Report of the trial of Madeleine Smith : before the High Court of Justiciary at Edinburgh, June 30th to July 9th, 1857, for the alleged poisoning of Pierre Émile l'Angelier / by Alexander Forbes Irvine, advocate.

  • Smith, Madeleine, 1835-1928.
Date:
1857
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Report of the trial of Madeleine Smith : before the High Court of Justiciary at Edinburgh, June 30th to July 9th, 1857, for the alleged poisoning of Pierre Émile l'Angelier / by Alexander Forbes Irvine, advocate. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by the Francis A. Countway Library of Medicine, through the Medical Heritage Library. The original may be consulted at the Francis A. Countway Library of Medicine, Harvard Medical School.

    312/330 (page 294)
    on receiving it, because lie got it to late to enable liim to keep the appointment. The letter which actually brought him to Glasgow was also too late, if it referred to Saturday night; but it was not surprising that, on receiving this second letter, couched in such urgent terms, and imploring him to come so passionately, that she might clasp him to her bosom—it was not surprising that he should immediately start for Glasgow on receiving it, even although he miderstood the appointment to be for Saturday night, and knew that he was again too late. Miss Perry, and her sister Mrs Towers, both spoke of L'Angelier having remarked that he was made ill by the cocoa and coffee, Miss Perry said, from the prisoner. That was good competent evidence, and the Jury would judge of its weight. In Miss Perry's evidence relating to her visit to ]SIr Smith's house after L'Ajigelier's death, his Lordship directed attention to the question put to Miss Perry by Miss Smith, Is there anything wrong 1 as a very im- portant piece of evidence. Why should Miss Smith suspect that there was anything wrong ? She had not seen Miss Perry for a time, and there was nothing in the fact of her calling to suggest such a question. As to Miss Perry's reasons for recollecting the date of the illness on the 19th, his Lordship thought she had stated in her evidence very fair grounds for the recollection of that date. It is true, he continued, that this lady is exposed to the observation that she had encouraged a clandestine correspondence and engage- ment with these parties, had allowed the panel to visit her, and had written; and certainly that was very strange conduct in a person of her station, respectably connected, and at her time of life, as she was not a young girl. But sometimes you have seen that ladies of that time of life have a good deal of interest in such matters, and this lady seems to have had a sort of pleasure in being a confidante in this affair. The question, however, was, did the evidence of Miss Perry and the others amount to more than giving rise to grave sus- picions ? The Jury must remember that, although he was ill upon these occasions, and seemed to have ascribed his illness to the cocoa and coffee he got from the panel, there was no proof that his illness was really caused by arsenic upon either of these occasions. The symptoms corresponded to the effects of arsenical poisoning, but then so did many of the symptoms with bilious attack. And as there was no examination of the matter vomited from the stomach they would have to consider whether they were warranted from his statement, however honestly made to Miss Perry, in holding that these attacks were caused by some poisonous substance administered by the panel. It had not been shown that the panel was possessed of arsenic before the 19th. Any poisonous substances, however, would be compre- hended in the charge. Arsenic she did buy on the 21st of Febru- ary, before that second illness, and therefore the fact of her posses- sion of arsenic before the second occasion of course gave much greater strength and point to his remark, that ho did I'cceivc some-