Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1872-10-31
THE LLOYD CASE.


case draws to its close The arguments OF tour
of the six counsel are finished, and it is expect
cd that the case will be given to the jury to-
morrow, or at all events by Friday.
This morning as soon as the case was called
the court directed the clerk 10 read again the
formal charge ito the jury, found Id tRe'torm
books. The old form of the charge was amend
ued 50 as to conform to the new criminal code
adopted by the General Assembly, and then
read as amended. ~. ;.-..-..:.y ia.
John NJ. Orr, ESQ.,, made the opening state
ment before the jury. He commenced by max
ing some general observations upon the solemn
duties of juries and especially OF o jury trying
a case so serious in it's nature, as this Mr. Orr
then stated the main facts of'the case, On the
22d Of March last, the prisoner, Mrs Lloyd,
was living in a small house in the city, with
the child, Maud, three years of age: and col :,
ored servant Delphi, who was much attached
to both of them The child was taken ILL., and
and in forty'eight hours she was dead. The
child's guardian, Mr.. Orrlson, suggested to
Mrs Lloyd the propriety of an investigation
of the cause of death, but she declined until
Mr.. Orrison insisted upon it, and jury OF IN !.
quest was held and post-mortcm exarnlna-
tion was made The stomach of the child was
Bentley, who has since. died, and the Common
wealth can follow that stomach no longer, and
the analysis of it was not admitted as evidence.
The Jury of the county found an indictment
against her for murder. She appeared before
the County Court and elected to be tried In
this, the Circuit Court. The case has passed
all these ordeals, every one Of which is imposed
by the law as barrier against hasty accusations.
The charge was that Mrs. Lloyd administered
arsenic to her little daughter Maud, thereby
poisoning her.. The first inquiry was did she
die of arsencal poisoning; and the second was,
who administered that deadly drug? Mr..
Orr addressed himself to the symptoms OF the
fatal sickness of the child, and the history Of
that sickness. DR.. Mott did not suspect poison,
and thought death had resulted from intense
congestion of the stomach; but when the stom-
ach was taken out and held to the light, he
saw that there was no trace Of that disease
Mr.. Orr next read from Taylor on Posons,
in regard to the symptoms Of arsenical poison
ing, and dwelt upon their resemblance to the
symptoms of Maud Lloyds last illness. Of
the identity of the child's body the jury could
have no doubt, and the testimony on that point
had been sufficient. Prof. Tonry got from the
liver, kidneys and spleen eight.tenths of grain
of arsenic, and he knew, from previous tests,
that no trace of arsenic was in any of the chem
ieals used Prof Wormly had come from
Ohio, and Prot. Mallet from the University Of
Virginia. and both endorsed Prof Tonrys pro-
cess and his weights. The jury had then the
definite report of Prof. Tonry, and his endorse
nent by Prots. Wormley and Mallet, and,
on the other side, was only the indet-
mite statement Of three inexperienced persons.
Mr.. Orr read from Taylor on poisons, in re-
ference to the finding of a residue of arsenic IN
the stomach he then read from Christison,
10 reference to the value of the discovery OF ar
senic and said that in this case there was no
doubt about the presence Of arsenic, and the
only question raised was as to quantity. THE
defence charge that arsenic was ln the oarbolate
of lime used as disintectant, they should have
tested it, as they did the bismuth. The bur
den was uqon the defence to prove that arsenic
was 10 the carbolate of lime and their failure
to make the attempt showed that they did not
believe there was any arsenic in it. The de-
fence allege that they found arsenic in the bis
muth, and claimed that they got larger spots
than those shown by Prof Tonry. No attempt
was made to measure the quantity of arsenic iu
those spots Then, too, there is the remarka-
BILE fact that bismuth, in which Prof. Tonry
could find no arsenic, and which has been often
and recently prescribed without any delcterious
effects following, the experts for the defence
claimed to contain arsenic in it, and had assert
ed it positively. The State could not wiring
out of the experts for the defence an estimate
of the quantity of arsenic 10 the spots they eX-
hibited, and the highest quantity OF arsenic
known to have been discovered In bismuth is
one.sixth of one per cent, and Prot. Wormley
had so stated. That same bismuth had been
tested and used previously without giving
any trace of arsenic, and the whole effort of
the experts for the defence resolved itself
into guess. Professor Wilson had boosted
that they had gotten as much as Professor
Tonry and yet they had only guessed at it.
They used thirty grains of bisnluth, and got,
as Professor Mallett estimated, not more than
the one. hundreth of grain of arsenic; then
how much arsenic was in the nine grains of
bsmuth administered to Maud Lloyd by DR..
Mott? Is it within the bounds of possibility
that arsenic enough was in those nine grains of
bismuth to have killed Maud Lloyd? 1t lisa
cruel SANDER upon DR.. Mott that he would
keep and prescribe drugs that would carry
death to his patients and patrons. He is fully
vindicated here by the testimony of eminent
chemists and DR.. German. Can the jury believe
that the eight tenths of grain of arsenic
found by Prof. Tonry was contained in the nine
grains of bismuth prescribed by Or. Mott
The jury must be satisfied that the child died
from arsenical poisoning. 1t is very rare in
deed that case of poison can be proved, ex-
cept by circumstantial evidence, for the crime
can be committed in secret, and it leaves 40
traces of blood or weapons. IF murder by
poison can only be proved by circumstantial
evidence, society would be at the mercy Of the
poisoper, who could practice his crimes almost
with impunity.
AFTERNOON SESSION. .- .
Mr.. Orr resumed his argument at the even
ing session, and after presenting the case in
various lights closed with a warm appeal to
the jury TO do their duty to the accused, to
the State and to the community.
The opening argument for the defence was then
made by Powell Harrison, esq. who insisted that
the evidence ofthe prosecution, " hen considered
in the light Of the facts brought out by the
medical experts for the defence, formed no
ground for conviction. In fact they disputed
every suspicion.
O. II,,ton fo11orod ITo rou;o-o5 III