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

have interfered ; and the.jury would consider whether,
when going aly.ut the room in an excited state, he had
only thrown open the window to get some air. sto
the other stories, that he would drown hirnsel if he
were jilted, they did ant Arnotuat to much, w en it
we known on oh() occasion he had been ji thl a had
not drowned himself. He also treated the story as to
iIA.
giving arsenic to horses on a journey in France ai very
unimportant ; it was nonsense to say that it madeithem
loag,winded if only given to them once, because ift was
only the constantf 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 he poisoned himself with arsenic ; but if be wias in
the habit of taking it in small quantities, he kneiv 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
enough for her to satisfy them that there was not evi-
dence t) bring home to her the guilt of poisoning him ;
but it was a hazardous thing to set up in defence. that
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 mattr 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 Baillie*on,
he remarked that they bad against that Mr. Rose'sevi-
deuce 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. 'lt 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 Kiek'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 Rosa and before he saw the panel, or kriew
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 jary
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 conversation of
young ladies at school had reference to certain suljeces,
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 evitr
seen about these works at all. Alluding to Dr. Laurie s
experiments with arsenic, he observed that in these ew'
peritnents the bands and face were immediately after-
wards washed with cold water, which might prevent any
irritation, but if it was so used in this case, what effect
could it have as a cosmetic I His Lordship next directed
attentLn to the correspondence. Oa this point he ob-
served :---The Lord Advocate states his theory of the
case thus : the panel became acquainted with L'Anq-
lier, the acquaintance went on very rapidly, and ended
in an engagement; they corresponded frequently and
clandestinely ; on the Cie 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--X
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 he
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 letters. 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 bad 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 house 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 he re-
turned, and she writes letters for the purpose of having
interviews with him. The Lord 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 22d ; 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 22d March, by an-
other purchase of arsenic, and with the intention to
poison him. The Lord Advocate's theory and statement
is 'that the interview having taken place, she did accord-
ingly administer that &me 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
have had such a purpose—that it is something too mon-
strous to believe or inquire into even. Gentlemen, it is
very difficult to say what 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 astertaining what wort
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 act exhibit such a degree
of ill-regulated, disorderly, distempered, licentious feel-
ings as to show that this is not a person quite capable
of cherishing any object to avoid disgrace and exposure,
and to cherish any revenge which such treatment might
excite in the mind of a woman driven nearly to madness
as she says she was. I shall not read many of these
letters, 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
•ehich it was carried on. It is very curious that the
first letter is written by her; and then he replied as you
'night expect 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 passiots 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 on the subject except what these letters
exhibit, and no witness to character wise brought ; but
certainly these letters show as extraordinary a frame of
mind and of pass:on as perhaps ever appeared in a court
of justice. Can you be surprised, after such 14ters as
those of the 29th April and 31 May, that on the 6th of
May, three dai s afterwards, he got possession of her
persar. Oa the 7th of May she writes again, a'sd in
that letter is there the slightest appearance of grief or of
remorse ! None whatever. It is the latter of a girl re-
j,iicing 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 were never previously committed to paper as
having pas-ed between a man ands woman. What passed
must have passed out of doors, not in the house, and she
talks 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 bad sub-
mitted to his embraces ; can you conceive or picture apy
worse state of mind than this letter exhibits t In otheqi
she uses the word "love" underscored, showing clearly
what she meant by it; and in one letter she uses the
moat disgusting and revolting language, exhibiting a
state of mind most lamentable to think cf. 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 deare-t Williata"—referring to Mr.
Minnock—talking of the happiness of her expected mar-
riage with him. As to the last letter which brought
L'Aogelier from the Bridge of Allan, she said it was
written to inform him of the engagement to Mr. Mins
noch ; but how strange that he should not say a word
about it. He remarked on the fact that in the latter 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
mattesi of life, after that, you could not have any hesi
tatiou in coining 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
administration of poison and death follows. That may
be 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.

Tae Dean— It is the turning point of the case, because
the slightest difference of expression may occasion a
different moaning.
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. But, 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 snfficiently proved that he went out
immediately after he got tea and had changed his coat.
But then, gentlemen, in showing an inference, you must
always look to the important character of the inference
which you are asked to allow. If this had been an ap-
pointment 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 purpose, 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