T
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND
which two he intended I do not know, powders and this would account for the presence of had been prescribed by Schedel specially for a urine and the absence of arsenic. I had, pony, Le on the 15th January, 1889; 2nd March, however, not concluded what I wished to say 1896, and the 4th March, 1896. In the first of on the subject of white arsenic when I made these orders Mrs. Carew specially asked for this digression. As to the Fowler's solution wders for a pony; in the secord Schedel or of arsenic, the prisoner herself had furnished someone in his shop marks the powders ordered all the information that she had or at all as" for a pony;" in the third the nature of the events that she remembered. The prosecu- medicine wanted is named by Mrs Carew, viz., tion were then informed by Dr. Divers of his nitre and bicarbonate of soda. All this evidence discovery of white arsenic in the gullet. What was in the custody of the Court) having been was their duty under these eircumstances? placed there by the counsel for the prosecution. Obviously it was then their duty-nay, even While there it was accessible to them at all long before-but certainly then, to have every times, had they wished to see it. But they did utensil that had been used by the deceased, or not wish to see it; they did not want to upset employed in the preparation of his food, seized their own theory by looking at it, or asking and analysed. Has this been done? If it has any questions about it. They proférred to it is due to the prisoner that the facts should lead you to suppose that those powders might be stated. However, having found the presence have been, or have contained. white arsenic. of white arsenic in the stomach of the deceased, They were very particular in questioning and having endeavoured to trace it to the Schedel, as to the possibility of the presence of prisoner and failed, it became necessary for. the arsenic in other articles furnished by him, but purpose of the prosecution to minimise the as to these powders they left them alone. Mrs. effects of its presence as much as possible. Carew, it will be remembered, had herself Accordingly. Dr. Divers was called and he gave drawn the attention of the Coroner to her it as his opinion that as he found particles of belief that arsenic would be found in a bottle solid white arsenic in the intestinal canal-the of the medicine containing Dr. Baelz's prescrip- stomach and intestines-it was not given in that tion. As to that, the most minute enquiries form to any large extent. He added: “I should were made, whether by any possibility say it was exhibited in solution for the most part arsenic could have crept into that because I found so very little white arsenic in ] bottle, or whether, when it was dropped, any the stomach and intestines. That, he says, is foreign ingredient conld have got into it, and opinion, not knowledge. He goes on to give it Dr. Divers was brought from Tokyo to prove as his farther opinion from the history of the that he had found arsenic in the medicine; and case that it is clearly one in which arsenic, you will be asked to believe that the prisoner meaning thereby Fowler's solution of arsenic, put it there. Well, gentlemen, if she did, she was given repeatedly and in increasing doses, must be one of the most foolish persons that and also that assuredly it was not taken by the ever lived. At page 9 of her evidence she says patient himself. Those, gentlemen, you will to me--and this, be it remembered, was the 4th probably agree with me, are very marvellous Noveraber I handed you just before coming opinions for any mail, however expert, to be able into Court the bottle, Exhibit . It is said to to form. I shall call before you three practising be made from Dr. Baelz's prescription for my medical men, who will tell you that the absence husband. The bottle is from Schedel's dis-of solid white arsenic in the intestinal canals is pensary, and bears the number 13934. wish you to hand that bottle in, because, having smelt it, I believe it to contain arsenic.” Now, if she had put the arsenic into that bottle, why should she call attention to the presence of arsenic in the bottle? She was at that time fully aware that she was suspected of poisoning her husband. More than ten days had elapsed since suspicion first attached to her. Her house had not been searched, and she had the fullest control over everything in that house. She might have buried the bottle in the earth, or thrown it into the sea, or if she were afraid that its absence might be noticed, she might have washed it out carefully, and left it to be found by others. This, I submit, she would have done if she had had a guilty conscience. Gentlemen, the prosecution did not discover that there was arsenic in that bottle. The prisoner herself called attention to her suspicion, and asked, through me, that its contents should be analysed. The same a similar argument applies to all the bottles produced by her and also to the fender. The explanation of the stain on the fender was given by her and was coroborated by Asa, the maid. She produced that fender and requested that the stain might be analysed. It was analysed and it was found to consist of human urine. I have had an independent analysis made with the result that Dr. Divers statement is verified. Well, if she had not been certain that the stain was caused by the con- tents of the bottle which she supposed to con- tain arsenic, it is unlikely that she would have called attention to it. There are two explans tions the first is unlikely-namely, that some one had been tampering with the bottle. The second is probably the true one. I had particularly cautioned Mrs. Carew to bring the fender into the Court with her in order to make sure that the stain should not be touched, as I was anxious that on being analysed it should corroborate her statement as to the breaking of the bottle. Well, instead of bringing it with her, it was sent down by a servant, and I saw with my own eyes and with some heat called her atten- tion to the fact, that the stain showed unmis- igns of having been rubbed with wet just before it was brought into Cour
will myself give evidence to that was probably wiped off with a clout that had been used to clean the bed-chambers
or
takable
;
|
