluctance
time
keoo
are quite satisfied that she did not get it and use it for
the purpose of washing her hands and face. It may
createt,
or th
view of the matter, that she was guilty of administering
it somehow, though the elace where may not be made
u
ti in
hnevinieytweoruvtriheamwt.ind to take this
arßsuent,iconcouthlde
only be administered by her if an interview took place
with L'Angelier, and that view though it may be the re-
sult 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
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 perfecter satisfied tbat 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 for a moment 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 2W31 grains of arsenic on the
street, and that he was carrying it about with him,
Probably you will discard that altogether, though it is
very important, no doubt, it you come to the conclusion
that he did not swallow 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 rete-
renee to the views that are raised upon this correspond-
ence. I don't think you will consider it so unlikely as
Was septipsed that this girl after writing such letters
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 come to merely on supposition, and inference,
and observation upon this varying and wavering corre-
spondence of a girl in the circumstances in which she is
placed. It receives more importance no doubt when you
find the purchase of arsenic just before she expected,
or just at the time she 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 came 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 ieferencss 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 as this and
therefore it you can't say we satisfactorily find here evi-
dence of this meeting, and that the poison must have
been administered by her at any meeting, whatever may
be 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 best and
bounden duty as a jury to separate suspicion from truth,
and to proceed upon nothing that you don't find esta-
blished in evidence against her. I am quite satisfied
that whatever verdict you may give, after the attention
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 hand, as I said at the out-
set, that of the evidence you are the best judges, not only
in point of law, but in point of fact, and you may be per-
fectly confident that if you return a verdict, you need
not Ler any consequences from any future, or imagined,
or fancied discovery, you have done your duty under
your oaths under God, and to your country, and may feel
satisfied that remorse you never can have,
Lord Justice-Cl rks address the• Throughout the , ' p. 1-
rte her usual demeanour.
Boner appeared to pressers
The jury retired
I about 10 minutes after 1 o'clock, im-
mediately upon
which the audience in Court fell into
keen excitement a . .
• d discussion. About five minutes
after the retirement,
a bell rung, which was at first
thought to
be the signal from the jury that they were
verdict, and a deep thrill of anxiety
ready with their y
h Court—although the prisoner
was visible throughout the tj
only slightly turned her head for a moment. During
the whole of the remaining period for which the jury
were absent, she showed no particular symptoms of agi-
tation—although, about thirty-five minutes past one, a
second bell, which proved to be that of the Judges,
caused a repetition of the same scene,
At thirty-two minutes past one, the jury bell rung,
and they entered the box three minutes afterwards.
The prisoner still gave no symptoms of emotion.
The Lord Justice-Clerk intimated that it must be un-
derstood that there must be no expression of feeling bir
the audience, whatever the verdict.
The names of the jury having been called, Mr. Moffat,
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 verd4—Tr'e'NOT GUILTY; which charged
Madeline Smith, urreiadeline Hamilton Smith, with
wickedly and felsolously administering arsenic, or
some other poison, with intent to murder; as also with
Furder, in so far as, firit, on the 19th or 20th days of
February last (Thutsday or Friday), in the house in
Blythswood-square, Glasgow, occupied by James Smith,
her father, she did viekedly and feloniously administer
to, or cause to be talon by, Emile L'Angelier or Pierre
Emile L'Angelier,
low deceased, and then, or lately
before, in the ernPlclment of W. B. Huggins and Co.,
merchant's, Bothwelsstreet, Glasgow, as a clerk or in
some other capacity and then, or lately before residing
with David Jenkins, a joiner, and Ann Duthie, or Jen-
kins, his wife, in •P
- 4nkiin-street, Glasgow, a quantity
or quantities of arstic or other poisons, to the prose
cutor unknown, in Cocoa, or coffee, or some other arti-
cle or articles of &eel or of think, to the prosecutor
unknown, with intelt to murder the said Emile L'Ange-
lier ; and that he leasin-
g taken the said arsenic or other
poison, or part theeof so administered or caused to be
taken by her, be du in consequence thereof, and inune-
ciately or soon elk taking the same, suffer severe
illness.

In regard to the
3ECOND CHARGE, the jury find, by a
majority, a verdictot NOT PROVEN ; which charged
that Madeleine Shith, on the 221 or 23d of February
(Sunday or Monda:),
in the house at Blythswood-square
aforesaid, did aduinister, or cause to be taken by the
said Emile L'A.nodier, a
quantity or quantities of
arsenic or other pod", in .n c)coa, or in coffee, or in
some other artice of food or drink, or in some other
manner, with intent to murder him, and that in conse-
quence of taking- he said
poison that he again suffered
severe illness.

In regard to tie THIRD CHARGE [the charge of
MURDER], the itty,
by a majority, find a verdict of
NOT PROVEN ; which charged that Madeleine Smith,
on the 22 l or 23dot March
(Sunday or Monday), in the
house in Blythsw)od-squire aforesaid, did administer
to, or Pause to be taken by the said Emile L'Angelier,
in some other arich or articles of food or drink to the
prosecutor unknovo
or in some other manner to the
prosecutor unknown, a quantity or quantities of arsenic '
or other poison tc the
prosecutor unknown, and the
said EMile L'A.ngelier having taken the said arsenic or
other poison, or pert thereof, administered or caused to
be taken by the .prisoner , be did immediately or soon
sufferaftesuffer severeidness, and died on the 23d of March,
in cons,quence of she said arsenic or other poison haying