The Sun. — 1853-09-01 (London, England)

EXTRAORDINARY CASE OF POISONING.  A shocking case has just occupied not fewer than five days' sittings of the Court of Assizes of the Aude. A young woman named Saint Martin, and a man, still young, named Desprat, were indicted for having poisoned the husband of the former and the wife of the latter. The facts were these :—An adulterous connexion existed between the two accused, and it was no secret for their neighbours. On Ist March last Francis Saint Martin, husband of the woman, died suddenly, after vomiting a great deal. His wife alone attended him, and she obtained no medical advice. Towards the latter end of March Mme. Desprat went to the house of the woman, and asked for a glass of liquor, called in the country Carthagene. The woman poured out something from two bottles, and almost immediately after drinking it, Mine. Desprat was seized with violent pains and sickness. She was conveyed home, and after lingering some days in great suffering, expired on the Ist of April, crying "I burn, I burn !" Her husband was frequently requested by his neighbours to procure medical advice for her, but he refused. These strange deaths, combined with the adulterous connexion of the man and woman, caused suspicions of foul play to be entertained. The two bodies were dug up, and rather large quantities of arsenic were found in the intestines of each. The woman then told some absurd tale about her husband having just before his death confessed to her that he had taken poison, in order to place her in an embarassing position ; but it was well known that the man, so far from having any reason to contemplate suicide, was contented with his little fortune, and had planted vines, repaired his house, and negotiated for the purchase of a horse, as if he had expecte to live a long time. With respect to Mine. Desprat, the woman accounted for her death in this way :—When her husband told her that he had taken poison, she sought for a packet of arsenic which had been purchased some time before, and on finding that a portion of it had been taken away, resolved to give him an additional dose, so as to make sure of his death, and prevent him from making any accusation against her. Whilst she was completing this design Mine. Desprat came in. In her confusion she had laid down the poison, and went to another room, and Mme. Desprat, thinking it was sugar, took some of it. But this story, iinprobable on the face of it, was disproved by the fact that Mine. Desprat continued in health until towards the end of the month, when she took the glass of liquor. As to Desprat, the principal evidence against him was, Ist, that his connection with the woman rendered it unlikely that she could have committed such crimes without his knowledge—especially as her only reason could be to remove the obstacles to their union ; 2dly, his refusal to call in medical attendance for his wife, notwithstanding she suffered dreadful agony ; and, 3dly, a declaration made by the woman in gaol, to the effect that "If she were lost, and Desprat got off, she would reveal all about the poisoning." Before the court, the dd o abandonede s herpr at oerfi g ihnaavl planng perpetrated e ropf e defence,trated baent boldlyd won an a cacbuasne h murders. Be, on his part, accused the woman ; and, for some time, the court was almost horrified to see the cunning and the energy with which each tried to shift the whole burden of the guilt to the other. The jury declared the woman guilty of both poisonings, and Desprat of being her accomplice ; but it said that there were extenuating circumstances in favour of both. The court condemned the woman to imprisonment with hard labour for life, and the man to twenty years' imprisonment with hard labour.