Bridport, Beaminster, and Lyme Regis Telegram and Dorset, Somerset, and Devon Advertiser. — 1886-02-26 (Bridport, Dorset, England)

COMMITTAL OF MRS. BARTLETT AND THE  REV. G. DYSON.  and but  place  IThe inquiry into the circumstances attending the death on New Year's Day of Mr. Edwin Thomas Bartlett, aged 40 years, was resumed on Thursday by the deputy-coroner. Deceased, who resided at No. 85, Claverton-street, Pimlico, where he died, had been member of a firm of grocers carrying on business at Station-road, Herne Hill; and his wife, Adelaide Bartlett, is now in custody charged with having caused his death by administering to him a dose of chloroform. 4 Mr. Edward Bartlett, the father of the deceased, was called, and his evidence was read over to him, the only correction being as to the time his eon resided at Herne Hill, which was six years.—Mr. Leach's, the medical man, evidence was next read H over. e corrected it by saying there was extreme sloughing of deceased's gums later on than the 16th of December last. Towards the end of his life deceased was eating as well as ever he did, considering that he had no teeth. He ate jugged-hare on the day before his death. Witness's reference to his failing appetite was some time earlier, and before the stumps of his teeth were extracted.—The evidence of Dr. Green, of Charing Cross Hospital, as to the post »torten examination, and of Dr. Dudley, was next read. The latter, in reply to a further question from the Coroner as to whether he told Mrs. Bartlett that Mr. Bartlett was a hard-drinking man, replied, "Certainly not."—The Coroner: Nor anything to that effect ?—Witneas •' No, nothing whatever.—Mr. Leach was recalled, and gave further evidence. He di 1sented from a statement as to the food deceased had taken; but on the whole list being read over to the witness, he assented to it as correct.—Mr. Doggett, the landlord, said part of his evidence had not been taken down. He said he examined, with the doctor, all the glasses and all the bottles in the room, and there was no bottle on the mantelpiece—When the evidence of the Rev. George Dyson was being read over, the Coroner called attention to the fact that Mr. Leach deposed that Mrs. Bartlett told him she never kept any secrets from her husband: whereas Mr. Dyson said she wanted the chloroform purchased by him, as the lady nurse from whom she was accustomed to obtain it had gone to America, and that she kept the fact of having the chloroform from her husband. The Coroner said that no facts about chloroform had been brought out until long after the first sitting of the Court. The statements of Mrs. Bartlett about it were contradictory. She first said to Mr. Dyson that she never touched the chloroform bottle, and had not used it at all, and afterwards she stated that she emptied the bottle and threw it away.—Mr. Dyson desired it to be put down that- by the regulations of the Wesleyan body he could not have married for two years from June, 1885 —This addition being made, the Coroner proceeded to read the witneases cross-examination, which was corrected by saying that there were four bottles originally containing the chloroform which he threw away on Wandsworth Common. Witness went with a policeman to the spot where he said he had thrown the bottles, and one of them- was found. —The Rev. Mr. Riggall corrected his evidence to the effect that he did not remember Mr. Dyson telling him that be had thrown the chloroform bottles away on Wandsworth Common. —When reading over the evidence of Mrs. Matthews, the Coroner drew the attention of the jury to the part in which Mrs. Bartlett made substantially the same statement as to her husband's death as she had done to Mr. Leach. Both of these witnesses had no previous knowledge of chloroform, and she left out all mention of it to them. She told Mr. Dyson, who, of course, knew all about the chloroform, it was not touched. She did not explain to Mrs. Matthews that he might have taken it, but to Mr. Leach she subsequently made a statement about the chloroform. It was fur the jury to consider whether hers was a reasonable explanation as to how the man came by his death.—Mrs. Matthews desired to add that when she knew about the chloroform, Mrs. Bartlett told her that it was that that the Rev. Mr. Dyson was bothering about. SIT went on to say :—I asked her, "Was it the chloroform that he was bothering you about?" and she said "Yes.' It must have been after the first sitting of the inquest that she said this, its I did not know of it before. She said that the 'doctor had said that Mr. Bartlett could not have -taken chloroform; he would have been burnt all down the throat. That was on the 20th of January. —The Coroner: By that hypothesis, if deceased had committed suicide, the effect would have been the ^ The evidence was clear as to the presence of dose of chloroform in the stomach of the —Dr. Stevenson in furtber examination by - said: I think I • lualified as to tha. 'VW . am"  : :  we than wimld bl  swallowed a action when  It is very un Oor9.n.er.  ' portion be rendered partially insensune oyIIIOIIIII6IOLIM chloroform, would a less quantity thin an ounce taken be sufficient to kill f—Witness: I should think lees. —ln this case, if the deceased had been made partially insensible by inhalation, do yon Mean a less quantity swallowed would kill think so. It enters the body in two ways. The inhalation would increase the tendency to death from that swallowed.—Would it be possible for a person to be made partially insensible by chloroform, and then for liquid chloroform to be poured down the throat '—Yes. If partially insensible, the action of swallowing would be instinctive, and entirely without the consciousness of the patient. At one stage of insensibility, if liquid chloroform was placed at the back of the mouth, it would be unconsciously swallowed. —The Coroner, in the emus° of his stunining up, said the question the jury had to decide was whether the evidencegiven by Mr. Dyson did not so seriously involve him in the same charo, but in a different degree, and with the distinction in law of being an accessory before the fact, that he sbould be committed for trial as well as Mrs. Bartlett, for being an accessory before the fact to the death of Mr. Bartlett. He left it to them to say if they were satisfied with his explanation. The jury retired at ten minutes past five, and subsequently returned into Court with a verdict of "Wilful murder against both Mrs. Bartlett and Mr. Dyson." The Coroner at once made out the warrant for the apprehension of Mr. Dyson, who was arrested by Inspector Marshall. He turned deadly pals and wept, and was removed to Westminster Police-station, adjoining the Police-court. It is stated that Mrs. Bartlett has, since her incarceration, made a statement somewhat contradictory to that of Mr. Dyson.