The Sun.
London, England, 1845-03-14 00:00:00

Gi --
-//-
... e
,_
____---
..
.
,
, . ,•',4.,.-..,..,: ,e Ni ,
.1-$•.7: '. AI
.....--
f, 4, tin •-. 4:2-- e0e,,4
-4' . 4 2.
, ..
~..._...) 1 .
i.,.,, .„.4,-,,., „... •
•1...
\ ,lnir \----... AptillV'....fdifti.,l, _tr. .1k2.•:...L: ~, ."
-:.-t-1414(ell' --- ..• ...!
p).
..4
-.-- - ,;446,1,-, Ititz+
, .
„,#,-- •• 4,,, - •
*0.111Q1,. :16.1141111Wri
AH. N.
e"
~.. ,
..--7-- - - '''.":. AIL ••• ~,.,.134t... , ~i:::.!' 0 ;V;;.‘,,ticarni.m,,.1,,,.:
~,. , J ,--.. 1 t
—/4 y;•.,,,. .... 'i',,,,-,.
--..,

Ni. 16,404. LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING SU!-4 7
MARCH 14, 1845.

PRICE 51.

THE SUN is Published EVERY MORNING at FIVE 0 CLOCK, in Time for the EARLY TRAINS and TOWN DELIVERY; a SECOND EDITION (Enen;ne Sun) is Published in Time for the AFTERNOON TRAINS
and a THIRD EDITION at SEVEN 0 CLOCK, for POST, containing PARLIAMENTARY and ell other NEWS in LONDON up to that Hour. •

ADVERTISEMENTS INSERTED in ALL THE THREE PAPERS, Morning, Noon, ,nd Night, thereby insuring a TOWN and COUNTRY CIRCULATION at ONE CHARGE.

GRAVESEND STAR PACKETS leave the
Brunswick Pier, Blackwall, at 11, 3, and 5 ; on Sundays at
11 and 3.

WILSO N'S SCOTTISH ENTERTAIN-
MENTS.
At the MUSIC-HALL, STORE-STREET, BEDFORD-SQUARE,
On MONDAY EVENING, March 17, at Eight o'clock,
Mr. WILSON will repeat for the Fourth time his Entertainment of
WANDERING WILLIE'S WALLET.
SONGS.
PART I.—The Minstrel—Hey the bonny breast-knots—The Cave-
nanter's Lament—Name came our gudeman at e'en—Bessie Bell and
Mary Gray—The Bonny House o' Bothwell Bank thou
bloomest fair—John Grumlie.
Parr ll.—Hail to the chief who in ..triumph advances—Why left I
my home ?-31`Leod of Dunvegan, a eurso lies upon thee—l gaed a
waefu' gate yestreen—Hersel he Highland Shentiernan—Watty cam'
out on a moonshiny night—Gude night and joy be with you a'.
Piano-forte—Mr. LAND.
Tickets, 2s. Reserved Seats, 2s. 6d. Private Boxes for Six, 15s. ;
for Eight persons, 11.

From Terrace Pier, Gravesend, at N, 1, and 5 ; on Sundays at
91 and 5.
Fares to or from London.
Fore Cabin and Second Class Carriage, Ninepence.
Salim& and First Class Carriage, One Shilling.
To or fors Illackvrall.
Fore Cahill, Sixpence—Saloou, Ninepanc,e.
Star Office, Gravesend, March 11, 1845.,