not an indication that arsenio had been taken in solution; that white arsenic acts by being dissolved and absorbed; that it is not the quan- tity found in the stomach but the quantity absorbed that causes dsath, and that if it is shown, as it has been by Dr. Divers, that white arsenic had been exhibited to the deceased some. where between the 19th and 22nd Oct, there is no reason, eren supposing the dose to have been a very large one, why the whole or nearly the whole of it may not have been dissolved, ab. sorbed, and partially excreted before death. They will also testify that they do not consider that the post-mortem conditions, and the results of chemical analyses, taken by themselves, justify the confident opinion expressed by Dr. Divers that arsenie taken in solution must have been taken by the deceased; and finally they will tell you that death from solution of arsenic is exces- sively rare. As to the symptoms as detailed by Dr. Wheeler, they will tell you that, including the intermission on the Wednesday, they are compatible with the supposition that death may have occurred from a single large dose. More over, Dr. Divers, in examination, had to admit this. He says, "I could not smell anything suggestive of Fowler's solution in the stomach; particularly I had my nose for lavender, but I did not detect anything of the kind." It is true that he afterwards added that they don't give much for smells in the case of a man dying whose stomach remained in the body for a day, but if he did not give much for such smells, why was he so keen to look for them? Finding no smells, I asked him whether I might take that as an "indication" that death, if caused by arsenic, was caused by white arsenic; and he said no, but in reply to a further ques tion he was constrained to admit that I might take the absence of smell as showing a possibility, nay, more, a likelihood, that if the death was caused by arsenic it was caused by white arsenic. To this the counsel for the prosecution may reply that the Fowler's solution furnished by Maruya was not flavoured by lavender. I don't know whe- ther it was or not, but it certainly was very perceptibly scented with something or other, as you yourselves perceived when the bottle pro- duced by Hayashi was opened. Dr. Divers could not smell anything suggestive of Fowler's solution in the stomach, which was fresh and sweet. The result of all this is that the absence of smell may be taken as showing a likelihood
February 11
hay
that death was or may white arsenic adminis Dr. Divers further admitt had been no evidence of arse having been exhibited to the dec little solid particles found would be a sufficient indication sible, nay, of the likely, cause of death. The death of the deceased, then, confidently be asserted, may possibly been caused by the administration of solid form. I will now proceed to a considera tion of another poison which was discovered b Dr. Divers in the body of the deceased; I mean of course acetate. of lead. The indisputable. facts in evidence regarding it are that on Sun- day, the 18th October, the deceased, in the absence of his wife, sent for a bottle; and that his wife, at 1.is request, sent for another bottle on the 21st. I shall call evidence to show that each of those bottles contained, when füll, 335 grains of the poison; and that there remain in the bottle now in Court 971 grains. The deceased may therefore possibly have taken 5724 grains of sugar of lead, a quantity far more than sufficient to cause death. Dr. Divers would have you believe that the poisonous dose of acetate of lead is 14 to 2 ounces. Reese, a great authority, gives it as one ource; but Naunya, a greater, gives it as from 1 to of an ounce. In confulation of the evidence given by Dr. Divers, I shall call witnesses who will satisfy you that there is no greater certainty as to what amount of lead, found post-mortem, represents a given amount taken than does the find in the case of arsenic; that a very small amount recovered may represent a large amount taken, just as with arsenic; and that in cases of acute lead poisoning, the lead, when absorbed, is found in much larger quantities in other organs than in the stomach, liver, and intestines. The proportions of lead to 100 grammes of tissue, re- covered post-mortem, is—in the liver, 0.625 milli- grammes; in the kidneys 4.807; in the heart, › 4.166; in the bones, 2.678; and in the bile 4.166.. - That being so, an estimate of the amount of lead taken, based on the examination of the liver and intestines alone, is of no real value. But that valueless estimate was nevertheless adduced by: the prosecution, in order to induce you to bring in a verdict of guilty against the prisoner. hen as to the similarity of symptoms in cases of poisoning by arsenic and poisoning by lead-that is, in cases of acute lead poison- ing-I shall prove to you that there are or may be many cases, often two which are practically indistinguishable by the symptoms alone. From the evidence adduced by the prosecution, it has been shown there is the same vomiting and nausea; the same constriction of the throat in swallowing; the burning pain; the severe pain in the abdominal region; the pain in moving the bowels, and in urinating: all these symptoms are similar in both cases, and cannot be distinguished from the other. Arsenic has no effect in colouring the patient's stool, but in lead poisoning we have a stool of a dark hue, I shall also prove by unimpeachable medical testimony that in view of the detection of botli arsenic and lead, in the post-mortem, it is im possible to say that death may not have been - caused by both or either of these poisons; the lead, perhaps, reinforcing what without it might have been merely injurious, but not fatal.- Nay, further, the medical practitioners whom I shall call will tell you that three kinds of poison having been exhibited, viz., white arsenic, Fowler's solution, and sugar of lead, it is impossible, on any conceivable theory › consistent with the symptoms, to give an opinion that death was due to Fowler's solution alone, administered in su
-successive and increas ing doses.
|
|
The learned counsel then alluded to the his- tory of our knowledge of the arsenic habit and said he would adduce the evidence of three medical practioners, Dr. Eldridge, Dr. Baolz, and Dr. Munro, that there is no ascertained reason why habituation to the use of arsenic in solution, such for instance as Fowler' preparation, may not go to a very great extent. He also alluded to Dr. Divers evidence in corroboration of this and said it would h proved by many witnesses that Mr. Car been accustomed to take arsenio fro 1880 until his death; so the was asked by him to proon
Page 10Page 11