The Sun.
London, England, 1859-08-18 00:00:00

of poison having been administered would never have
entered into my mind.

Dr. Gilbert Girdwood examined by Mr. Giffard—l have
had great experience in accouchements. I have had up-
wards of 3,000 cases pass through my hands. Among them
I have had cases of pregnancy combined with dysentery.
One was a very severe case. I would not give any mercu-
rial medicine to a person suffering from dysentery during
pregnancy, nor in any dysenteric case whatever unless I
had ascertained the reason why I should do so. I have
heard the symptoms of Miss Bankes and the account of the
post mortem examination, and in my judgment death is to
be attributed to dysenteric ulceration.
Dr. James Edmonds, of No. 2, Spitch-square, said—l
am a doctor of medicine and surgeon to the H division of
police and to the Royal Maternity Charity. I have known
in the early stages of pregnancy, vomiting and diarrhoea so
as to exhaust the patient. I had a fatal case. The lady was
about 40 years of age, She suffered severely in the abdomen.
She was ill for 5 or 6 weeks. She did not survive the attack.
I made a post-mortem examination of her body. Dysentery
was the cause of death. It arose during pregnancy.

Cross-examined by Sergeant Ballantine The illness
commenced about the fifth or sixth month of pregnancy. I
administered chalk, opium, and prussic acid, and afterwards
bismuth. When I was sure there was ulceration of the
bowels, I used sulphate of zinc as an injection. I did not
use sulphate of copper because of the vomiting. It is a
very fine remedy, and highly recommended in cases of
dysentery. I examined the stomach alter death. I found
it slightly injected. The large bowels were extensively
ulcerated. I administered bismuth, but all my medicines
failed to stop the progress of the disease.
The Court here adjourned for refreshment.
On the reassembling of the Court,

Dr. W. Tyler Smith said—l have been studying mid-
wifery for a great number of years. I know of a case of
death from vomiting during pregnancy. Excessive vomit-
ing, in the earlier stages of pregnancy, produces a burning
sensation in the throat, at least that is the feeling com-
plained of by persons suffering in the earlier stages of preg-
nancy. The earlier part of pregnancy is the time when
there is most vomiting. A woman in the earlier stages
might have diarrhoea which might ultimately turn
to dysentery. Prussic acid given in an effervescing state is
one of the most valuable remedies to allay vomiting. In
cases of excessive vomiting persons died in the same way as
if they had been starved to death. If a basin of warm soup
was given to a female in that state it would be instantly
rejected. There is a peculiar expression of the features in
cases of excessive vomiting. It is a very painful one. All
the symptOms that I have heard explained with regard to
Miss Bankes might arise from natural causes, with the
exception of the ball in the throat.
[We shall continue the case in our third edition.l

stopped ?