more than the jury might learn in half an hour by reading?
Those books were written by persons now living; why were
they, or some of them, not called to give positive evidence?
The witnesses had said at least a grain of prussic acid existed
in the woman's stomach, but they had not proved upon their
own knowledge and experience that a grata was sufficient to
cause death. They mentioned one case in which so small a
quantity had killed a person ; but that case they read in
Taylor, who copied it into his book from some other quar-
ter, and the statement of the case was full of errors. He
would call their particular attention to the part of the
book referred to by Mr. Champneys, who had no more prac-
tical knowledge of the quantity of prussic acid that would
cause death than ony• one else in Court, and with whom, as
with the other inedical witnesses, it was nothing but guess-
work. The part of this work on medical jurisprudence by
Mr. Taylor referred to stated that a person having taken
dilute prussic acid by mistake to the amount of one and a
half drachm of Scheele's acid, spasms and tetanus were pro-
duced, from which the patient did not wholly recover for
thirteen days. It also stated, that " admitting the strength
of the acid to be as represented, this is the largest.
dose known to have been taken without causing death."
Would it be just on the supposed validity of an opinion such
as that, found in a book respecting which he had not the
power of putting a single question, to ascertain whether or
not there was any error in it—would it be just on such
testimony—the book itself saying, " if the strength of the
acid be correctly represented"—to condemn a man to death ?
If the strength of the acid were not correctly represented,
the deduction was incorrect, and, that being incorrect,
the whole basis of the medical testimony tumbled down. The
same authority, after referring to some cases, stated that he
considered lie would be justified in believing that a dose of
Scheele's acid of about 20 grains, which would contain about
one grain of the pure prussic acid, would commonly destroy
life. Well, in addition to Taylor, they had the authority of
Christison referred to. In page 770 of his work on poisons,
he stated that it was important to fix, if possible, the smallest
fatal dose of hydrocyanic (prussic) acid ; but that it must
vary with particular circumstances, such as the strength of
the individual and the fulness or the emptiness of the sto-
mach. Then, quoting the case of a person who was killed
from swallowing two-thirds of a grain of the acid, he went
on to say, that repeated instances of recovery occurred where
a larger quantity had been taken than two-thirds of a grain,
which he (Mr. Melly) was prepared to show was more than
had been proved to have been found in this woman's stomach:
They had, therefore, no sworn evidence whatever to clear up
the doubts which existed upon the question of what quantity
of prussic acid would cause death; they had nothing but a
reference to these books, which contained nothing but specu-
lative opinions. If he had the authors of them on the table
to examine, he might, perhaps, be able to arrive at some
more definite conclusion • but, without that, he maintained
that the whole basis Of the medical evidence fell to the
ground. Then, with regard to the question of smell, the
Learned Counsel contrasted the evidence of the medical
men, showing in it great discrepancy. Mr. Champneys
fancied in one case and proved in another the existence of
the smell of prussic acid from the contents of the stomach,
while Mr. Is orblad, notwithstanding his acute powers of
smell, could not discover it at any period Mr. Champneys,
who was very candid, first of all admitted as a gene-
ral principle, taken from Taylor, Christison, and other
authorities, that the odour of the acid was always to be
found, but that that principle was subject to exceptions,
and the exceptions given were three; first, the case of the
seven Parisian epileptics, in which it turned out that is was
in no less than eight days after death examination bad taken
place, and that even then, although six persons could not
discover the odour, yet that two did. The second and third
cases turned out to be but one, and in that Mr. Champneys
thought that as there was no odour found in the blood there
was none in the stomach. This was shown to have been
an error—one, however, which Taylor's language warranted,
for he said in speaking of it that " the body was examined,"
leading Mr. Champneys to suppose that the stomach was
included. This was an error which, if not detected, might
have proved fatal to the prisoner, but one which showed how
awful was the degree of danger, however learned the wit-
nesses, and however diligent their search into books of au-
thority, of relying upon such evidence as they had received
from the chief witness here, Mr. Champneys, which he him-
self believed to be true. It might be undissolved apples,
bitter almonds, or anything else containing prussic acid,
which was present, and yet no sufficient smell arise to attract
the attention of Mr. Cooper or the other medical witnesses;
but how, upon the whole of the evidence of those witnesses,
deduced from books, it could be concluded that an entire
grain of prussio acid, the amount stated by Mr. Cooper, could
have been present in a free state or in a liquid, such as porter,
and yet not be discovered by persons of acute smell, like Mr.
Norblad, or after the liquor had been subjected to a boiling
heat, and then smelt to by the chemist, he (Mr. Kelly) was
at a total loss to understand. When combined with bitter
almonds, it was reasonable enough to believe that it could
not be smelt ; but in a free state, such as it is in Scheele's
acid, where it was continually volatalizing and flying off—
how was it possible that it could be subjected day after day to
these experiments, and particularly to a boiling heat, and yet
not be discovered by its odour, by that pr( of of the presence
of the acid which was acknowledged to be a matter of
common occurrence, and which, as in the case of the seven
epileptics, was discoverable by some persons so long as eight
days after death ? The Learned Gentleman then applied
