, 1876-03-31
Enigmas of Justice.

VIC NOuOb IL Nlltic ever happened &
more melancholy instance of what i.
termed judicial murder" than the ia.
nous case of Eliza Fenning. The tragic
history of that unhappy young woman
though well remembered by old London.
ers, is probably forgotten, or at least but
little known, in the United States. Eliza
Fenning was fair girl of TWENTY-FIVE, Of
more than usual intelligence for one Of
her class, bright, coquettish, but we'll
disposed and amiable. The daughter of
poor couple who dwelt in High Hol-
born, on the very spot where Day &
Martins backing establishment now
stands, she was employed as cook in the
family of Mr.. Turner, a law-stationer in
Chancery Lane. That family consisted
of the Turner'S, man and wife, two
apprentices named Gadsden and King.
Sarah Peer, housemaid, and Eliza Fen
ming, the cook. One day the father of
Mr.. Turner went to his sons house to
dinner, and Mrs. Turner ordered Eliza to
make some yeast dumplings. When
dinner-time came the three Turner's sat
down at table, and began to discuss the
savory dish. The dumplings had scarce
ly been tasted, however, when all three
were seized with sharp and agonizinp
pains. The dish was taken out into the
kitchen, and there Gadsden, one of the
apprentices, Partook of it, and also fell
violently i'll Eliza herself next ate of
the dish, and was attacked by the
same strange symptoms. The apprentice
\ ~! ie ~ ne maid, who had dined
earlier, did not taste the damplings, and
were not i'll.
The physician who was called declared
the symptoms of the sufferers To be those
of poisoning by arsenic. Then every
component part of the dish of dump
lings was examined. 1t waa clear that
the poison was not 10 the SAUCE, of which
the elder Turner had not partaken.
Neither was it in the flour, for a pie
crust made of the same flour had been
eaten by King and Peer with impunity.
Some dough of which the dumplings
were made was examined, and poison dis
covered therein. 1t appears that Turner
used arsenic for killing rats, and was in
the habit of leaving it carelessly in the
open drawer.
Suspicion fell at once upon Eliza Fem
ming, and she was arrested and arraigned
on a charge of attempting to poison the
Turner'S. From the first she earnestly
protested her innocence. It was proved
that she and she alone had mixed and
made the dumpliDss; the circumstantial
evidence went to show that no one else
could have had access to them until they
were served upon the table. She had
been in the kitchen all the time they
were there, and most of the time alone.
Here, then, was proved opportunity. 1t
was shewn that when the apprentice Gads-
den was on the point of eating some of
the dumplings, Eliza urged him not to
do so, saying they were cold and heavy.
1t was in evidence that Eliza had not
taken the poisoned food until she had
observed its effect on Others, and it was
thence inferred that she either took it to
conceal her crime, or with a suicidal de-
sign. 1t moreover appeared that Eliza's
statements about the matter we're incon-
sistent, contradictory, and in some in
stances untrue. She declared that the
poison must be in the milk, and not in
the dumplings. Now, the milk had been
fetched by Sarah Peer. It was thence
inferred that Eliza was trying to divert
suspicion from berself to her fellow-ser-
, want. The analysis proved cOnclusively
Nat the arsenic was is=-She dumplings,
an not in the -piflz. To further disprove
theltgespRfpfion of innocence raised by
her eating herself Of the poisoned food,
it was shown that she had shortly before
had a hearty meal off beefsteak pie,
and therefore was not likely to have eaten
\the Scold and heavy" dumplings, as she
described them to Gadsden, because she
was hungry. Having tried in vain to
persuade people that the poison was in
the milk, she declared that it was in the
yeast. The yeast was proved by analysis
to be perfectly pure.
Here, then, was a group Of important
circumstanial elements. Opportunity
was proved, so was an instrument (the
arsenic) at hand in drawer to which she
had free access, and desire betrayed to
conceal the crime by diverting suspicion
to another, and by telling untruths. Upon
the evidence as we have sketched it, Eliza
Fenning was convicted by the jury, and
sentenced to death. The case, however,
created so widespread an agitation in
the public mind that justice hesitated tc
execute its fatal decree. The utter alb
sence Of conceivable motive was 9
serious blow in the case. Why should
the hght-hearted, amiable young girl
whose worst-known fault was her coquetry
with the apprentices, poison a whols
tamilyf The great Irish advocate Cur