THIRD DAY.
(Continued from The Sun of yesterday.)
Mr. Sergeant Parry rose to address the jury for the pri-
soner. He commenced by saying that after the protracted
agony of a double trial, and a sensibility that prejudice was
being accumulated against him by the lapse of time, the
prisoner bad now an opportunity of making his defence to
this charge. In the position he then occupied he was fear-
ful that he should inadequately discharge his duty, but he
relied upon the assistance of all in acquitting himself of his
painful duty. The jury he was then addressing was the
only tribunal that could sit in judgment upon the life of
a human being. To no other civil institution was ac-
corded that fearful power, and he had to call upon them
to exercise that important duty, and in doing so he felt they
would act under a strong sense and an earnest desire to
come to a right conclusion. The importance of the con-
clusion to which they must come was one of the highest,
because if they pronounced the word guilty, they would
pronounce a doom which was inevitable, and from which
there was no appeal. The jury had the power of saying
to the gentleman at the bar, you shall live or die; and such
being so, he felt that at whatever result they might arrive it
would not be come to before they had given everything the
utmost consideration, with a full sense of the paramount im-
portance of the decision towards the prisoner. The charge
against the prisoner was that of murder—murder of the
most hideous form; but he contended that the evidence a,s'it
stood could enable them to come to no such conclusion, but,
on the contrary, ho thought, the only result they could
arrive at, after giving it their utmost consideration, was
that the charge had not been proven. It had been proved
that Dr. Smethurst had committed an act for which there
was no justification, he alluded to the marriage with the
deceased lady, and they afterwards went to live together,
and the first they heard of them4was, that they went to
live together as man and wife. The first thing that the
sister heard of the circumstance was the letter of the 9th of
Jan., but in which there was not ono word of com plaint against
the prisoner, but on the contrary it was in terms which
was calculated to show that they were living together in
comparative happiness. It was at Alma Villas that it
was imputed that Dr. Smethurst deprived the deceased
lady of life. Now, how was that proved ? It had been
said that Dr. Smethurst intended to return to his wife, and
that he never intended his connection with Miss Bankes
to be a permanent one ; but was that so ? He agreed Ito
allow hls wife so much a week, but there was net the
slightest expression that could induce the belief that he
intended ever to re-unite himself to the old
lady, so he thought that the jury would be per-
fectly of opinion that the marriage with Miss Bankes was
to be a permanent one. He denied that the letter found
upon the person of the prisoner, addressed to his first wife,
proved thatthe marriage with Miss Bankes was to be merely
a temporary attachment. It had been asserted that Dr.
Smethurst had inveigled Miss Bankes away, and that ho
avoided all publicity, but there was no pretence for this,
for it came out that he visited London two or three times a-
week, and that the landlady at each house at Richmond
was in constant attendance on Miss Bankes. The whole
conduct of Dr. Smethurst showed a pure motive as well as
the utmost affection for the deceased. Every do •
mestic office was performed by Dr. Smethurst, and he
denied that there was ever' the slightest attempt at con-
cealment made by the prisoner. Every small act had been
turned against him for the purpose of proving that he had
in one instance put poison in the soup, and when that was
taken out of the room the sister of deceased said she heard
Lim stir it round ; but did not she say that she heard the
key turn in the secretary outside the door ? Then another
charge made against him was that he had refused to have
a nurse when he had a considerable sum of money in his
possession, on the ground that he could not afford
it ; but the evidence did not bear out such
an assertion, as Mrs. Wheatley distinctly said Mr.
Smethurst never said anything to her about not being able
to afford one ; and yet for the purpose of strengthening this
case, which, if true, would be one unparalleled in the his-
tory of crime, all sorts of suggestions had been made—
great reliance having been placed upon the fact that
prussic acid was given. Why, it was constantly adminis-
tered to the most delicate women at the most delicate
period of life. Then with respect to the will made
by the deceased, undoubtedly it was greatly to the
interest of the prisoner that the lady should -live, and
it could not be used against the prisoner to his detriment,
because it was as much Missßankes's act as the prisoner's—
just as much her act as that of her marriage. He had gone
through the whole of the conduct of the prisoner, and it was
for the jury to act on it, but he thought that the very most
they could say would be, that there was a suspicion ; but it
was not upon suspicion that they could act. They must have
proof—proof as clear as daylight, before they could arrive at
such a conclusion, or a verdict in favour of the prisoner must
be given. He could not for a moment believe that the jury
would imagine that such horrible conduct as that imputed
to the prisoner had been committed without it was proved
plainly—much more plainly than had been done by the
prosecution—and beyond the possibility of doubt. Turning
to the conduct of the prisoner when additional medical
assistance was required he denied that he had any objection
to the uncle of the deceased lady visiting her. He was not
the objecting party, and his letter proved that the reason
he was not sent for was solely the wish of Miss Bankes,
that at least, for some time, none of the male members of
her family might by possibility become acquainted with the
position she was in with the prisoner. The conduct of the
prisoner, so far from proving that a crime had been com-
mitted, clearly showed that such was not the fact.
Passing to the medical evidence, it was stated that the
state of the lady was caused by the administration of an
irritant poison such as antimony and arsenic ; but had one
witness shown that he had ever had in his possession any-
thing of so deadly a nature as arsenic or antimony. Cer-
tainly not. And then, with respect to the stupid and igno-
rant theory that chloride of potash had been used to carry
off the poison after it had been administered—if it had ever
been administered—he believed the evidence that he should
place before them would totally explode, if it had not
already been exploded, such an utter absurdity,
which was only the imagination of a fertile brain to
account for the absence of poison. Again, it was
tried to be sustained that during theltime between the pri-
soner' sfirstbeing accusedof the crime and taken into custody
he had ample time to destroy everything that would prove the
truth of such, but did the evidence warrant such a state •
ment. Referring to Dr. Taylor's evidence the learned
counsel dwelt in strong terms upon the mistake made in
the analysis of the bottle containing chlorate of potash, and
said that in the event of such a mistake not being found
out, an innocent man might have been sent to the
scaffold and suffered an ignominious death. Under such
circumstances he thought that the duty of Dr. Taylor in
the present case was to get up and withdraw the whole of it,
but he would not do that, and he (Sergeant Parry) there-
fore called upon the jury to reject Dr. Taylor's evidence as
utterly worthless. He should call before them witnesses to
prove that bismuthand greypowder both contained arsenic.
Suchbeing the case that would account for the traces of
there
arsenic
found in the body of the deceased, and this being
so,
was abundant evidence to prove that both those medicines
had been sent from the shop of Dr. Julius. The learned
counsel then described the nature of the evidence he in-
-
tended to call, and concluded by an eloquent appeal to th
jury, stating that he thought they would agree with him
that the case for the prosecution had entirely a
verdict of
acquittal.
[The learned counsel occupied nearly three hours in the
delivery of his speech, during the whole of which time the
prisoner scarcely took his eyes off the jury for an instant.]
The following witnesses were then called for the defence :
Benjamin Ward Richardson, examined by Mr. Giffard,

grain.

said-1 am a doctor of medicine, a licentiate of the College
of Physicians, and Professor of Pathology in the Grosvenor
School of Medicine. I obtained Astley Cooper's prize, and I
am the author of several works on medical jurisprudence. I
have been in court, and the symptoms detailed of the death
of the deceased are, in my opinion, not in the main consis-
tent with arsenical poisoning.