himself to the evidence of Mr. Cooper, respecting his exa-
mination of the contents of the stomach, which examination
he had admitted to have been incomplete, and also to his ana-
lysis of apple pips, . which he also admitted to have been in-
complete, as he was not able to say how much prussic acid
he had obtained from the pips of 15 apples. He wished to
impress upon the jury this, that, next to bitter almonds.
there was no substance which contained more prussic acid
than the pips of apples, the quantity differing according to
the nature of the apple ; some descriptions of apples con-
taining it in a great quantity, and in such a form as, in the
human stomach particularly, if swallowed whole, or but
slightly masticated, would render its smell imperceptible.
Then Mr. Cooper had not told them what quantity of apple
he had found in the stomach, not having attempted to as-
certain that fact. The jury were also in utter ignorance of
how much of the acid Mr. Cooper extracted from his first and
second experiments. He was unable to tell them. Accord-
ing to his recollection, for he spoke only from recollection,
he had used about two-thirds of the contents of the liquid
brought to him within his first, second.- and third experi-
ments, and that front the remaining one-third he extracted
28-100ths of a grain of the acid, or a fraction more than
one-fourth of a grain. He attempted to deduce from that,
that the entire contents contained a grain of the acid, but
they had no sworn evidence of that fact. The opinion of the
witness upon the point was purely conjectural. Now, even
admitting that conjectures upon the point should go to the
jury, he (Mr. Kelly) maintained that in this case the conjecture
should not weigh with the jury the 100th part of a grain. Mr.
Cooper concluded that because he extracted one-fourth
of a grain from a portion of the contents, the rest of the con-
tents contained it in the same ratio, that the acid was
equally diffused through the whole, and that if he was right
in his recollectien of the quantity he had used in the former
experiments, that a fourth of a grain would prove the exis-
tence of an entire grain in the entire contents. Now, seeing
that he only spoke from recollection of the quantity, and
seeing also that he had admitted in his evidence that he
found very little of the acid the first time, more the next,
and still inure the third, thus showing that as he got nearer
to the bottom of the contents he got more of the solids, and
of those portions of the contents that would produce prussic
acid,—observing these things, which he (Mr. Kelly) begged
ofthe jury calmly to do, he did think it was not evidence
upon which they could agree to take away the life of a fel-
low-creature. In opposition to this evidence, the Learned
Gentleman replied on that given by Mr. Thomas, in which
that witness admitted that he had extracted half a grain of
prussic acid from the pips of fifteen apples, and on the pos-
sibility of accounting for the presence of prussic acid iu the
contents of deceased's stomach by the fact of apple and
other substances containing prussic acid having been found
in those contents. Supposing that the pips of the apples
produced a fourth of a grain,—suppose there was some little
in the cake which she had eaten,—suppose there was some
in the saliva which she must have swallowed in a large
quantity when masticating the apples, and which was known
to contain much prussic acid,—suppose there was some in the
animal substances, and, although it was stated that they
would not yield prussic acid without being subjected to a
greater heat than they had been subjected to, yet it was
known that, when undergoing decomposition, prussic acid
was constantly being evolved,—suppose these things, put
together all these probabilities, keeping in mind that they
have had positive evidence that the pips of fifteen apples
produced half a grain of prussic acid, and lie asked theta
how they could, if they did not wish to commit murder
themselves, convict the prisoner of that crime If there
was not enough of prussic acid in the stomach to account
for death, there was an end of the case. But of what did
she die ? It was not for him to show. But it was said her
screams indicated death by prussic acid. IV here was there
ever any evidence to prove that such a death was attended
by a succession of screams, instead of a single one, called
the "death scream," after a convulsion or two ? had the
heart been paralyzed by prussic acid, or otherwise, the blood
could not be received back from the lungs into the heart;
it must remain in the lungs, and gorge them. But the
witnesses had declared that there was no congestion of
the lungs. Mr. Champnevs, however, after a reference to
the books, admitted that the lungs were slightly congested.
Was that evidence upon which to decide a case of life and
death ? It was far too doubtful to justify the adverse ver-
dict for which the jury were asked by the Crown. Again,
there was the fact that the woman was in a state of syncope,
and that she was choked by her neighbour pouring water
down her throat. Again, how many causes of sudden death
were there ? The late Sergeant Andrews, in a moment of
aberration of mind, cut his throat. The wound was sewn up,
but a few days afterwards the wound burst out afresh, and
he died. Who could doubt that the cause of kis death was
the cutting of his throat? But, on investigation, it turned
out that the cause of death was the rupture of a bloodvessel.
Suppose a person had been tried for inflicting that wound,
and the coincident fact had not been revealed, would not the
Terson have been in danger of being convicted of murder?
herefore, the jury should be cautious, and take it into con-
sideration all the coincidences of this case. He now ap-
proached sonic other points with pain. Enough was known
of the former life of the prisoner which might create a pre-
judice against him ; but he implored the jury not to be led
way by that to suppose that the prisoner had ever been
guilty of any unkind or cruel act towards any individual.
His Learned Friend had imputed to the prisoner a motive
for committing murder. Now, lie would not deny that by
the deceased woman he had two children. That was an act.

