The North Cumberland Reformer. — 1890-06-20 (Carlisle, Cumbria, England)

THE SUPPOSED POISONING CASE.  Jane Clelland, living with her daughter at No. 3 Graham Street, was charged with the wilful murder of her grand-daughter, Mary Herd, nine weeks old.—Mr Johnston prosecuted on behalf of the police, and Mr McKeever was for the defence.—Mr Johnston, in his opening remarks, said he thought he could establish a prima:Meio case for committal to a tribunal appointed to try such cases.—Margaret Herd, the mother of the child, in answer to Mr McKeever, stated that she could not tell whether the marks on the handkerchief And the pillow case produced in Court were laudanum or coffee stains. The child had been troubled with inward convulsions since it was a month old. It used then to twitch, and struggle, and scream very much, and breath very heavily, like as if it had bronchitis. The first month it seemed to thrive, but after that it appeared to go away." She had given it several things to make it sleep, some powders that the doctor ordered, and had also given it drops of laudanum, which it appeared to stand well. She had bought many a bottle of soothing syrup for the child, and had given it as much as two drops of laudanum at a time. Before the child died, she administered neat brandy, and a bottle that the doctor had prescribed.— John Armistead Hallhead, in reply to Mr Johnston, said he had not told the mother in administer laudanum. She had asked him what was a proper dose of laudanum for a child, and he told her that he would not recommend any, but a dose of from a half to a drop might be given. —Mr Johnston: Not three drops ?—Witness: No.—Mr Johnston: I suppose if the child had got three drops it would have polished it off ?—Witness: I should not recommend it When the mother brought the child she asked if it had had laudanum administered. She laid the child on the counter,where there was a strong light from the two windows of the shop. He noticed that the pupils of the eyes were contracted, and concluded that it was a case of narcotic poisoning, and advised the mother to take it to a medical man. He could not say if the light from the windows would cause the pupils to contract. It might do in the case of a cat, but he could not speak for a child.—Sergeant Keep stated that from information received he visited No. 3, Graham Street., and on seeing tfie child, concluded from its  appearance it was suffering from an overdose of laudanum, the pupils of the eyes being contracted and the hands twitching. He therefore administered two teaspoonfuls of strong coffee.—Cross-examined—He had not much knowledge of poison, but he tried to save the child's life. He did not think the case would result in a charge  of murder against the grandmother.—Mr F. E. Abbott stated that when he Saw the child he found some symptoms indicative of opium poisoning, but many were wanting. He found the breathing of the child similar to that in croup or diphtheria. The child died from asphyxia, following from edema of the lungs. An obstruction caused by coffee and mucous fluid brought on the asphyxia. In answer to the Bench, he said the cause of death might be either natural or unnatural.— Dr Lediard read the report lie had made to the Coroner's jury, and stated he considered the state of the brain to be the cause of death.—Dr Helm corroborated, and Dr Thomas Hatfield Walker, L.R.C.P., and city analyst, stated he had examined the stomach of the child and its contents and had found no laudanum.—The Bench retired to consider the case, and in about five minutes returned and stated that although they considered it a very proper case to come before them they had agreed to dismiss the prisoner. (Great applause.)