ARSENIC.*
OF the three volumes under consideration, those from the "Notable English and Scottish Trials Series" are full reports based on shorthand records, while Mr. Cartin's book is in the form of a collection of short stories. Of the two methods, there is no doubt which produces the more valuable results. Mr. Curtiu in his introduction says that the shorthand report is rather for the expert than the general reader, and this is to some extent true, for it requires con- siderable concentration and acuteness to thread one's way -without confusion through the maze of examination-in-chief, cross-examination, and re-examination, by means of which the story gradually spins its devious course, None the less, if one perseveres, the reward is more than adequate. Indeed, the pure pleasure of the intellectual exercise is almost a reward in itself, and in addition to this there is about the shorthand report a classical purity of form. There is no impertinent intrusion of the personality of the author. The drama is played out on the stage before you, and the figures move with such certainty and passion that you feel yourself an integral part of the tragedy and are never conscious of the hand upon the wires. The faults of the opposing method (as well as some of its virtues) are exemplified in Mr. Curtin's book. He tells his stories clearly and is careful not to overcrowd them, but he is too often ready to sacrifice, in the attempt to create atmosphere and adventitious interest, other matters which, though they require greater concentra- tion for their mastery, are in reality essential to the proper understanding of the case. The danger of this is especially great with regard to poison trials, and among these perhaps none are more perilous than those which turn on the use of arsenic. The difficulty about arsenic is that its symptoms are (if considered independently) indistinguishable from those of other stomachic derangements which may be due to a multi- tude of different causes. It is only the fact that arsenic is found in the body which leads to the conclusion that arsenic is the cause of death. Moreover, arsenic is commonly used as a medicine and for the extermination of insects and vermin. Further, it is known that by taking it habitually dry, as the Styrian peasants are said to do, the human body can attain an extraordinary immunity to its effects, so that, although two grains are considered to be a fatal dose in ordinary cases, persons thus accustomed to the poison can take four or five grains without ill effect. Expert evidence on these lines is very apt to shake a jury where there is any doubt about the actual amount of arsenic taken, and hence the tests by which the quantity of the poison is shown become of vital importance. Chief among these is the very technical and elaborate test invented by Marsh in 1836. Mr. Curtin's volume contains the story of the Lafarge trial, in which this test was (for the first time in the history of criminology) employed by the famous chemist Orfila, after the body had been twice submitted to analysis by other experts and declared free from arsenic. Orfila found the poison, and the prisoner, Marie Lafarge, was convicted. It is said that many modern experts think that the conviction was * (1) The Trial of the Seddon,. Edited by Filson Young. "Notable English Trials Series." Edinburgh, William Hodge and Co. [Ss. net.]—(2) The Trial of Madeleine Smith. Edited by A. Duncan. Smith. "Notable Scottish Trials Series." Same publishers and price.—(3) Noted Murder Mysteries. By Philip Curtin. London; Simpkin, biareban, and Co. j7e. 6d. net.] wrong. Yet Marie Lafarge had every opportunity of com- mitting the crime. The pu- -base of arsenic by her was clearly proved ; and it was shown that her husband's seizures, which ended in his death, invariably came on after be had taken food prepared or given him by her. As against this, the defence could only urge the good terms on which husband and wife apparently were, the anxiety with which she had called in medical assistance, and the fact that the dead man had been liable to similar seizures from his early youth. Another case which in some ways curiously resembles this was the famous trial of Mrs. Carew for the murder of her husband, held in the Consular Court at Yokohama in 1896. Of this, too, Mr. Curtin gives a summary. Here, also, there was apparently a complete absence of motive, since the couple had always been on most friendly terms; but the wife laid herself open to grave suspicion by an absurd flirtation which she had been carrying on with a young bank clerk, to whom she represented herself as miserably unhappy and ill-treated by her husband. She was also foolish enough to invent a story with regard to a woman called Annie Luke, whom she alleged to have been her husband's mistress. This woman, she said, came to the house and asked for him shortly before his seizure, and letters were received, written over the initials"A. L.," hinting that the supposed writer had herself committed the murder. This story was proved a fiction, and it was more or less established that the prisoner herself had written the letters. But the most damning evidence was the proof that she had purchased large quantities of arsenic and given conflicting statements to the doctors and Courts in respect to the purchases. Yet the medical evidence gave the defence plentiful opportunities. The only arsenic traced to Mrs. Carew was in the form of Fowler's solution, and it was proved that the body contained, in addition to absorbed arsenic, white (solid) arsenic, which could not have been administered in the form of solution, and also sugar-of-lead, another deadly poison, of which a sufficient quantity to cause death was known to have been in the house. Moreover, the Marsh test was not used. Only a small part of the liver was analysed, and only one-sixth of a grain of arsenic actually found. The defence brought forward a quite respectable body of evidence to show that Mr. Carew was an habitual arsenic-taker ; and here, as in the Lafarge case, much was made of the devotion with which the wife nursed her husband, and the perfect fearlessness with which she called in medical assistance. None the less, a conviction was secured.