MURDER AT SALT-HILL.

saw the prisoner on the following day, between the hours of !
ten and twelve, and he asked for two drachms more. Ile
said he had had a misfortune, he had broke the bottle. He had
the same quantity as formerly in the bottle he had originally
bought. He had been frequently to the shop before that
time.
By Baron PARKE—He might have sold him prussic acid
before, but did not recollect perfectly. The prisoner said he
bad been an apothecary and chemist. He was in the habit
of covering these phials with leather. Witness first gave
information that the prisoner had bought prussic acid on the
Tuesday following. Ile afterwards came down to Aylesbury
on the 13th, and he was told on the day following that the
prisoner was in the gaol. lie there saw the prisoner, and at
once recognised him.
Cross-examined by Mr. Kr:Lev—lf lie covered the phial
at all, it was with leather and not with paper. He had no
doubt that the prisoner was at that time affected as he stated
with varicose veins. Ile did not believe that Scheele's
prussic acid could be taken into the stomach and yet not
ascertained by the smell. He had mixed thirty drops of
Scheele's with eleven ounces, or nearly a tumbler full, of
porter, and the smell was slightly percepti-
ble. The bottle does not contain the quantity of
eleven ounces. It is the property of this acid while
it is volatilizing to give out a smell. He was aware that
apple-pips contained prussic acid. He saw fifteen small
apples tested by distillation, and then with sulphuric acid
and sulphate of iron. The quantity of prussic acid that re-
sulted was one grain and one-fifth.
Mr. Smythe, clerk to Barnett, Hoare, and Co., examined
—The prisoner had been in the habit of banking with them.
On Wednesday, the Ist January, he came between two and
three o'clock, and drew a cheque for 141. Paid him in gold.
His account was overdrawn at that date. He believed the
paper shown him to be his handwriting. (The paper re-
ferred to was a prescription for varicose veins.)
Cross-examined—There was not the slightest objection to
his overdrawing his account.
A letter was handed to the witness, which he thought was
in the handwriting of the prisoner. The letter was addressed
to Mrs. Hart, 93, Crawford-street, Pertman-square, and was
as follows :
" Dear Friend,—l wish to inform you that I expect to be
at home in a fortnight and therefore you had better not
write to me.—Your friend, "A. HART."
Mary Ann Moss—Witness lived with Sarah Hart, at 93,
Crawford-street, Bryanston-square, about four years
since. She was pregnant when she went there, and a
child was born in March, 1841. The only person
who used to visit her was the prisoner. He came about
once in six weeks, or perhaps oftener. The deceased
lived in Crawford-street about twelve months, and then
went to Farrington-green, where she lived twelve months.
She then went to Bath-place, at Slough, and witness called
on her about eight or nine months before her death. When
the prisoner first came to Crawford street, he asked if there
was a person living there the name of Hart. She heard him,
and said " Here I am ; it's all right." She had, at first, a back
room furnished, but she aftewards bought furniture
herself for the front-room. She saw a parcel once come to the
deceased, and the prisoner called afterwards, and asked " if
it was all right." Witness observed that she had got some
blankets. When Mrs. Hart was confined, the prisoner called
upon her, and went into her room alone. The last time she
saw the deceased was in October last. She had not seen the
prisoner for a long time before.
Mrs. Bacon, the wife of a carpenter in Gray's Inn-lane.
She knew Sarah hart before sho went into the prisoner's
service, about six years. She was taken upon witness's re-
commendation to nurse the first Mrs. Tawell. She then
went by the name of Hadler. Witness noticed that when
she lived with prisoner after his wife's death, she was in the
family-way. That was in April, 1839. Witness recollected
that once at tea, in Mr. Tawell's house, the deceased sat down
by the side of her. Witness said, " I know what you are
going to say, and you had better begin." The prisoner said
he was about to be married to Sarah Cutmore (his present
wife), and it would be greatly against him to have the affair
of Sarah's being in the family-way spoken of. He bid Sarah
'not to excite herself, and she said that from that day she
would be dead to the world—no one should know anything
about her—not even her own mother.
Grace Radler sworn—The deceased was her daughter, and
was, when she last saw her, living with Mr. Tawell. She
never heard of her after leaving Bridge-street till this
occurred.
That was the case for the prosecution.
The jurymen were allowed some short time for refreshment.
On their re-assembling, and their names being called over,
Mr. F. KELLY commenced his speech in defence of the
prisoner, appearing to be much affected, for tears stood in his
eyes' as in a low tone he declared that he rose to address them
under a pressure of responsibility which he was scarcely able
to bear, and he hoped that they would pardon him, if, feeling
that deeply, ho betrayed anything like a momentary weak-
ness. He trusted they would pardon hint, also, if he ven-
tured to say that they themselves had to discharge the most
important duty which, perhaps, had ever devolved upon
them, and that they must proceed to the discharge of that
duty under a weight of responsibility more awful and terrible
than even that which oppressed him. For, if he had not
misunderstood the solemn and important-case before them, if
he should not be able to impress them with what he conscien-
tiously believed to be the true nature of that case, they would
feel that they were called upon for the first time to send to
his last account one who stood at the bar a living and breath-
ing man before them, not upon sworn evidence, nor upon the
truth of any facts whatsoever, but depending wholly upon
theory, or resting wholly and entirely upon what was to be
found loosely and inaccurately reported in books. He would
show them that if they acted upon such evidence, they
might commit one of the most fatal mistakes, one from which
they would shrink with horror, when called upon to deal
with the life of a fellow-man. It was not for him to vindi-
