A complete report of the trial of Dr. E. W. Pritchard, for the alleged poisoning of his wife and mother-in-law. Reprinted, by special permission, from the 'Scotsman' / Carefully revised by an eminent lawyer.
- Eminent lawyer
- Date:
- 1865
Licence: Public Domain Mark
Credit: A complete report of the trial of Dr. E. W. Pritchard, for the alleged poisoning of his wife and mother-in-law. Reprinted, by special permission, from the 'Scotsman' / Carefully revised by an eminent lawyer. Source: Wellcome Collection.
Provider: This material has been provided by Royal College of Physicians, London. The original may be consulted at Royal College of Physicians, London.
133/156 page 123
![about tho dates of these two attacks, which she set right when she came to describe the second attack, and which was set right by Dr Gairdner, who, as a medical man, preserved a note of the case, and kept it with perfect precision ; and, jis that is the case, there can be no doubt about the time that Catherine Lattimer is speaking of is the second attack. [The Lord Justice-Clerk then read over a portion of Catherine Lattimer’s evidence, in which she described the second attack which she saw Mrs Pritchard suffer, when she found her in gi-eat pain, and was asked to send out hlary M'Leod for Dr Gairdner, and when Mrs Pritchard called her husband a hypocrite.] Now, as regards that little episode, I confess 1 do not attach much importance to it, because it is perfectly plain that Mrs Pritchard was not in her right senses at the time. This was made quite plain, I think, by the testimony of Dr Gairdner; but I mention it because at the time when the evidence was given it did appear of some importance, though afterwai’ds it was deprived of that character by the evidence of Dr Gairdner, and therefore no importance is to be attached to anything Mrs Pritchard said at the time. [The Lord Justice-Clerk read further from Catherine Lattimer’s evidence as to the weak and exhausted condition of Mrs Pritchard after the attack.] Then we have Dr Gairdner’s evidence upon the same occurrence. He was sent for by Mary M'Leod, acting under direct instructions from Mrs Pritchard. [The Lord J ustice-Clerk read from Dr Gairdner’s evidence as to the state of Mrs Pritchard when he visited her and found her in an excited and hysterical condition, which led him to suppose that she was drunk ; and when he ordered the use of stimulants to be stopped.] Dr Gairdner, however, said that there was no fever in the case. Yet it is a very remarkable circumstance that throughout, whenever the prisoner had occasion to explain to anybody what he thought was the matter with his wife, he called it gastric fever. The prisoner’s counsel says, “ That any man might be mistaken about that—the most skilful might be mistaken in such a case as hers, and Dr Gairdner himself was quite puzzled.” And well he might be, if it be the fact, as I suppose you have now assumed it to be, that the lady was at that moment under the influence of the metallic poison of antimony. No doctor could guess at that, and, therefore, there was good reason for his being puzzled. But he was not so puzzled as to believe that she was under fever when he found all the symptoms indicating the very reverse, nor could any man be so puzzled as to call it gastric fever. But it is remarkable that there was no appearance of fever even upon the occasion of Dr Gairdner’s visit; because if at any time, then was the time to expect indications of fever, when apparently she had received stimulants to a considerable amount — whether it was champagne, chloroform, or both And by whose directions had these been administered? The prisoner told Dr Gairdner it was by the direction of Dr Cowan. Now, it is important to' see what Dr Cowan says in regard to Mrs Pritchard. He does say something, and from it you will judge for yourselves whether what was suggested by Dr Cowan was likely to justify the opinion of Dr Gairdner that she was in a state of intoxi- cation. [His Lordship then read a portion of Dr Cowan’s evidence as to the state of prostration in which he found Mrs Pritchard, and his recommending that she should take small quantities of champagne and ice.] That was his recommen- dation and it was the only thing that he said upon tho subject of stimulants at all, as far as his evidence goes. Now, gentlemen, that is the second scene which is presented for your consideration. That, you will observe, was on the evening of the 8th March, and on the morning of the 9th. The next important event is the arrival of Mrs Taylor on the 10th. We will not pause upon that, because, at the time of Mrs Taylor’s arrival, we have already had a very good account of](https://iiif.wellcomecollection.org/image/b28407258_0133.jp2/full/800%2C/0/default.jpg)
