The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1843-04-07 00:00:00

toms. In cases of irritant poisons it comes on immediately.
I have seen cholera commence with colapse as a first symp-
tom, but generally preceded by diarrlicea during the day. I
have known no instance of colapse within an hour. The
ilium is generally more effected than the jejunum. I have
never tested arsenic, and authors differ on the point. I be-
lieve it to be acrimonious. I had difficulty in tindiug pulsa-
tion at all on my first visit to the patient. On my succeed-
ing visits he was pulseless altogether. If the vomiting and
purging had ceased on Friday night, 1 should have expected
re-action would have taken place.
Cross-examined.---I first called on deceased about three
o'clock. I apologized to his wife for not coming sooner.
She said he was surprised I had not come before, or words
to that effect. I can't say she said she was sorry I had not
come sooner. I have not changed my opinion on this sub-
ject. When I went a second time deceased said he was
better. He said he was purged and sick after taking his
supper, but did not say immediately. (The deposition of
the witness before the coroner was here put in and read. It
appeared that witness had then said that the prisoner had
said she was sorry he had not come sooner.) The vomitings
and purgings had ceased when I went there. I thought it an
aggravated case of English cholera. In Asiatic cholera, sharp
features, sunk eyes, cold breath. He had a remarkable ex-
pression of anxiety, being distressed by violent vomiting. I
could not distinguish by one symptom. He bad no pain as
in peretonytus. There was no hernia. All species of violent
vomiting would produce the same anxiety of appearance and
prostration. He appeared to be about 35 years of age. Sup-
posing his stomach disordered by eating herrings, and fat
beef and carrots, vomiting might be caused by taking porridge
afterwards, but that does not correspond with the other
symptoms. I believe the medicines prescribed were given
regularly to him. Up to Sunday I believed it to be com-
mon cholera, and then thought it was a very mys-
terious case. I know a little of cases of arsenic. I
had no suspicion it was arsenic, until I beard on Tuesday
that the prisoner had purchased some gastro interitus acutus.
The alkalis given him would have had a good effect in a
case of arsenic. I can't tell whether the acids would have
destroyed the effect of the alkalis on the arsenic. He told
me he was costive, but that was from the disease. Gastro
interitus accutus is a continuous inflammation of the stomach
and intestinal canal. There would be heat and dryness of the
throat—excessive thirst—the eyes an expression of pain and
anxiety. The complexion would be sallow. Hunter was
always sallow. In that disease he would have pain. It
sometimes attacks very suddenly, but always with previous
symptoms. If Martinet (a good authority) says it comes on
suddenly I would still exercise my own judgment, unless I
saw a distinct case. Spasms and pains would result. Stupor
and prostration of strength would follow after some time.
The urine would be defective. The deceased's tongue was
moist, not dry. He had no tension of the abdomen as in
gastric diseases. The inflammation of arsenic is generally
more confined to the stomach. than the inflammation of
gastro interite, which generally extends to others of the in-
testines. The patches in the deceased's stomach were of a
dark red colour. They were more red than florid. The
edges were distinct, and no appearance of searing or burning.
Red patches have been observed after death from natural
diseases, and even when there was no previous disease in the
stomach. There was a thick sanguineous fluid in the stomach.
The asaphagus at the lower part was inflamed. I should
say there were some appearances of poison. Not such as
common disease would produce. The soft state of the

mucous membrane of the stomach might appear after cholera
and other diseases. The bladder is corrogated in cholera.
It may arise from natural disease. If I had never heard of
any suspicion of arsenic at all, from what I saw of the de-
ceased on the post-mortem examination, I should medically
and confidently believe that death arose from arsenic. The
best authorities say that death may be caused by arsenic, and
none of it be found. I found no appearance of arsenic. The
whole of the stomach and bowels were analysed, and no ar-
senic was discovered. Ido not know of any case in which
arsenic has produced death, and arsenic could not be found,
in so short a period as between Friday and Monday. Four
grains and a half have been known to destroy a child. But
the best authorities give 20 to 30 grains. If such a quantity
was taken in six table-spoonfuls of milk porridge, a very
small part only would be in solution. If in solution, it
would produce secondary symptoms. If not in solution, it
would be ejected by the vomiting. I remarked the body was
less decomposed than I expected. I attributed this in some
degree to the preservative nature of the arsenic on the cor-
poreal tissue. If the arsenic prevented decomposition, it
must have been absorbed. I cannot speak positively to this.
I gave him laudanum. It would not have prevented the pain
arising from arsenic. Where pain exists from arsenic, the
pain generally continues to the end of life. The pain of
arsenic generally returns as acutely as before. Supposing
pain, such as that described which Turner endured in the
shoulders, &c., I cannot say with certainty whether it would
not continue; but I believe that is the opinion of the best
authorities. Arsenous acid may adhere more or less to the
mucous membrane. It adheres more closely than a piece of
potato. If the arsenic remained long enough in the stomach
to cause death, I would expect it to be found, but it was not
found.

