THE   BKIGHTON  POISONING  CASE.
  On the fourth of April. 1859  the  trial of Wiluam Henry Kixq, M. D., of
Brighton. C VV'., was commenced, and concluded the following day.  The case
was  a most remarkable one,  both  in a criminal and scientific point of view.
Another instance  has  unfortunately been  added to those already on record
wherein a knowledge ot medicine has been put  to the worst possible purpose
—wherein the physician has  cruelly, persistently and remorselessly used his
skill for the destruction of life under  the  preteuce of  saving-wherein  the
husband  has stood by  the bedside of his dying wife,  and while speaking to
her words of comiort and of hope, has  betrayed her to a gradual and painful
death.  Fortunately for society, few men are found capable of such atrocitiea
as Ibis.   Here and there they are to be tound, but Ihey stand pre-eminent in
crime, and# their names are mentioned ever afterwards as having been those of
beings scarcely within the  I orders of humanity.  Though Science  places
m-^ansof destruction within the reach of the educated rnau, unknown to the
wisest of our ra;e in dajs gone by ; happily,  the kuowl-dge she imparts ia
not confined to tlio e who acquire it  for the gratification of their unholy pas-
sions. Should the power she gives be abused, in  other hands she places the
means of detectiou, and rarelj rails to  briug down  punishment upon the man
who seeks tu make her a pirtuer in crime   Never was this truth  made more
manifest than in the case now befVre us.
  As the trial of Or  King is one of the most important that ha*  ever taken
place in Canada, we propose  to give a short accouut of the parties immediately
concerned.  The'priuc pal acior in these sad scenes was born in the township
of  Sophiasburgh, Prince Edward county,  in  the  year 1835.  In  1814, his
pareu's removed to Cramahe, no* Brighton, in  Northumberland,  where  they
purchased a farm, and by untiilng industry succeeded in accumulating a con-
siderable amount of prop rly.  When eighteen years of age King left home,
and went to the ' ormal School in Toronto.  Iu that  city he first commenced
the study of medliue. having  thus eariy determined to go through a regular
course of tuitiou so >oou as he should  be enabled  to do so. Upou obtaining
a first-class certificate, be was appointed to icher of the  fourth division of the
Central School, Hamilton in which situation it  was part of his duty to lecture
to the studuuU on physiology.   In pursuance of his determination  to gain  a
knowledge of the  h<alitigart, he studied under Dr. Greeulees and in 1855
went to Philadelphia  where he  entered the Homoeopathic Medical College.
Here we find him during t\o winter sessions— the expenses attendant  upon
his  long >tay bing  mainly defrayed by  bin father-in law, Mr. Lawson.  In
proof of the as-iduity  with  which he pursued his studi s,  he  produces  three
diploma : one from the college previou-ly mentioned ; a second from the
Penn-ylvania Medical University  in  Philadelphia ; und a third  from the
Ecl-clic Medical College, also ot  Philadelphia.  In 18.58, be returned to the
village of Brighton  aud iinm-diately commenced the,  practice of medicine.
In  this  he  so.ms  to  have  been v. ry successful, at  any rate he gaintd the
confidence of many  people.   His receipts, it is reporUd. avenged  $200 per
mouth, and, as he himself says, he " was in a fair way  to achieve both fame
        1 
2
and wealth,-' when the events which led  to  his arrest took place.  By  those
who have known him. Dr. King is  said  to  have been a  pushing  energetic
young fellow.   Proud of his attainments, and possessing the gift of inspiri ng
others with the belief that  he was deeply learned—au idea he was not slow so
inculcate- he was just the  man to succeed in the profession he had chosen, so
far as money making is coucerned. He is d scribed, while in Brighton,a< having
been to all appearance of 6trictly moral habits—regularly attending Church,
and careful in  his language.   His address and appearance are  scarcely cal-
culated to produce an impression in his favour.  He is about five feet six or
eeven inches in height ; has dark hair ; wears a moustache and  dark beard.
His face  is  not of that description which would leal persons to imagine its
owner was likely to be guilty of so terrible a crime  as that of which he has
been found guilty.  His eyes are dark, and  his complexion rather sallow, but
clear.  The idea derived from conversing with him is that he would be by no
mean* backward in asserting either real or pretended claims ; and he has that
peculiar cast of countenance belonging to men who make themselves agreeable,
principally for purposes of gain.  He ba-< a quick way of looking at  f ose
with  whom he  is confronted, as  though " taking the measure" of bis man.
