Trial of Robert Sawle Donnall, on suspicion of poisoning Mrs. Downing, his mother in law, tried at Launceston, March 31, 1817, at the Lent Assize, for the county of Cornwall, before the Hon. Sir Charles Abbott, Knt.

  • Donnall, Robert Sawle
Date:
[1817]
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Trial of Robert Sawle Donnall, on suspicion of poisoning Mrs. Downing, his mother in law, tried at Launceston, March 31, 1817, at the Lent Assize, for the county of Cornwall, before the Hon. Sir Charles Abbott, Knt. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    22/30 (page 18)
    I ject requires. I trust that I shall be enabled to prove that I am en- tirely innocent of the crime with which I am charged—a crime the most revolting to my nature, and which I hope will appear in evidence to be in direct contradiction to every action of my life I feel unequal myself to enter more fully into my case ; but I rely with entire confi- dence on the impartiality of the Court, being convinced that justice and mercy are ever the decisions of a British Judge and Jury, vsho as Christians, and brothers to mankind, will allow every evidence to be adduced to prove my innocence ; and trusting I may receive from the hands of a jury whose hearts are ever shut against worldly prejudicej that verdict which may convince the world I do not merit the dreadful charge alledged against me. The Judge addressed the Jury to nearly the following effect. GENTLEMEN OF THE JURY, This indictment charges the prisoner R. S. Donnall, with having adminstered on the 3d of November last, to Mrs. Dow n- ing, a certain deadly poison called arsenic, of which she died ; if in the result of this investigation you should be of opinion that arsenic was not the poison adminstered, there is another count, charging the prisoner with having administered some other deadly poison unknown. In this enquiry there will be two very important points for you to be satisfied on ; the first is, did the deceased die of poison? the second, are you satisfied upon the evidence, that the prisoner was the person who administered such poison ? In laying the evidence before you, I will endeavour to separate the parts which afford proof of one or other of these points, from that part of the evidence which afford strong proofs of both, namely, that strenuous wish tor the shell, and his general demeanor during the opening of the body. The first witness is called to prove, that the prisoner about that time was in great want of money, and introduced by way of assigning a cause for the perpetration of this crime. [Here the learned Judge reads the evidence of Abrahams ]—adding, that though the prisoner is recommended to you as a man of humane and charitable disposition, we cannot presume to say ■what would be the most likely cause, to influence his mind to the commission of so enormous a crime. One strong proof for your first consideration, as to the cause tf the death, is her going twice to the house of the prisoner to flrink tea : at both these times she returned home ill; complain-