Re-examined.—l don't recollect the prisoner asking me
anything about the progress of the deceased's illness. Ar-
senic will terminate in gastro interite, if it does not cause
death. He had no pain as in gastro interite. The liver,
heart, and brain were perfectly healthy. In my estimation
the patches were produced by irritation causing inflamma-
tion. They might proceed from the arsenic after absorption.
I attribute the death to inflammation from some foreign
irritant body. From the combination of symptoms carefully
revised I cannot help thinking that it was arsenic. I cannot,
after due reflection, come to any other conclusion.
Thomas Wilson Dyson, sworn.—l am a surgeon in Man-
chester. I have been in practice about 8 years. lam a
member of the College of Surgeons. I assisted at the post
mortetn examination. I can come to no other conclusion than
that of Mr. Harrison—that death was caused by the introduc-
tion of some substance, and arsenic was the most probable.
After the examination of the body, the conclusion I came to
was that deceased had taken arsenic. I did know of the pre-
vious symptoms, and taking these with the post mortem
examination, my opinion is more strong that arsenic was the
cause of death. I judge from the extreme inflammation of
the mucus membrane of the stomach and bowels, the great
degree of softness of the membrane, the spots suffused, the
great number of points of abration throughout the stomach
and intestines, which were most present in these parts,
which in cases of natural disease are most free, and from the
quantity of red sanguineous appearances. The rectum was
inflamed. The whole of the large as well as small intestines
were inflamed, which rarely takes place in disease of the
stomach and small intestines. I found the bladder firmly
contracted and empty. 1 have attended six cases of poison-
ing from arsenic. The symptoms were distinct and similar
to the those cases, but more severe. I accoui.t for the
absence of the arsenic from the stomach and bowels, either
from evacuation by vomitting, purging, or from its absorp-
tion into the system. It might be carried away from the sys-
tem in 2or 3 days, in various ways. It would probably take
a week or two, or perhaps more, to remove all traces.
It is doubtful whether all traces would be taken out of the
body in three days. I have read much on poisons. My
reading assists me to come to the conclusion at which I have
arrived.

Cross-examined.—l heard from Mr. Harrison that poison
was suspected. I believe it probable that I heard all the par-
ticulars: I expected to find the appearances stated. I have
no motives of attaining notoriety by decisive testimony on
this prosecution. I never said that I once said that 1 would
give strong evidence and hang the woman, and that I would
take the shine out of Dr. Harrison. I never had any-con-
versation with a surgeon named Worthington, or in his pre-
sence. I have inspected six cases ; I have not inspected one-
third the cases that have taken place in Manchester in the
last two years. (Witness produced a list of seventeen cases
since 1839 in Manchester.) In the six cases I inspected I
found arsenic in all of them. In every case it was taken
in substance, varying from a quarter of an ounce to an ounce.
It would be held in suspension in boiling milk more than
in boiling water. In six or seven table-spoonfulls more
than thirty grains would be dissolved,—the whole of it
The medicines given would render it more soluble. (Here
some questio❑ was put from a celebated authority relative to
gastro interitus acctus, to which the witness medically re-
plied.) If the patient lived after taking arsenic from Friday
to Monday night, there would be more extensive inflamation.
I knew cases of arsenic in which the patient has survived six
days, and still arsenic has been found ; but not in cases in
which it was taken in solution. I account for the arsenic
disappearing in this case to the alkalis administered, promo-
ting its evacuation or absorption. I have tasted milk in
which arsenic was boiled. It scarcely altered the taste of the
milk, and I took very little. I dont think it would a taste,
but as soon as it passed the gullet a sensation of heat would
be felt.

