Widnes Examiner. — 1882-03-18 (Widnes, Cheshire, England)

THE WIMBLEDON POISONING CASE.  The trial of Dr. G. H. Lamson, for the murder by poisoning of his brother-in-law, Percy Malcolm John, at Wimbledon, a short time ago, was begun at the Central Criminal Court, on Wednesday, before Mr. Justice Hawkins, ' and it was concluded on Tuesday. The Solicitor-General (Sir F. Herschel') prosecuted; and the prisoner was defended by Mr. Montagu Williams. The crime, it will be remembered, was committed at Blenheim House School, owned by Mr. Bedbrook-, in which the deceased was a pupil; and it was while the prisoner was on a visit to the deceased that the poison was administered, it was alleged, in some sweets. Medical testimony was adduced showing that death had been caused by some irritant vegetable position, the symptoms being such as might be caused by aconitine; and the chief witness was Dr. Stevenson, who, under instructions from the Home Secretary, made an analysis of the contents of the stomach, and a minute examination of various portions of the intestines. He deposed that from the liver he had obtained an alkaloidal extract, which contained a trace of morphia, which placed on the tongue gave a faint sensation like that produced by aconitine. From an examination of the stomach he got the same result. The character of the sensation was a burning, tingling, peculiar numbness difficult to define—a salivation—a sensation at the back of the throat as if it were swelling 'up. This was followed by a peculiar seared sensation as if a hot iron were being passed over it. An examination of the stomach gave like results. In reply to the Judge as to his acquaintance with aconitine, witness said he believed he had tasted most alkaloidal poisons known. He injected some of the extract obtained from the urine into the back of a mouse, and it died in thirty minutes. He obtained some of Morson's preparation of aconitine from Messrs. Allen and Hanbury, and injected a small portion into the back of a mouse, and it died exhibiting symptoms undistinguishable from the symptoms produced by the extract obtained from the urine. The evidence for the prosecution came to a close on Monday, when Mr. Montagu Williams addressed the jury for the defence, contending that, even assuming the deceased died from aconitine poison, the evidence as to its administration was most unsatisfactory. He further held that nothing containing aconitine had been traced to the prisoner's possession. —The Solicitor-General, in reply, said there was no way of accounting for deceased's death from natural causes. Poison was found in the body, and everything went to prove that an aconite pill was given him.—The Judge summed up on Tuesday afternoon and reviewed at length the history of the deceased, his circumstances, and the relation of the prisoner towards him. He minutely recapitulated the evidence as to what occurred at the interview at the school when the alleged administration of poison took place, the subsequent symptoms and death of the deceased, and the important medical testimony adduced. He left entirely to the jury the question of the fact which must determine their verdict. The jury retired to consider their verdict at six o'clock, and, on re-entering the court thirty-live minutes later, they returned a verdict of guilty, and the prisoner was sentenced to death.