cate the faults of the unfortunate man at the bar; while on
the one hand he was deeply unfortunate in many respects, on
the other he was equally blameable, his conduct being such
as it was impossible to justify. But while he made that ad-
mission, he implored the jury, as they regarded their future
happiness,' to beware, lest, that for want of a just distinction
between right and wrong, they should confound facts, how-
ever blameable, with one far exceeding them in horror and
guilt, and from which he hoped, after he should have brought
the facts under their review, they would acquit him. Al-
though the honourable care and caution of his Learned Friend
had led him to abstain from anything that might press unfairly
against the accused, the jury must have learned from the
public newspapers that he had committed in early life an
offence against the laws; but since that ho had atoned
for his offence by a life of industry, kindness, and
bounty. That fact was the key to many of the subter-
fuges and evasions which had marked his conduct in con-
nexion with this charge. Having been banished from his
country for his early offence, he had recovered his standing
in society, and down to the present moment enjoyed the
respect and esteem of many friends, while he had acquired
some amount of worldly wealth. He (Mr. Kelly) would
show that the alleged motive for committing the crime of
murder, that of embarrassed circumstances and inability to
continue a pecuniary payment, did not exist. He would
show, also, that witnesses for the prosecution came prepared
to support mere matters of theory, speculation, and opinion,
and that their evidence, although given under the sanction of
an oath, was not of any weight. He would show, too, that
the indefensible language and conduct of the accused, in
connexion with this .case may be accounted for on other
grounds than that of his haying been guilty of murder.
Before the prosecution could call upon the jury to condemn
the prisoner to death, it must be proved that the deceased
died of poison, and that that poison was prussic acid taken
into the stomach. The evidence was not only defective, but
entirely so divested of that certainty which should
be infused into the mind, but which must become
part of the constitution of the mind itself in a case
of this kind, that the jury must pause before they thought of
convicting the prisoner of the crime of murder. Ile quite
agreed with his Learned Friend that direct evidence could not
always be expected to prove a charge of murder; but, upon
the question that the woman died of poison, the jury were
bound to demand positive and direct evidence. In the case
of murder by strangling or wounding, circumstantial evi-
dence might suffice, but not in a case of poison. Formerly
convictions and executions had taken place for the murder of
persons afterwards found to be alive. Now, that could not
be the case; the jury must be made certain of the fact ofdeath
by irrefragable evidence. It was the duty of the prosecation
not only to prove the death, but the cause of the death, in a
case of this kind; and upon that principle he called upon
the jury to have, before they sent the prisoner to a horrid
and ignominious death, evidence that the woman died of
taking prussic acid. What were the jury called upon to be-
lieve? A woman in health, as it appeared, had died suddenly,
and the prosecutor asked the jury to take away the life of
the prisoner on the supposition that she had died from prus-
sic acid, and not from any one of the numerous causes of
sudden death. If ever there was a case in which the blessed
principle of our law should be regarded, that there should be
positive proof of guilt, this was the case. Suppose it was
stated that a person was poisoned by laudanum—would the
jury convict, or the judge suffer the case to go to the jury,
when they heard from the witness for the prosecution, " I
never knew a case of a person dying from taking that
drug?" No, they would ask for some one who could speak
of the effects of laudanum upon the human system of
his own knowledge, and not from what he had read in
books. Those witnesses were irresponsible ; yet they called
upon the jury to sacrifice that man upon the ground only
of what they had read in books, and not upon that of
actual experience. Unhappily this country was not without
experience on this subject. It appeared that of 39 cases,
in no great length of time, poisoned by prussic acid. only
two had been charged with murder, and of all the medical
men who had seen and examined all these cases the prosecu-
tion had brought one. Thore were many of such witnesses
who could have deposed to whether there was a smell or
not a smell {titer death, or whether there was a scream or
no scream, or gorged lungs or not; instead of being left to
the uncertain opinions of Mr. Champneys, Mr. Norblad, and
Mr. Pickering, three very yonng and inexperienced men,
of little practice, where opinions did net agree with each
other, and who never saw man, woman, or child who had
been poisoned by prussic acid. It appeared from their evi-
dence that there were doubts, only doubts, as to the quantity
of prussic acid necessary to cause death, and as to all the
effects and operation of the poison, the opinions of the wit-
nesses not being derived from experience, but being founded
on books, containing conflicting opinions and partially re
ported experiments. There was no positive evidence of Abe
quantity of poison in the stomach of the deceased, nor of the
source whence it was derived. What was the quantity suffi-
cient to cause death? That was a question upon which the
jury had to make up their minds at the very outset. Ac-
cording to the published statistics the number of sudden
deaths was 1 in 99 ; so that there were about 3,000 sudden
deaths in the course of a,3-ear. here was a woman died
suddenly, and it was said of prussic acid. How much was
there in the stomach ? Witnesses could prove the quantity
of arsenic or opium sufficient to cause death ; but science was
in the dark with regard to prussic acid. Would that jury
be the first to decide such a question in the absence of posi
tive evidence, and resting only upon the opinions of persons
who had formed them from reading books, and knew no

