Cross-examination continued-I placed the prisoner in a strong light, and his countenance assumed a dazed expression. His conversation was not irrational, but he seemed to be perfectly indifferent to what was going on about him. While I was talking to him he suddenly jumped up and brushed something off his trousers, and then shook himself. (A laugh.) I talked to the prisoner about the crime, and he said that he had some words with his wife, and they quarrelled, and then he did "the deed."

Mr. Poland-Did he say where he got the pistol from?

Dr. Rogers-He did not.

Cross-examination continued-The prisoner told me while he was in Horsemonger-lane Gaol that he had attempted to commit suicide in that prison; and I asked him how he, a clergyman, could dare to rush into the presence of his Maker, and he replied, in a frivolous manner, "Oh, there is no prohibition in the Bible against suicide."

Did you say anything to him about ordering the box?-Yes.

What did he say ?—He shrugged his shoulders and said it was not for the purpose assumed.

Was he aware that he was to be defended on the ground of insanity?—The Crown physicians who visited him in Newgate I believe made him aware of the object of their visit.

This closed the case for the defence.

Mr. Serjeant Parry then proceeded to exercise the right of summing up the evidence for the defence. He said it was one of the misfortunes of the prisoner that he and his wife should have lived in such a state of seclusion, and it rendered it impossible for him to call many witnesses to speak upon the subject; but he submitted that the evidence of the few witnesses he had been able to call fully bore out the suggestion that previously to this act of fury the prisoner had exhibited symptoms of insanity. As to the statement of the prisoner that he had frequently quarrelled with his wife before, there was nothing to show that this was not a delusion on the part of the prisoner, and, so far as she was able to do so, the fact was negatived by the servant girl, who had lived with the prisoner for three years, and who stated positively that during this period nothing of the sort took place. Mr. Serjeant Parry then proceeded to refer to the evidence of the medical gentlemen, and he argued that after the evidence that had been given by the eminent men who had been examined, there could not be any reasonable doubt that at the time this dreadful deed was committed the prisoner was not in such a state of mind as to be responsible for his actions. One life had already been sacrificed, and the question now was whether the jury were bound to declare such a verdict as would inevitably lead to the destruction of another. He said he did not believe that they would return such a verdict, and that they would not, after the evidence of the eminent scientific gentlemen who had been examined, consign the unhappy old man at the bar to an ignominious death. The learned serjeant concluded a brief but very able résumé of the evidence that had been adduced on behalf of the prisoner, and he concluded by expressing his opinion that at the time this deed was committed the prisoner was in such a state of mind as not to be able, in the words of the law, to distinguish the difference between right and wrong, and he asked the jury upon that ground to say that he was not guilty.

Mr. Denman then proceeded to reply on behalf of the Crown upon the whole

case.

He said it was his duty to finish this serious and important case so far as counsel were concerned, and he did not intend to occupy any great portion of their time. He then went on to say that the defence of the prisoner rested upon the ground of insanity, and the law upon that question had been clearly and distinctly laid down by the learned judges, and the safety of them all depended upon the law being carried out with strictness and integrity. His learned friend had said that the prisoner was a most unlikely man to have committed such an act if he had been of sound mind; but they must not forget that the same observation might have been made in a great many cases where a most deliberate and brutal murder had been clearly proved to have been committed. If he understood the defence that had been set up for the prisoner, it was that, owing to some sudden calamity, the prisoner's mind had been overturned, and that this dreadful act was committed by him while in a state of insanity, resulting from his condition. He could only say that if such a defence were admitted to prevail, the safety of human life would be very much diminished, and he urged the jury to pause before they allowed their province to be invaded by the suggestions and opinions of medical men who were called to establish a particular state of things on behalf of a prisoner. He should not attempt to deny that there was such a disease as melancholia, and that this disease took its rise from depression, but he really could not understand how it was possible for a man to be perfectly sane immediately before the commission of some dreadful deed, and be in the same condition immediately afterwards, and yet during the interval should be in such a condition of mind as not to be responsible for his actions. The jury would again not forget that it was clearly proved that the prisoner was a most intelligent man, a man of business, and that all his affairs seemed to have been conducted in a most business-like and formal manner. Two days after the murder had been committed he appeared to have sent a most businesslike letter to his landlady, enclosing a cheque for the amount of the previous quarter's rent, and he seemed to have taken extraordinary means to conceal the crime that he had committed.

The learned judge, in summing up, said it might be regarded as quite clear that the prisoner committed the murder, and that there was no provocation used which would reduce the crime to one of manslaughter; and really the only question for the jury was this: Whether the prisoner at the time he committed this act was legally responsible for it? Whether he did know what he was doing, and that what he was doing was wrong? In order to obtain an answer to the question, it was necessary to look at the past life of the prisoner. His lordship then proceeded to refer to the evidence.

