The Shropshire Examiner and all round the Wrekin advertiser. — 1876-08-18 (Wenlock, Shropshire, England)

THE CORONER'S SUMMING UP. VERDICT OF WILFUL MURDER.  The Court re-assembled yesterday morning at half. past ten o'clock, and the Coroner commenced his summing-up. He said they were asked to find a verdict, when, how, and by what means Charles Delanny Turner Bravo came by his death. They would have no difficulty in coming to a decision that the deceased died on the 21st of April, 1876, at the Priory, and as little difficulty in finding that he died from the effects of antimony. That being so, the question that would remain for their consideration would be how that poison came into Mr. Bravo's body, and the inquiry into that subject naturally divided itself into three heads Did he administer the antimony to himself,' Did he take it inadvertently ? Or was it administered to him by other persons ? Adverting to the seizure, he quoted extracts from the evidence with reference to the visit of several medical gentlemen, and Mrs. Cox's statement that deceased had told her that he had taken laudanum, but that she was "not to tell Florence." Ho called attention to the remark made by Sir William Gull, on being called to the Priory, that the deceased was not suffering from the effects of laudautim poisoning, and to the evidence of Mrs. Cox, who declared that, after the deceased had vomited, she discovered the odour of laudanum. The other conversations which had taken place between the witnesses as to the condition of the deceased and the probable causes of his illness were also commented upon, and the deceased's emphatic denial that before God he had only taken laudanum, and that although he knew some one might be charged with giving him the poison, he had only taken laudanum. The Coroner then read the evidenee touching the theory of some irritant poison having been administered, and the collection of the vomit. After concluding the evidence on these points, the coroner said, in considering whether deceased administered the antimony to himself, he would direct attention to the statement of Mrs. Cox, that the deceased had told her that he had taken poison for Dr. Gully," and the subsequent conversation she had alone with him, when he said, "Why did you tell Florence? does Florence know I poisoned myself ?" and on the other hand they must consider the repeated statements made by the deceased to Sir William Gull and other witnesses. The Coroner continued You will also weigh the evidence as to Mr. Bravo's character and mental condition, and if you should be satisfied that he deliberately and knowingly took antimony with the intention of putting an end to his existence, you will find accordingly, and, also, whether or not he was then of a sound mind. To aid you in considering the question whether Mr. Bravo took the antimony inadvertently, I would refer you to the evidence of the medical men and Mr. Bravo's statement to them; amonget others, his statement to Sir Wm. Gull "I took it myself, I took it myself; and before God it was only laudanum ;" and if you should be of opinion either that he took the antimony mee;eally, knowing it to be antimony, but teak an overdose of it, or that he took the antimony in mistake for some other drug, you will find accordingly. Considering whether the antimony was administered by any other person or persons, I am unable to point your attention to any direct evidence bearing on the subject. You will consider whether or not it is the fact that the only evidence that antimony was administered ' by himself or by another is the body of Mr. Bravo, and the vomit found upon the bed. You will consider whether there is any evidence of tho purchase of antimony by Mr. Bravo or any other person having means of access to him. Griffiths certainly said in evidence that he purchased tartar emetic both at Smith's, Balham, and Robinson's. Streatham, but both these gentlemen denied the truth of his statement, and he himself says that he threw away what he had left before he left Mrs. Bravo's service in January. Before you can bring in a verdict of murder against any person or persons, you must be satisfied that the person or persons wilfully administered the poison to Mr. Bravo, or laid poison for him; that he took it and was killed by it. The law will presume that the administration was malicious, although no particular enmity be proved.—The jury retired at 11,35, and after waiting two hours and a half, returned into Court with the following verdict :—"We find that Mr. Bravo did not commit suicide, and that he did not meet his death by misadventure, but was WILFULLY MURDERED by the administration of tarter emetic, but there is not sufficient evidence to fix the guilt on any person or persons."  Mr. Hinds, a clerk in the Audit Office, who resided at Wimbledon, came by his death in a shocking manner on Saturday evening. The deceased arrived at the Wimbledon Station by train, and on leaving the carriage attempted to close the door. As he did so the train moved, and Mr. Hinds was knocked against one of the station pillars, causing him to stumble, and his foot to become entangled in the footboard of the carriage. Before the train could be stopped he fell under it, and several of the carriages passed over him.