Very different was the famous trial of Madeleine Smith, which took place only a few years later than the Lafarge case. Madeleine Smith, the daughter of a Glasgow archi- tect, was charged with poisoning a young Frenchman named L'Angelier, whose lover and mistress she had been, and to whom she had written a long series of most passionate and compromising letters. The connexion had since been broken off, and she had become engaged to a wealthy middle-aged man; and it was in her fear of L'Angelier's interference with her new lover that the prosecution suggested a motive for the crime. The purchase of arsenic by the prisoner was proved, and it was proved also that the dead man had on her invitation come back from the seaside to see her on the day before his death. Further, it was shown that he went out on the evening of his return, and that he came back in the violent seizure from which he died. A post-mortem was immediately held, and nearly ninety grains of arsenious acid were actually found. The defence alleged that Miss Smith used the arsenic, which she purchased quite openly, as a complexion lotion. They pro- duced some evidence to suggest suicide, and laid stress on the enormous size of the dose (which they said was so large that no one could have been induced to swallow it unconsciously) and on the failure of the prosecution to show definitely that the prisoner ever saw L'Angelier for three weeks before his death. But their strongest plea was the personality of Madeleine Smith. Her beauty and charm, her perfect calm- ness, the candour with which she had met all accusations and inquiries, might well seem irreconcilable with guilt. The Dean of the Faculty made a magnificent appeal to the emotions of the jury, and the charge was declared not proven.
The Seddon trial was in almost every way a direct contrast to the case of Madeleine Smith. Seddon and his wife were, it will be remembered, charged with the murder of Miss
Barrow, a middle-aged woman who had been for some fourteen months their lodger. Miss Barrow was well- to-do, miserly, and eccentric. Some time before his lodger's death Seddon, who was an insurance superin- tendent earning, it is said, 215 a week, arranged with her to take over all her property in return for an annuity, to be paid by himself. On September 1st, 1911, she was seized with what appeared to be epidemic diarrhoea, a disease very prevalent at that season. The Seddons at once called in a doctor, who continued to visit the house periodically until the 14th, when the patient died. Then ensues a remarkable circumstance. Seddon goes for the doctor, and the latter, without coming to see the body, gives a certificate of death from epidemic diarrhoea. On the next day Seddon takes to the jeweller a watch belonging to the deceased to have a new dial put in and Miss Barrow's name removed, and a ring of hers to be enlarged for his own use. In two days the body is buried in a public grave (although Miss Barrow owned a vault at Highgate), Seddon actually receiving 7s. 6d. commission from the undertaker. Two months later the body is exhumed, and, although no white arsenic is found, an application of the Marsh test discloses the presence of over two grains in the body. The question then arises : Had the Seddons arsenic in their possession at the relevant dates ? The only evidence produced to establish this was that of a chemist, who spoke to a purchase of arsenic flypapers by the prisoner's daughter ; but his evidence of identification was much weakened in cross-examination. This was a serious defect in the Crown's case, and Mr. Marshall Hall, for the defence, must have been much tempted to refuse to call evidence. Here, however, the modern advocate has to reckon with the Criminal Evidence Act of 1898. Now that a prisoner may go into the box in his own defence, it is practically impossible for his counsel in a serious charge to refuse to call him, for the refusal raises an inevit- able inference in the minds of the jury, and must, if the defence fails, make the prisoner feel that his counsel's obstinacy has undone him. Both Mr. and Mrs. Seddon there- fore went into the box, and, although the former gave his evidence with extraordinary cleverness and self-possession, it was in all probability his own statements which convicted him. To this end his wife's evidence also probably contributed in some degree. In the first place, she told a story about the purchase of arsenic by herself which the defence failed to sub- stantiate, although the prosecution produced the chemist in Court ; and in the second, she entirely failed to give any reason- able explanations of the fact that she had, at intervals before Miss Barrow's death, cashed 2165 worth of £5 notes which had admittedly belonged to the deceased. The result was, as will be remembered, that her husband was convicted and she acquitted.
This case has many interesting features. In the first place, as Mr. Filson Young points out in his excellent introduction, the reliance on the Marsh test as sole evidence of quantity was very unusual. In the second place, the trial illustrates most strongly the danger of the Criminal Evidence Act, 1898. Madeleine Smith was never put in the witness-box; and although the prisoner was not called in the Carew case, her statement before the Coroner was read at the trial, and her extraordinary behaviour in regard to the Annie Luke letters and the enamoured bank clerk told as heavily against her as any cross-examination could have done. Thirdly, a com- parison of the trial with that of Madeleine Smith shows both the power of " prejudice " over a jury's mind, and also the change which has of late years been coming over the character of juries. As Mr. Young truly says, the maxim that a man is to be presumed innocent until he is proved guilty is, in serious cases, repeatedly ignored by the modern jury, who are too often ready to fill in any lacuna in the logical sequence of the Crown's proof with considerations of motive and prejudice. There is, of course, some advantage in the change, which probably has not yet succeeded in convicting an innocent man on any serious charge. It is hopeless to attempt to administer justice where juries are so sentimental that they will not convict except on actually direct evidence (as is the case in some parts of the United Kingdom), but one would like to see logic the determining factor and not sentiment—.-whether operating for or against the defence.
Previous page