During bis confinement, he  received viry flatteriug  letters  from gentlemen
both in the United States  and in Canada,  all bearing testimony to bis good
•haracter  as a man, and  his skill as a physician.   Among those  who thus
wrote him were :—Messrs. J  Bruce, A. M., Hamilton ; Alexander H. Laidlaw,
A.M. Piincipal of the Monroe Grammar  School,  P. iladelphia ; J. II. Eld-
ridge, Principal of the Hancock Grammar School,  Philadelphia; F. Srni h,
M. D., of Springvale, Hartford County, Maryland ;  and J. H. Thomas, M. D.,
Professor of Anatomy and Physiology, Medical College, Philadelphia.  In the
year 1854, while at the Normal School, King married Miss Sarah AnneLawson,
a young lady about the same age  as  himself, of very preposse.-sing appear-
ance, well educated and of an exceedingly resp( ctable family.  Report speaks
highly both of herself and parents in every respect.   Th*y own  a larg- farm
about a mile fr m Brighton,  upon  which they reside, ai^d have a family of
four sons and  two daughters.   About  twelve  months after the  marriage of
King with Miss Lawson, their first and only child was born.  Previous to this
event it ws suspected that Mrs. King was  not well treated by  her husband,
and undtr this impression, and to ensure all necessary attention, her parents
placed her under th"ir own roof during her confinement. Comp'aint she disdain-
ed to make, preferring rather to submit to wrong than to expose her husband's
conduct.  During her  illness, however, the  suspicious of her  friends were
more than confirm*d.  At this critical period,  when t-he  demanded ths  sym-
pathy of every manly heart, she received letters of a very distressing character
from  her husband, in which he charged her with a want of chastity, but  being
expostulated with, he apparently repented  of his  cruel conduct, and asked
pardon of his wife in the most bumble manner.  That pardon being granted,
he demanded the return of the le ters he bad written, and presented a pistol at
his brother-in  law. Clinton M. Lawson, into whose possession they had come,
npon his refusing to give them  up.   They were, at length returned, but not,
before copies had  been tiken—which copies might have been produced at the
trial  bad  the Crown Prosecutor thought them necessary.  Their child, happily
for itself perhaps did not  live more than three months.
   In  Toronto, Mr. and Mrs. King  kept boarders,  and  rdopted  the  same
rowans for increasing their income when in  Hamilton.  While her husband
was in Philadelphia, Mrs.  King resided with  ber parents.  King was at Col-
lege d .ring the winter months only of  1855,  '56, and '67, together with  he
first quarter of 1858.   For  three mramers  he  taught  in various Common
Schools of Brighton Township, and finally returned home in March. 1858,  wneo,
as already remarked, he commenced to practise  his profession. There is e v idence 
3
to prove that he did not live happily with his wife while in Brighton; ana suffi-
cient to prove also, that she by no means monopolized his affections.  While on a
visit at his house  he became acquainted with a Miss Vandervoort, residing
with her parents in Sidney, about twenty miles from Brighton.  She is thought
by some to be a good-looking girl,  but  tastes  differ.  She is about twenty
years of age, and is said to have been pretty well educated.   Another young
lady,  Miss Dorcas Garrett, also, received attentions from Dr. King.  Sbe lives
in the township  of Murray,  east  of Brighton.   Mr. Townsend  Garrett,
her father,  is  a  member  of  the Society  of Friends,  and  a   native
of Hallowell township, Prince  Edward  county.   He  came to his  present
farm more  than forty years ago.  Miss Garrett is about  the same age as Miss
Vandervoort.  With both these young ladies King exchanged letters, but from
what  transpired'before the coroner's  inquest, it would appear  that the former
sharply checked the Doctor when  the prositions he  made over-stepped the
bounds of  propriety.  He had  sent her a note, in which he a^ked her  to hold
herself iu readiness to.become his wife, as it was impossible for Mrs. King to
live long.  It appeared, too, that the prisoner did not  think her so well edu-
cated as the lady of a professional man should be ; and, in order to remedy
this defect, recommended her to induce  her father to send her to school, and
was kind enough to point out the course of study she should pursue.   A very
proper reply was returned to this disgraceful epistle, in which Miss  Garrett
threatened to expose her suitor if he dared to make any further advances of  a
like description.  In the middle of October, Mrs. King became  seriously ill 5
her husband, it is said, having announced to her a short time  previously, and
much to her surprise, that she would not live a month.  On the 3rd of Novem-
ber she died, notwithstanding the assiduous attentions of the Doctor.   During
her illness, she frequently vomited after  taking the medicines he  administered.
