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

EXTRAO' .RDINARY 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 wom.o n 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 se,i3ret for their neighbours. On Ist March last Francis Saint Martin, husband of the woman, died suddenl!,y, after vomiting a great deal. His wife alone attended him, and she obtained no medical advice. Towards the latter end of March Mme. Desprat wen t; to the house of the woman, and asked for a glass of .liquor, called in the country Carthagene. The woman loured out something from two bottles, and almost immed lately after drinking it, Mme. Desprat was seized with violent pains and sickness. She was conveyed home, and after lingering some days in great suffering, expire ti 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 connex ion of the man and woman, caused suspicions of fom. I play to be entertained. The two bodies were dug up, and rather large quantities of arsenic were found iii the intestines of each. The woman then told sonde 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 b ouse, and negotiated for the purchase of a horse, as if he had expected to live a long time. With respect to I glrue. 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, .2 lid on finding that a portion of it had been taken ab way, 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 completint g this design Mme. 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 sot me of it. But this story, improbable on the face of it., was disproved by the fact that Mme. Desprat contii rued in health until towards the end of the month, when she took the glass of liquor. As to Desprat, the pri r icipal evidence against him was, Ist, that his connectio:n with the woman rendered it unlikely that she could have committed such crimes without his knowledge —especially as her only reason could be ftuosraelmtoovceatlhl inobsta medical cle s to attendance theirttei union ldaneefo ; r hi2sdlwy, ifeh,isnoret: withstanding she suffered dreadful agony ; and, idly, a declaration made by the woman in gaol, to the effect that "If she i vere lost, and Desprat got off, she would reveal all aboi it the poisoning." Before the court, the woman abandoned her original plan of defence, and boldly accuse 1 Desprat of having perpetrated both murders. ID ), 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 hi arden of the guilt to the other. The jury declared the woman guilty of both poisonings, and Desprat of b eing her accomplice ; but it said that there were extenwa ting circumstances in favour of both. The court conders ned the woman to imprisonment with hard labour for lit 3, and the man to twenty years' imprisonment with h; and labour.  .