Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1871-08-11
The CASE OF BORGiA NO. 6.
The Jury Conclude that Buffenbarger was
Poisoned.

COLUMBUS, o., August 10.-The in.
vestigation by the Coroner in the
BuffenbRrger poisoning case closed
today, and the jury returned the fol-
lowing verdict: "After hearing the
tertimOny we, the jury, do find and
say that arsenic was administered to
the deceased, Peter Buffenbarger, by
some person or persons unknown"
Prof. Wormley and DIR. Collins were
the only material witnesses examined.
The following is the substance of Prof.
WOrmley's testimony: son the 18th
Of February last l received from the
Coroner and DR.. Sprague, of Lon
don, two jars, said to contain
the stomach and liver of a human
subject; at the time of receiving
the jars | made no critical eX-
animation; they YER retained
in a safe place until the
18th of May last, when | commenced
an examination; the shoppers of the
jars were in their place, tied with
tWine, and sealed with sealing-WaX
owe the tW inc; | opened the jars, and
first made 2 physical examination of
the contents; in the larger jar | found
a mass OF matter which, on minute
examination, proved to be a stomach,
and a large mass Of which is known
as Omentum; the stomach was entire,
the tissues being well preserved; the
structure of the other organs was we'll
preserved, but at first it was difficult
to make out the separate parts; in the
other jar found what appeared to be
remnants of liver; the structure
was well preserved; within
the gall bladder there was some mat
ter apparently in the form of gall.
After thus making 4 physical eXami-
nation, l proceeded to make a chemi-
cal examination of the contents sep.
arately; the parts tirsteXamined were
the contents of the smaller jar; these
were cut into small pieces and eX-
tracted with diluted hydro chloric
acid until the tissue was entirely
broken up; the solution thus obtained
was examined chemically for poison
Gus substances; in this solution | de-
tected a very minute quantity OF ar
senic, but quite sufficient to establish
its presence beyond all doubt. The
solids were very carefully preser we'd; /
the next step in the analysis was with
reference to the contents of the large
jar which contained the stomach
and a mass of matter; the SOL
ids were cut into small pieces
and also extracted with diluted
chloric acid, and the liquid
separated from the remaining solids.
A chemical examination of the liquid
or extract thus obtained showed the
presence of arsenic in decidedly larger
quantities than was found in the liver. |
l may remark that the quantity was
large enough to enable Identification
by different tests. The next step was
with the solids of the liver, now dis
by the acid. These were re.
examined from the fact that diluted
chloric acid will not always
all the arsenic that might be
present, nor would it extract any
arsenic which had passed into the
form of sulphuric. These solids were
now treated so as to take up all the
arsenic, and at the final extract exami-
the extract thus obtained was
to contain an obvious quantity
of arsenic, there being sufficient pres
ent that one eighth part of the final
would furnish positive evil
aence of the presence of poison. This
final extract was examined by three
different tests, all of which proved
cOnclusively the presence Of poison.
The solids from the stomach, now
dissolved by the acid, were not
so As to take up arsenic, if
present in any form under which it
exist. The examination of the
thus obtained did not furnish a
trace of arsenic. That concluded the
chemical examination.
Question by the COrOner-ls it
possible to introduce arsenic in the
liver after death?
A,-Yes; answering in general
terms.
Odd you recover sufficient
arsenic to cause death?
Al did not, that is, under Ordi-
nary circumstances.
Q.-Might there have been any
more arsenic in the body at the time
Of death than you recovered?
Ayes.
Q.-It there was any more what
became of it?
Al could not say what became of
It; there may be a large quantity in
body at the time OF death and 1t
nay entirely disappear. The finding
Of a small quantity is not proof that
here was not a large quantity at the
5ime OF death, neither is it proof that
was q large quantity.
At this hour, II O'Clock, the jury
adjourned till u o'clock pm. After
he close OF Prot. Wormley's testi-
nOnY other testimony was introduced
moving that the organs examined by
Wormley were taken from the body of
Peter Baffenbarger. The evidence of
DR.. Collins did not vary from the
statement sent on Monday night.
The credit of the city of New York
its own against all attacks.
Rothchilds' offering of three millions
If city bonds in Frankfort received
bids for ten millions at six per cent.