The retching was violent in the extreme, and caused her great pain.  Many
times did  she beg of  her  husband to  •withhold  the medicine he regu-
 larly  administered,—he  would  entreat   her   to   take  it  as the only
means by which  her  life could be saved.   Frequently would  he  implore
Divine aid  on the efforts he was  professedly making to restore  her to
health ;  when speaking of her, he used the most affectionate language, and  it
appeared to be Ms study to do  all in his power to alleviate her sufferings.   A
few days however, before she died, her mother happened to  examine  the
pockets of a coat belonging to the prisoner,-and in one of them, she  found a
likeness of  the above-mentioned Miss Vandervoort, accompanied by a note
from the lady herself.  This she did not make known until her daughter was
dead, but when  once out, it  brought to light  the  affair with Mis* Dorcas
Garrett.   Still further to excite suspicion, it was ascertained that King  bad
purchased half an ounce of arsenic a day or two before his wife was taken ill;
and,  subsequently to  that, a quantity of  morphine.   A coroner's jury  was
summoned, and the body exhumed.   Evidence was adduced to show that while
 his wife was ill, King  had declared  that  she was suffering from an ulcerated
 womb; but the medical man could find no trace of  any such disease. They
 discovered that she was pregnant,  but  all  connected with that part of the
■▼stem was in a healthy condition.   Not being able to account for death upon
•ny other supposition than that it had been caused by poison,  the stomach and
liver were taken out, and sent to Professor Croft, Toronto, for  anah sis, who
found no less than eleven grains of arsenic in the stomach alone !  When the
body was  exhumed, King was visiting some patients, and upon returning  to
Brighton,  after hearing what was going on, he drove off at once to Sidney,  to
Mr. Vandervoort's, where he arrived late at night.  The family were much
excited at his visit, and especially when he explained his reasons for making it.
He told them that he was charged with having poisoned  his wife, though  no
each  accusation had  then been made, and said that cot oaly would be  be 
4
arrested, but that a warrant would be issued for Miss Vandervoort also ; and
urged upon her parents that they should allow their daughter to fly with him
to the  States until  the matter was settled.   After  much  hesitation,  they
acceded to the  demand, upon the  understanding that King should take M iss
Vandervoort  to her aunt's, at Cape Vincent.   This plan was adopted, but
 King's  stay was  short.  A warrant was issued for his arrest, and while the
 inquest was proceeding, he was brought  ba«k and lodged in prison.
  Once  in gaol, he prepared most  actively for his trial.  The  Hon. John
Hillyard Cameron was  engaged to defend him.   Medical  men were also sum-
montd to his assistance, and on the  clay of trial  there  appeared Professor
Hempel and Dr. Sanders of Philadelphia, with Drs. Vontagen of Brantford and
Nichol  of  Simcoe, C. W.  On behalf  of  the  Crown, Mr.  Gait, Q. C, was
retained.  The  medical witnesses were Profi ssor Croft, and Drs. Hodder and
Bethune of Toronto; Gross and Proctor of Brighton, and Gilchrist of Hamilton.
When before the Grand Jury, King preserved an unruffled demeanour.  He
declared himself quite sure of acquittal, and appeared to be so.
  One day previous to the week of  trial, a brother of the accused came to
Cobourg and called at a chemist's shop, where he purchased twenty-five cents
worth of strychnine.  Upon being asked his name, he replied that it was King,
and admitted  his relationship to the accused.   From the shop be went  to the
prison,  where he  saw his  brother.   The gaoler was  present  during the
interview, and as the two were allowed to converse only through a small hole
in the cell door, he is quite sure nothing was  banded from one 10 the other.
King explains that the strychnine was purchased for the purpose of poisoning
foxes, of which there are many about his father's  farm.   Excuses  of this
description are always at hand.
-•—4— ,im' » <m< ■  *•    »  *
THE  TRIAL.
  The trial took place  before Judge  Burns, and created  the most intense
excitement, not only in Cobourg and  Brighton, but  m all the country ronnd
about.  At an early hour, large numbers of  teams, laden with people anxious
to witness  the proceedings, came into town.  The railways also contributed
their quota, and soon after eight o'clock  the  steep steps leading up to  the
Court-House, and the brow of the hill  upon  which  it i-tands, were coveied
with a crowd, jammed together as tight as it was po.-sible for human beings
to be and live.  It was a noisy crowd, with  great strength  of  lungs, which
they tested to their utmost extent.  Not  once or twice, hut continuously
indeed, one might  have  thought from  the sustained  roar that  an election
meeting was being held.   Numbers of women came into Cobourg. but a gin nee
at the Court House steps was sufficient to a-snro hem that crinoline coull not
bear- so great an amount of  compression as was required  to get within the
doorway, and  they at once abandoned all hope, of effeting anentruire.   But
notwithstanding the absence  of the  ladies   the  room was  60on filled to its
utmost extent.  There  were  probably about  three  hundred people present.
Among them, besides the witnesses, were a number of medical gentlemen and
the students of the Cobourg  Medical College, to whom a holiday had  been
given that they might be  able  to attend.  The Court-House is  tmall,  low, 
5
ill-lighted, and worse ventilated.  Mr. Justice Burns was  stuck on a slightly
elevated platform, behind a concern which looked very like an  old counter
borrowed from some chandler's shop.