TRIAL OF JOHN TAWELL.

AYLESBURY, THUZSDAY.
(Before Mr. Baron PARKE.)
The Court resumed this morning at a few minutes before
nine o'clock. The entrance to the Court-house was crowded
to a dense degree, and it was with considerable difficulty
an entrance could be effected.
The prisoner when placed in the dock seemed particularly
nervous. He paid marked attention to the evidence, and
particularly to the cross-examination of the witnesses by
Mr. Fitzroy Kelly.
Mr. Cooper, the chemist of London, was the first witness
called, and he was examined at eonsiderable length by Mr.
Sergeant Byles, with reference to his experiments on the
contents of the deceased's stomach, which bad been sub-
mited to him in order to test the existence of poison.
He found in the stomach of deceased the pips of some
apples. He discovered in the seeds of those apples a
quantity of prussic acid. He did not think that any balance
could measure the quantity of the poison. There was just
as much as would colour the bottom of the phial. To the
best of his ability the bottle originally contained
more than a grain of prussic acid (the bottle con-
tained the contents' of the stomach). The quantity
was a grain at the time of the second examination
of the bottle—there might have been more at first. The pro-
bability was, that it would be so. The bottle was tested for
the second time on the Bth of February, about four weeks
after the first. He wits not enabled to say how much
prussic acid had been originally introduced into the stomach
before the contents were removed. A variety of circum-
stances might tend to decrease this quantity, as absorption
by the system, Sec.
Cross-examined by Mr. KELLY—He had never before that
time examined the contents of the human stomach where a
person bad been killed, or where prussic acid had been taken.
He had had a good deal of experience of the chemical proper-
ties of prussic acid. It had a peculiar smell, whether in its
strongest state as concentrated acid, or in its weakest form.
It affected the back of the throat in a peculiar manner. He
had met it more frequently in a diluted form, when combined
with water, than in its concentrated state. He had no per-
sonal experience of the quantity that would kilL His know-
ledge was drawn from books.
Baron PARKE—The least quantity that would kill was
that he thought mentioned yesterday in the case in the
French hospital.
By Mr. KELLY—He began his investigation with the
view of ascertaining the presence of oxalic acid. When he
tested the contents of the stomach he took various portions
for the purpose of discovering the presence of various poisons.
(The witness then detailed his mode of testing it.) He did not
discover the smell of prussic acid en first testing the con-
tents of the stomach. The smell of beer was the most pre-
dominant. When his experiments had failed to discover the
other forms of poison, he directed all his skill to discover the
existence of prussic acid. On the second examination, on
the Bth of February, he took a great deal more care than on
the previous examination. This was a test of quantity, not
of quality. The quantity actually obtained was one grain
and forty-three hundredths of a grain of prussic acid. One
hundred and thirty-six grains of cyanite of silver was
equivalent to twenty-seven grains of hydrocyanic acid. The
stomach of deceased contained some undigested flesh, the
apples he had already mentioned, and a pulpy mass, of which
he could make nothing. He did not see the apple pips, but
knowing that that tribe would yield prussic acid, he after-
wards tested them. He was not aware that sweet almonds
would yield prussic acid ; the bitter almond certainly
would. He made an experiment, on two separate
occasions, on different kinds of apples, and ex-
tracted a little prussic acid from both. The test was
simply placing the pips in a retort with water, and
distilling it. He then added to the distilled liquor a little
sulphate of iron, and the contents of the other phial on the
table was the result. He did not think it necessary to crush
the pips; the distillation was the only test. He thought that
no substance contained pure prussic acid.
Mr. KELLY—HOW do you reconcile that with your
former statement respecting bitter almonds? Witness—
His opinion was that prussic acid was so extremely
volatile, that if it existed in a free state it mint be conti-
nually evaporating, and it could not therefore exist unless
combined with some other substances. Animal substances
contained prussic acid. He would not say that it was likely
to be produced by a change in organic matter. As far as he
was aware of, he was himself the first discoverer of prusaic
acid in apple-pips. He was not aware that if apple-pips were
macerated, that they would yield more hydrocyanic acid.
Mr. KELLY quoted from " Taylor on Poisons," to the effect
that the odour of prussic acid was present when the poison
itself was not existent. Did Mr. Cooper agree in that opinion ?
Witness—l do not.
By Mr. BYLEs—Before the trial he communicated to the
prisoner's solicitor what his evidence would be.
By Mr. Baron PARKE—After all the experiments he
had made, he had no doubt of the presence of prussic
acid in the stomach. The absence of smell might be
accounted for by its dilution, or by its odour being
covered by that of other substances. It did not
follow that the prussic acid should be in the form of salt. He
had never stated that it was in the form of salt. In his
opinion it could not exist in the stomach as a cyanite of
potassium, where another and more powerful acid, as muri-
atic acid, was present in the stomach in considerable quan-
tities. He was not of opinion that prussic acid eould be
formed in the contents of the stomach by putrefaction.
Joseph Cooper, jun., was son of last witness, and had been
his assistant for four years. He smelt the prussic acid in
the course of these experiments at the time his father did.
Charlotte Howard—Was servant with Mrs. Gilbert at
Streatham. She was at Salt-hill on the 26th December,
1843, and became acquainted with deceased. Witness was in
the family-way:, and had a child at her house. Daring the
time she remained there (four months) Tawell came there
twice. At the end of September in the following year she
was there to see her child, and Mr. Tawell came there. Mrs.
Hart let him in. She did not see him. She knew his voice. He
remained about ten minutes. She was told by Mrs. Hart to
go and get a bottle of stout. She brought it and Mrs. Hart
afterwards came out of the room and told her to go for a
sheet of paper. She went and returned with the sheet of
paper. Mrs. Hart was then in the back room and Mr.
Tawell was in the front room. She went then into the room
where he was. He went away in about a quarter of an hour
afterwards. She saw Mrs. Hart again soon afterwards. She
was very ill, and said, " Oh, I'm so ill. I was obliged
to tell my master to go, for I can scarce stand." She looked
very pale and sick. She looked dreadfully ill. She was
very well all day before witness went for the paper. She
retched very much, and went up stairs to bed. She retched
there very much. She said "she had drank only a little glass
of porter and it made her very sick." Witness then went to
the room below and found Li sovereigns, which she took
care of. She saw on the table some of the porter she
had fetched; it was not quite gone. She and the children
drank the porter that was left in the bottle, and it did not
injure them is the least. She (Mrs. Mart) remained in bed
and complained of her head.
By Mr. KELLY—There were three children in the house,
two of Mrs. Hart's and witness's child. Mrs. Hart was not
receiving medical advice at the time.
Edward Weston Norblad, surgeon at Stroud.—He had
practised for ten years. On Thursday, the 2d of January,
he went with Mr. Champneys to Mrs. Hart's house. He
saw the body of the deceased there. He bad heard the evi-
dence of Mr. Champneys, and he would infer the existence of
poison if death had suddenly followed the matter taken into
the stomach. He would attribute the very sudden death of
this person to one of two poisons—either prussic acid or oxalic
acid. He was present at the two first examinations of the
contents of the stomach. Mr. Cooper had correctly
stated the tests he had applied, and he (witness)
agreed with him in the inference he drew there-
from. Oxalic acid must have been detected if it contained that
acid. He had no doubt that prussic acid was in the stomach,
and he attributed the death of deceased to that cause. He
had heard the account of the last witness of what took place
life
bine
netro on in
the October,
whole of an d
theth animal the
einPtecinr eae t iwo ne re .
the same manner in all. He had himself tried experiments
upon animals. He had seen goats, cats, and dogs poisoned.
He had especially tried experiments upon doge. He had
administered to two dogs, some hours after feeding them—to
slutchdeti
one of them beer containing half an ounce of Scheele's, and
to the other one drachm of prussic acid. He gave it them at
seven in the evening, and the effect was, that in 50 seconds
the dog which had received the smaller dose fell, and
in ten minutes he died. The second died in half the time.
He opened the bodies of the dogs eighteen hours after
death, the same period at which the deceased was opened,
and he could ascertain no smell of prussic acid. On opening
the stomachs of the dogs the prevalent smell was that of
some beer. The food was but half-digested. He should have
expected a smell of prussic acid in the case of a person who
had died in a quarter of an hour after its being administered.
He attributed the absence of smell to the admixture with the
stout. He had examined the body of Mrs. Hart, and he would
on opening the body have expected to find the cause
of death, and if prussic acid had not existed in the stomach
he had no doubt he could have traced some other cause. The
body was perfectly healthy. He was much in the habit of
opening bodies, and he was satisfied that less than one grain
would cause death.

