The Sun. — 1849-06-18 (London, England)

CENTRAL CRIMIN.AL COURT. OLD COURT. (13 fore Mr. Baron ROLFE ) Eliza Schollenberger, 23, a good-looking young woman, with an infant in her arms, was indicted for feloniously attempting to administer to her husband, Philip Schollenberger, a quantity of arsenic, with intent to murder him. Mr. W. Cooper prosecuted; Mr. Prendergast defended the prisoner. According to the evidence of the prosecutor, who is a German, he had on several occasions during the last few weeks felt sick and ill, and was gradually getting weaker, when he suspected, in consequence of the conduct of his wife, that something improper had been administered to him. On searching about his apartments, he found a parcel containing some white powder, which he showed to the prisoner. He asked her whether she knew what it was. The reply was, that it was salt of prunella, which had been given to her by her brother's wife. On inquiry, this statement appeared to be unfounded, when he charged her with attempting to poison him, which she at first denied. A short time afterwards she said to him, "Philip, I have given you poison, God forgive me; you are not dead yet." She afterwards denied this, when her parents rem•)ved her from his residence. He had some suspicion that his wife was intimate with a man who lived opposite to him. He had had the contents of the paper examined by Dr. Ryan. On cross-examination, he admitted that he had not had the contents of the paper examined until six weeks after he found it. He had not seen the man he alluded to, who was married for upwards of a twelvemonth. He had enjoyed good health until within the last six months. His suspicions were excited by finding some white powder in a cup of tea, the contents of which were very nauseous.  After some other witnesses had been called in support of the evidence of the prosecution, Mr. John Ryan, M.D., of Dalston, deposed that the contents of the paper given to him contained a mixture of common salt and arsenic in the proportion of eight grains of the former to two of the latter. The prosecutor appeared to be ill, and the effects which he observed were such as would be produced by the administration of arsenic. Mr. PRENDERGAST then addressed the jury for the prisoner. He urged that the whole proceeding originated from an unfounded feeling of jealousy entertained by the prosecutor.  The father of the prisoner contradicted the evidence of the prosecutor in some respects. A number of he conductwitnesses of w thee re prisoner,called, whobo thbefore spoke mostanfda after a favourably They also stated that the prosecutor had always fthe marriage. appesred to be a sickly ailing man. Dr. Letheby, lecturer on chemistry at the London Hospital, said he was satisfied that the symptoms described by the prosecutor were not the result of the administration of arsenic, but arose from some chronic affection of the stomach. lie added, that the prosecutor presented the appearance of a very weak man, and was evidently labouring under some chronic disease. The Learned JUDGE summed up, and the jury, after a short deliberation, returned a verdict of Not Guilty. There was another indictment against the prisoner, charging her with the actual administration of the poison, but it was not proceeded with; the jury in that case also returned a verdict of not guilty, as no evidence was offered in support of the charge.  IVE if