The Lord Chief Baron—Nor antimonial poisoning ?
Witness—No.

The Lord Chief Baron—Nor with both together ?

Witness—No. In the case of Miss Bankes there were
symptoms absent which would be present in a case of arseni-
cal poisoning. There was also an absence of those nervous
symptoms which peculiarly characterise arsenical poisoning.
Those symptoms are tremor of the limbs—suppressed con-
vulsion. I don't believe it possible that all these symptoms
could be absent in a case of arsenical poisoning. The post
mortem examination, taken altogether, is not in my opinion
consistent with arsenical poisoning. In my opinion it is
quite impossible for a person to be poisoned with arsenic
without its being found in the tissues. It would not mat-
ter what way the arsenic was introduced, traces
of it would always be found. I made experi-
ments on the 26th of May and the 2d of June last,
with respect to arsenic. The first experiment was made
out of philosophical curiosity, and not with reference to the
prisoner. I made my experiments in the presence of Dr.
Webb In one of the experiments we took a large dog and
daily gave it arsenious acid and chlorate of potash. I gave
the latter in such doses as to ensure diuretic action. I
gave small doses for 18 days, three times a day, with food ;
18 grains of arsenious and 36.5 grains of chlorate of potash.
Sometimes the animal could not take its food, and then I
decreased the dose. I then killed the animal, and on ex-
amining it I found arsenic in the liver, slight traces in the
spleen and in the kidneys. The greatest part was in the
liver.

The Lord Chief Baron—You must have expected that
when you went on giving arsenic and then suddenly

Witness—l thought the chlorate would have been
eliminated.

The Lord Chief Baron—Then it was eliminated?

Witness—No. I would add that in the dog there was
intense ulceration in the stomach, and in the lower part of
the alimentary canal. _ _ _

The Lord Chief Baron—How much arsenic did you find ?
Witness—l cannot say. •

The Lord Chief Baron—Can you venture to say you
found a grain ?

Witness—No, I cannot.

The Lord Chief Baron—Can you venture to say half a
grain ?

Witness—Really, my lord, I cannot say.
The Lord Chief Baron--Can you venture to say you
round a quarter of a grain ?

Witness—Yes, my lord. I think I can venture to say I
found a quarter of a grain. There was vomiting and
purging.

- The Lord Chief Baron—The result of your experiments
proves that chlorate of poatsh does not eliminate all the
arsenic, and it also results that after 18 grains of arsenic
had been given in 16 days, only a quarter_ of a grain was
discovered in the body after death.

Witness—Yes. I made other experiments with two dogs,
to whom I gave alternate doses of arsenic and antimony on
alternate days, giving chlorate to one and not to the other.
I discovered arsenic in the body of each. I have heard the
symptoms presented in the case of Miss Bankes, and they
were not, in my opinion, recnncileable with slow antimonial
poisoning. I have made other experiments with—
The Lord Chief Baron—l don't think any experiments
made since the 9th of May can be considered, with reference
to this case, part of the general body of medical evidence.
Witness continued—l consider, from what I have heard,
that Miss Bankes-would be a likely person to be subject to
dysentery. I have analysed bismuth. The result of my
experiment is that every specimen in London contained
arsenic.

Mr. Giffard—As a matter of chemical science, are you
aware that arsenic is to be found in bismuth
Witness—Yes.
The Lord Chief Baron—ln what quantities ?
Witness—lt varies very much.

The Lord Chief Baron—What are the limits ?

Witness—The largest quantity I know of is half a grain
to the ounce. I have had a patient to whom I have ad-
ministered as much as five grains three times a day for
six days. I analysed the urine and found arsenic.

The Lord Chief Baron—How much ?
Witness—l cannot say—there was the fiftieth part of a

Cross-examined by Sergeant Ballantine—Did you give
the bismuth with respect to this case ?
Witness—l began my experiments on the dog on the 26th
of May. It was merely to see whether chlorate would pass
off the arsenic. I had seen the report of the case in the
papers, and read Dr. Taylor's evidence, I did not
communicate the result of the experiments to the prisoner
or his solicitor.

Mr. Ballantine—How, then, did you become connected
with the case ?

Witness—Mr. Humphries, the solicitor, called upon me.
Mr_ Rallantine—Witlumt your ccunmunicating with any
person ?

- Witness—My experiments were known to two or three
collegians. _ _

Ballantine—You were examined on Palmer's trial ?

Witness—l came to give my opinion that death was
occasioned by angina pectoris, and not strychnia. I 'nerdy
gave a similar case to that of Cook's, and argued that
Cook might have died of angina pectoris. It is true
that I gave an opinion that Cook's symptoms were
those of angina pectoris, as given by all the best authors,
and that they were more consistent with that disease than
with death by strychnia. I don't dispute that I want to
support the theory of death by angina pectoris. I have
been consulted in one other criminal case, but I was not

[At the conclusion of this witness's evidence the trial
was adjourned till to-morrow.]

THE SERPENTINE.