Mr. PoLLocx stated in effect to the witness in explanatory
terms, that the questions he had put to him, which had natu-
rally elicited strong contradictory replies as affecting him
(the witness) were suggested solely from his instructions;
that lie considered it his duty to the unfortunate individual
whom he defended to put them ; and that he (Mr. P.) him-
self entertained no animosity or want of respect to that gen-
tleman.

Mr. Dyson, as we understood from his manner, acquitted
the learned gentleman of any intention of offering a personal
offence.

The learned JUDGE said that the learned gentleman was
quite right, in accordance with his instructions, in putting
the questions alluded to; and that no offence ought to be
taken on that account.

Mr. Dyson, in reply to Mr. Wilkins, said—" There is not
a shadow of a shade of truth in the imputation conveyed by
the questions alluded to."

It being now past seven o'clock, the learned judge pro-
posed that as there seemed to be no chance of time case
coining to a conclusion that evening, it might be desirable to
adjourn until to-morrow.

Mr. WILKINS said that as they had still a number of wit-
nesses, besides medical gentlemen, to call, such an arrange-
ment would probably be agreeable to his learned brother,
who would have his notes to arrange, as it would be to ii I • n -
self.

Mr. POLLOCK expressed his assent, as the case for the
prosecution would, he learned, occupy a considerable time.
The Court was then adjourne(l till nine [hie reorni.s ; his
Lordship stating that the grand ljury,would be accomodated
at the Adelphi for the night, and be under the care of three
bailiffs. They would, hawever, be made comfortable.
The Court then adjourned.

NISI PRIUS COURT-THURSDAY.

Before Mr. Justice COLTMAN

SAMUEL V. MORRIS.—Mr. Baines and Mr. Compton
ap-
peared for the plaintiff; Mr. Martin the defendant. The
declaration was for the use and occupation of certein premi-
ses belonging to the plaintiff in North John-street, Liver-
pool, and on an account stated.
The case, as shewn for the plaintiff, was as follows :—The
plaintiff, who is retired from business, is the owner of a shop
in North John-street, between Lord-street and Harrington-
street, which be let in 1836 to a person of the name of War-
burton, who carried on therein the business of a tailor.
Warburton became insolvent in 1811, and in the month of
May in that year he executed an assignment of all his estate
and effects, in trust for the benefit of his creditors, to the de-
fendant, Mr. Thomas Morris. Under that assignment the
defendant took possession of all the personal estate, of every
kind, of Warburton ; and it was contended that he had, there-
fore, become liable for the rent of the shop. Originally the
rent was £47 10s. a-year, but shortly before Warburton s in-
solvency it was increased to £57 10s., after which rate there
were now due three half-years' rent, amounting to £B6 ss.
The defendant had acknowledged his liability, under the
assignment, to the son of the plaintiff, and promised to pay,
but he had net. The plaintiff was indebted to Warburton for
clothes £6 15s. Bd. ; consequently £79 Os. 4d. were now due.
Mr. MARTIN, for the defendant, said, he should put in
the assignment made by Warburton to the defendant, which
would show that the term in the lease had not been assigned,
but only the stock in trade, book and other debts, and
monies: He therefore contended that the action was not
maintainable, on the ground that the term was not assigned;
and further, that an assignee could not be sued for use and
occupation ' and that no sufficient proof of occupation by the
defendant had been given.

The assignment was then put in and read ; and the nephew
of the defendant was called, .010 stated that he had heard
his uncle deny his liability to pay the rent.
Mr. BAINES was about to reply, when the jury said they
would not give him the trouble, as they were of opinion there
had been a sufficient occupation.
A verdict was then returned for thi plaintiff for the amount
claimed; but on the application of Mr. Martiin, the Jndge
said he would give leave to move for a new trial on the legal
objections which had been raised on the part of the defen-
dant.

FIELDING AND OTHERS V. FAWCETT.—The declaratim
in this cue waa for work and labour done, and on an account