SIR JAMES GRAHAM'S NEW MEDICAL
BILL.

A PUBLIC MEETING of the ASSOCIATION of GENERAL
PRACTITIONERS i■ MEDICINE, SURGERY, end MIDWIFERY,
will be held at the Hanover-square Rooms, on FRIDAY NEXT, the 14th
instan , to which every General Practitioner is specially invited, for
the purpose of receiving the REPORT of the PROVISIONAL COM-
MITTEE, and of adopting such resolutions thereon as may be deemed
expedient.

ROYAL POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTION.
In daily operation, a Curious MECHANICAL HAND, on a
person who has lost his natural hand. PHILLIPS'S PATENT
FIRE ANNIHILATOR, illustrated by Dr. Ryan in his daily Che-
mical Lecture on the Morning and Evening of MONDAYS.-1 Series
of LECTURES on ASTRONOMY by Professor Eachhollber, on the
Mornings and Evenings of Monday, Wednesday, and Friday,
daring Leat, accompanied by Dr. Wallis on BRAEY'd CALOTONE.
Working Models of Now Inventions are daily explained. NEW
DISSOLVING VIEWS, including the SHRINE of the NATIVITY.
CHILDE'S CHROMATROPE. THE PHYSIOSCOPE. 31I-
CROSCOPE. DIVING BELL and DIVER,
Admission, Is. ; Schools, Half-price.

_
R. R. PENNINGTON, Esq., In the Chair.
The Chair will be taken at Six o'clock precisely.
By order of the Provisional Committee,
JAMES BIRD, Honorary
HENRY ANCELL, 3 Secretaries.
4, Hanover-square, March 11, 1845.

PROVISIONALLY REGISTERED,

G RESHAM AVENUE ASSOCIATION,
Capital 300,0001., in Shares of 1001. each.
Deposit Ws. per Share, being the extent allowed under the 7th and Bth

Victoria.

Notice is hereby given, that the original plan of raising the capital
of the Association by nominee shares, subject to a deferred or rever-
sionary interest contingent upon life, having been found liable to ob-
jection in Parliament as involving the principle of a Tontine, the
Provisional Committee have decided upon altering that part of their
plan, and now notify that the capital will be raised by the issue of
ordinary shares of 1001. each, and that the whole of the net rental
will be divided annually amongst the Proprietors.
Subscribers who have paid their deposits upon the plan originally
announced, are requested to signify their assent or dissent to
the transfer of their subscriptions to the amended scheme on et'
before Monday, the 94th Inst., when dissentients may receive back
their deposits, without deduction.
Applications will be received for the unappropriated shares until
Monday, the 24th inst., when the same will be allotted.
Prospectuses may be had on application to Messrs. Sutton, Gribble,
and Co., Cornhill ; Messrs. Bischoff and Cox, Coleman-street ' • and
at the Office, No. 30, Bucldersbary, London ; Robert Allan, Esq.,.
Edinburgh ; Messrs. M'Ewen and Auld, Glasgow ; and Herbert C.
Langton, Liverpool.