The jury retired to consider their verdict at five minutes past five o'clock, and after an absence of one hour and a half, returned into court with a ver. dict of "Guilty," strongly recommending the prisoner to the mercy and clemency of the Crown on account of his advanced age and previous good character.

When asked whether he had anything to say why sentence should not be passed upon him,

The prisoner said: I only wish to say that the defence which has been maintained in my favour was a just and honest one.

The prisoner's sentence was afterwards remitted on the ground of insanity.

II.

THE BRIGHTON POISONING CASE.

Ar the Central Criminal Court, on the 15th of January, Christiana Edmunds was arraigned before Mr. Baron Martin, charged with the wilful murder of Sidney Albert Barker. Mr. Serjeant Ballantine and Mr. Straight were counsel for the prosecution; and Mr. Serjeant Parry, Mr. Worsley, and Mr. Poland were counsel for the defence.

The prisoner having pleaded Not Guilty,

Mr. Serjeant Ballantine, in addressing the jury, observed that the prisoner at the bar was a person in easy circumstances. She was at the time of these transactions residing at Brighton, and had resided there for some time, and as far as I know with perfect respectability in her surroundings. It appears she had formed an acquaintance with a Dr. and Mrs. Beard, an acquaintance which was originally formed in consequence of Dr. Beard's having been called in to attend the prisoner in his professional character. That acquaintance seems to have ripened into an intimacy scarcely consistent with the strict relations that ought to exist between a medical adviser and one of his female patients. There can be no doubt that the lady herself entertained the strongest feelings towards Dr. Beard, and expressed them in very strong language, which indicated on her part a considerable amount of affection towards him. Dr. Beard was a married man, and the prisoner was not only attended by him in his professional capacity, but seems to have been on visiting terms with him. There were a great number of letters between the parties. Whether it is necessary that these letters should be read I am not at present prepared to say, but they are in court, and if there is a desire expressed that they should be read, in order to further the ends of justice, I, on the part of the prosecution, will make no objection. This being the state of things in 1870 and towards the close of that year, the prisoner appears to have been on one occasion, in the month of December, at the house of Dr. Beard, and she gave a chocolate cream to Mrs. Beard, who, upon receiving it, put it into her mouth and sucked a portion of it, but, finding it exceedingly disagreeable, and having an unusual taste, she spat it out, and received no real injury, though there was no doubt something deleterious in the cream. It is to be borne in mind that up to this time no poison of any kind or description had been traced to the prisoner, but on this occurrence taking place Dr. Beard charged the prisoner with having attempted to poison his wife. You will have, before the conclusion of this case, to consider the gravity of this occurrence, and how far it affects the extraordinary conduct of the prisoner. It is supposed by those whom I represent that this accusation having been launched against the prisoner, and finding, as she did find, that Dr. Beard and his wife shrank from further communication with her, the prisoner, with a view to divert suspicion from herself, and to defend herself from this charge which had been made against her, determined to pursue a course by which there might be cast upon another person the blame that was attributed to her. With this object she pursued a course of conduct so extraordinary as to be totally unparalleled in the records of any criminal court of justice. Mr. Serjeant Ballantine then went over the several portions of the evidence which had appeared on former occasions, calling attention to the

more salient points as affecting the guilt of the prisoner, and dwelt at great length on the conduct of the prisoner in her purchases of poison at the shop of a Mr. Garrett, a chemist, observing in conclusion, "I believe I have now correctly stated the broad facts of this case, and I trust that not one word has escaped my lips that will cast on the prisoner at the bar an unfair or improper prejudice. The time has long elapsed in my career when I could feel it any victory in any criminal case to obtain the conviction of a prisoner. I hope you will consider I feel it my duty to endeavour earnestly to assist in the administration of justice, and to assist, as far as I can, in arriving at the truth, and I am sure that, fearful as the issue is, you will not shrink from it. At the same time, I cannot grudge you the gratification, if you have a doubt, of giving the prisoner the benefit of it."

The following witnesses were then called :

Mr. C. D. Miller, examined by Mr. Straight-I am the brother-in-law of Albert Barker, the father of the deceased. I knew the deceased, Sidney Barker, during his lifetime. In June last we were staying at Brighton, and on the 12th of June I purchased some chocolate creams at the shop of Mr. Maynard, a confectioner at Brighton. I gave the little boy Sidney one of these creams on the same day and he ate it. About ten minutes afterwards the child began to cry, and his limbs became stiff, and in about twenty minutes he died. Up to the time of his having the chocolate cream he appeared to be quite well. I ate some of the chocolates myself in the morning, and about ten minutes afterwards I felt a dizziness in my eyes and a coppery taste in my throat, and my limbs gradually became stiff, and my bones seemed "all one." I endeavoured to rouse myself, but was unable to do so. I became better, and sat down to dinner, when the same symptoms returned. I went to a doctor, and he saw me, but the little boy was dead before he came. He was four years old. My brother tasted some of the creams, and observed a peculiar coppery taste, and he spat them out. The rest of the creams were thrown away. The creams were in a bag.

