The Sun. — 1844-12-10 (London, England)

AWFUL CASE OF PARRICIDE. A young woman, aged 20, having the appearance of a servant, was placed at the bar, charged with the wilful murder of her own father, Richard Gallop, at Monk's Coppenhall, on the 2d of November, by the administration of arsenic. The Attorney-General, Mr. Temple, and Mr. Townsend, were counsel for the prosecution ; and Mr. Trafford for the prisoner. From the evidence adduced in support of the charge, it appeared that about eight months ago the deceased, who was a joiner, and his family removed from Liverpool to Crewe, in the township of Monk's Coppenhall, for the purpose of working at the extensive works belonging to the Grand Junction Railway Company. The deceased and his wife did not live happily together, and about six months ago the latter committed suicide by cutting her throat. After that the family consisted of the prisoner, her father, the daughter of his wife by a former husband, and a lodger, named William Frazer. After the death of his wife, the prisoner's father treated her with considerable severity, and, on one occasion, when she had roasted some potatoes too hard, he threatened to beat her with a strap. This she complained of to her half-sister, and said that, as she had no comfort at home, she would go to service. During the time the prisoner was residing in Liverpool, she had become acquainted with a young man named Duval, and about the beginning of October, there being a cheap train from Crewe to Liverpool, the prisoner announced her intention of going by it, but her father was very angry with her, and refused to allow her to go, as he said it was only for the purpose of seeing her sweetheart, and he disapproved of the connexion. Shortly after that the prisoner purchased a pennyworth of arsenic, for the purpose, as she said, of destroying rats and mice. Subsequently she purchased a second pennyworth, and on the 2d of November she purchased twopennyworth. About three weeks before the last mentioned day the father of the prisoner became ill, and so continued up to that day, when, after partaking of some arrowroot, he was seized with violent vomiting and purging, which increased during the night, and early on the morning of the 3d of November he died. A surgeon attended him during the night, and treated him for cholera. On the Sunday morning a constable, named Kenty, went to the house and saw the prisoner. He told her he had come for the purpose of making inquiry respecting the death of her father, and cautioned her. After this he proceeded to put a number of questions to her, which, together with her answers, he produced. Mr. TRAFFORD objected to this evidence being admissable, as it had been made by the prisoner under inducement, and he cited the case of the King v. Drew, quoted in the 2d vol. of " Russell on Crime," p. 829. The Learned JUDGE overruled the objection. The constable Kenty then read the statement to the Court, from which it appeared that the prisoner admitted she had purchased the poison, but said it was purchased by the direction of her father, for the purpose of destroying rats, and that she had seen a rat on the previous Thursday, and had told her sister of it. Whilst Kenty was in the house the prisoner took a handkerchief from a chest, which the constable took possession of, and in it he found a packet containing ma. vomica. The prisoner afterwards placed a small paper parcel in a drawer, which the constable also took possession of. In a cupboard he found two loaves of bread and a piece of cake. All these were placed in the hands of Mr. David Wadie, of Liverpool, for the purpose of being analysed. It was proved by the evidence of Mr. Stevenson, a surgeon, that the body of the deceased, on post mortem examination, presented all the appearances internally of having been acted on by some irritant poison, and both he and Mr. Rayner, of Stockport, were of opinion that death was caused by the effects of arsenic. The half-sister of the prisoner proved that on the Friday before the death the prisoner made the cakes and the bread, and that the (the witness), the prisoner, and Fraser, the lodger, all partook of the cakes, immediately after which they all were taken ill and obliged to go to bed. Mr. Wadie, the chemist, deposed to having analysed the stomach of the deceased, and its contents, in which he discovered white arsenic. He also discovered arsenic in the cakes and the bread ; and in 200 grains of arrowroot he detected 100 grains of arsenic. It was attempted to elicit, in behalf of the prisoner, that she was labouring under insanity ; but the only facts deposed to by the witnesses on this point were, that about six months ago, at the time her mother committed suicide, her conduct was rather strange; that she did not sleep for a whole week, and that, during the time the mother of the prisoner was pregnant of her she was insane, and several times attempted to destroy herself. Mr. TRAFFORD addressed the jury for the prisoner at some length, contending that the case was enveloped in so much doubt that the jury could riot safely convict. That the probability was, the deceased had taken the arsenic by mistake, and that if administered by the prisoner at all, the probability was that she had done so when labouring under the effects of insanity. The Learned JUDGE briefly summed up the case to the jury, telling them that if they believed the prisoner had administered the arsenic, it was their duty to find her guilty. As to the plea of insanity, his Lordship observed that there was no evidence whatever to support it. That was a species of defence too much relied on of late years, to the danger of public security and the great hindrance of justice. The jury consulted together for about five minutes, and then pronounced a verdict of Guilty, but begged strongly to recommend the prisoner to mercy. The