VAUXHALL COMPOSITE _ CANDLES,
6d. per doe.
PRICE'S PATENT CANDLES, 10s. ed. per doe.
GENUINE WAX CANDLES, 28s. per doe.
These three sorts of Candles are all precisely alike in their burn-
ing qualities, but the Vauxhall Composites are rather softer than
the Price's Patent, and thence the difference in price. Even those
who are compelled to study economy alone, should burn them in pre•
&rano* to Tallow Dips.
Patent Cocoa Nut Lamp Oil, warranted equal la eyed respect to
the finest Sperm, 4s. per gallon.
WM. MARCHANT, 253, Regent-circus, Oxford-street.

LONDON AND YORK RAILWAY.
The Board of Trade having given notice of it* intention to
report to Parliament against the London and York Railway, the
Committee of Direction deem it right at once to inform the Share-
holders and the public that it is their determination to proceed with
their Bill, which has been read a second time, immediately on the
meeting of the Parliamentary Committee after Easter.

The Committee of Direction beg further to express their convic-
tion that when—as in the case of the London and York line—the
towns and districts through which a Railway is laid out are urgent
and unanimous, and capitalists have subscribed the money for its
construction, Parliament will not refuse the requisite sanction, for
the sake of protecting existing Railways, which neither afford the
same local accommodation, nor are so direct in their course.

J. R. 310WATTc SeCretary,

7, Lothbury, March 12, 180.

Cross -examined by Mr. Ksu.v—He had never attended
any one who had taken prussic acid. When taken as
a medicine, the ordinary quantity was, of Scheele's,
five minims, or drops. Prussic acid, he thought, might
with advantage be used in varicose affections. He
agreed with Dr. Thomson, of London, that, ex-
ternally applied, prussic acid might be found useful in cance-
rous diseases. He had the sense of smell very acutely, and he
could not detect the smell of the acid in the stomachs of the dogs.
The dogs were kept in an outhouse after they were dead, and
before they were opened. He tried these experiments on the
dogs on the 18th Feb. succeeding the death of the deceased.
Headache and vomiting frequently followed a disorder of the
stomach occasioned by ssmething being taken into it. The
quantity vomited bore no proportion to the quantity taken
into the stomach. He had given medicinal doses of prussic
acid to allay irritation of the stomach.
Mr. KELLY—In the whole course of your experience
did you ever find vomiting produced by prosaic acid ?—I
have seen doge affected to vomiting.
Mr. KELLY—I speak of the human being.
Witness (emphatically)—The stomach of the dog is ex-
actly similar to that of the human being.
Mr. KELLY—You speak very dogmatically, but I would
wish a plain answer to a direct question. Have you, Sir,
in the course of your experience, seen vomiting from the
stomach of a human being induced by prussic acid ?—No ; I
have not.

of immorality, and if the prisoner had tu. bitterly repeated
it, he had at least bitterly sutlered for itt already. He al-
lowed that woman about 1/. a week. Would the saving of
that sum be a sufficient reason with a person in his circum-
stances to commit murder? And would it be politic in him
to destroy her, and bring. upon himself the care of bringing
up his children, and of Introducing them perhaps into the
family of his present wife? Then, as to his circumstances,
the evidence of the banker's clerk had shown that they were
not embarrassed. That he was still a man of kindly dis-
position, his ['resent wife could prove, but she could not be
called as a witness. However, a letter was put in on the
previous day, which was a witness in his favour, and which
he would read to the jury. It was written on the Ist of
January, the very day on which it was supposed he was
actually about to commit murder :—" My only loved one,—
My theughts have been with thee throughout the day, and I
can't but hope thou art feeling better than when thou left
us. Do, my endeared one, endeavour to keep up thy spirits
for my Jake." No woman could ever write in thou terms to

Two witnesses were then examined, but they established
no important fact, and added nothing new to the evidence
already adduced.
Henry Thomas, chemist, Bishopsgate-street—lle remem-
bered Wednesday, the Ist of January, perfectly well. He
saw the prisoner on that day between twelve and two, at his
shop. He asked for two drachms of Scheele's prussic acid.
He brought a half-ounce phial, labelled " Scheele's prussic
acid." He gave that bottle to put the prussic acid in. The
phial had a glass stopper. Witness could not get the stopper
out, and was in consequence obliged to give him a stopper of
his own. lie thought the prisoner said, " You need not
put a label ou ;" but the circumstance was so common
that he did not pay any attention to it. He said he wanted
to apply the acid externally to a varicose vein. (The book
in which the entry was marked was produced.) Witness