Dr. Richard Rugg, examined by Serjeant Ballantine-I am a surgeon practising at Brighton. On the 12th of June I was called in to see the deceased, and found him in strong convulsions. I gave him an emetic, but it did not operate, and he died about eight minutes after I first saw him. I made a post-mortem examination on the following day. The organs of the body were generally healthy, and the brain exhibited the appearance usually observed in cases of death by convulsions. The body was unusually rigid, but I was unable to discover any cause of death. I had never seen the operations of strychnine.

Ernest Miller, examined by Mr. Straight-On the same evening that my brother purchased the chocolates I went again to Mr. Maynard's shop and purchased some chocolates of the same description, and I afterwards handed them to Inspector Gibbs. The packet was marked No. 1.

Dr. Henry Letheby, examined by Serjeant Ballantine-I am a professor of chemistry, and well acquainted with the nature of poisons. I have heard the description of this boy's death, and also the description of the symptoms of his uncle; they are the symptoms of poisoning by strychnine. A packet of chocolate creams was handed to me by Inspector Gibbs, and I analyzed the chocolate creams referred to by the last witness, and I ascertained that some of them contained strychnine, but I cannot state the exact quantity. I be

lieve, however, that they contained altogether a quarter of a grain, which was a quantity sufficient in some cases to kill an adult. A sixteenth part of a grain is sufficient to cause the death of a child. I afterwards examined the contents of a jar that was handed to me, and I discovered a quarter of a grain of strychnine in them. The jar contained the contents of the stomach of the deceased.

Mr. Garrett, examined by Mr. Straight-I am a chemist, carrying on business at Brighton. I know the prisoner, and for some years she has been in the habit of dealing at my shop. I did not know her name. She came to my shop on the 28th of March, and first purchased some articles for the toilette, and she then asked me if I would supply her with a little strychnine for the purpose of destroying cats. I objected strongly to let her have any at first, but she said she had a garden and the cats destroyed the seeds in her garden, and pressed me to let her have some. She said she was a married woman, and had no children, and there was no fear of mischief, as the poison would never go out of her hand or those of her husband. I ultimately supplied her with ten grains of strychnine, but I required her to bring a witness. She said the only person she knew in the neighbourhood was Mrs. Stone, and she left the shop and fetched Mrs. Stone, and upon her word I made the entry of the sale in my book, and it was signed first by the prisoner and then by Mrs. Stone. The prisoner gave the name of Mrs. Wood, and her address at Hill Side, Kingston, Surrey. The prisoner came to me afterwards, and said that she had used the strychnine, and had thrown the paper away. On the 15th of April the prisoner came to me again, and said that the poison had not acted, and I gave her ten grains more, and she signed my book, and said that the reason she wanted the poison was to kill a dog. On the 8th of June I received a paper from a little boy, purporting to be signed by Messrs. Glaisyer and Kemp, chemists, asking me to supply them with a quarter of an ounce of strychnine. I wrote a note back to Messrs. Glaisyer and Kemp, and gave it to the boy who brought the order, and he returned in about twenty minutes or half an hour with another letter enclosing half a crown, and I enclosed one drachm of strychnine in a bottle, and labelled it, and handed it with the change to the boy. I remember the inquest being held upon the deceased boy, and on the 14th of July I received a letter purporting to come from the borough coroner, asking me to send him my register of poisonous drugs sold by me, at the same time the letter stating that the application was not in reference to anything sold by me, but the book was wanted in reference to another inquiry. I gave the messenger the book, and he brought it back to me, and a few days afterwards I missed a leaf. It was the leaf immediately preceding the entries relating to the sale to Mrs. Wood. I did not see the prisoner again until she was in custody at the police-court.

Cross-examined-I knew her very well, and had not the slightest difficulty in identifying her. She had been a customer of mine for four years, and I had been in the habit of supplying her with articles for the toilette. I cannot say whether one or more leaves have been torn out, but all the entries relating to the sale of the strychnine remain in the book. It did not strike me as being at all extraordinary that the prisoner should sign her name Mrs. Wood instead of using her Christian name. I knew Mrs. Stone very well. She was a milliner and dressmaker at Brighton. There are sixty grains in a drachm.