  The Court was opened at half-past nine o'clock—Mr. Gait, Q.C., who has
been conducting the Crown cases, prosecuted, assisted by the County Attorney,
Mr. J. A. Armour. Hon. J. H. Cameron appeared for the defence.
  The following  were the names of the  jury:—Joseph Rosevier, William
Hoskins, William Humphries,  Richard Barratt, William  Smith,  Jonathan
Porter, Levi Dudley. Daniel Richtman,  William Robinson, William Clarke,
Samuel Haggart,  and Henry D. Alger.  Seven challenges were made by the
prisoner's counsel.  None were made on behalf of the Crown.
  Mr. Galt opened the case.  He impressed upon  the jury the  fact that  it
was their duty to divest themselves  of  any  prejudice they  might  have
conceived inasmuch  as the prisoner was now, in the  eye  of the law, as
innocent as any one of them.  He was accused  of having murdered his wife
by  certain appliances within his reach, and with  the nature of  which he  was
well acquainted.  No person could have  been in a more favour able position
for carryingout his purpose, for  not only was  he a physician by profession.
but he waited upon his wife as her medical attendant.   The learned gentleman
then gave the outlines of the events which had led to the arrest of the prisoner,
and afterwards addressed the jury  on  those points to which, in  trials for
murder, it is necessary to direct attention.  The first thing it would be incum-
bent upon them to do was to establish the  fact  that  the prisoner  was  in  a
position to accomplish the deed, for the alleged perpetration of which he was
to be tried, a d that those means by which the deceased had come by her  death
were within his reach.   He  (Mr. Gait) would  prove to  the jury that the
deceased, up to the 14th October last, was in a sound state of health  that she
was then seized with violent pains, accompanied with  retching, and finally
died on the 3d November.  It would be shewn that, in the opinion of medical
men, there was nothing to cause  death except  poisou, and it would also  be
shown that eleven grains of arsenic were found in the stomach of the deceased.
Ths next thing he i Mr. Gait) would prove was a probable motive for the
commission  of the crime.  This  motive  would be  found in the  prisoner's
affection and illicit intercourse wi h another  woman—to pay his addresses  to
whom, with greater freedom, he had, it was to be feared, murdered his wife.
Means and opportunity for working out  his designs he  had  found in the
exercise of his profession, and one of the strongest evidences of guilt would  be
seen  in  the fact that he had prophesied the death of his wife, while in health
and strength.  Could anything be more repugnant to human feeling than the
conduct of the prisoner, in assuring  his wife and her  friends that she could
not be safely delivered of the child with which she was pregnant, but that she
must cease to breathe before she gave it birth ?  This the prisoner bad  done ;
he  had stated that the deceased  was  suffering under a disease of  the womb,
which, had it existed, would have inevitably left traces behind it, but of  which
there were none.  It would be proved  that  the medicine taken by Mrs. King
was administered by her husband, but the exact description of medicine could
not be proved from the knowledge of the parties who saw it given. Witnesses
would be brought forward who  would tell  the jury that the prisoner had given
a white powder to his  wife, which, would not  float  in water, and was
exceedingly  difficult to  mix with  it. Each  dose  caused a burning  thirst,
followed by retching   all, as Professor Croft would  tell them, symptoms of
poisoning by arsenic.  The accused was an  homoeopathic physician,' and  the
learned counsel for the defence might take the ground that he had administeied
the medicine for  remedial purposes, but that he was the victim of a mistake.
If this were done, the whole case  would be narrowed down to one  of  intent, 
6
and he entreated the jury to weigh well the evidence which would be given on

thastmoNnDAV,DSON,M.D.,was the first witness called.  He was examined by
Mr. Gait.   He said-I am a coroner of this county.  I held an  inquest on the
body of the prisoner's wife, on the 8th of  November last   Her stomach was
removed, and placed in a clean earthen  dish on  the first day  of the inquest
in  the presence of the jury.  From thaft dish it was taken and placed in a
bottle, in the neck of which I placed a cork, and ticd.it down with a string
 This bottle I took with me to Brighton.  I locked it up in a bureau, and put the
 key in my pocket.  Next day-the jury having adjourned over-by their con-
 sent, I sealed the bottle, wrapped it up, and sealed the paper;  placed this  in
 a case, which was also sealed, and  forwarded it to Queen s  College,

 ^Crolrexamined by Mr. Cameron-I was present in  the room the whole
 time of the inquest.  I did not leave the room from the time the stomach was
 taken from deceased until I placed it in a bottle.  The ^ttle was a pickle
 bottle.  I washed it out with cold water.  Between the time  the bottle was
 tied up, and the time I got to Brighton, three quarters of an hour might have
 elapsed.  The place where the inquest was held is about three miles and a-half
 from Brighton  I stayed at Mr. DeLong's tavern  in Brighton that night.
 Th j cupboard  or closet in which I placed it, was behind 1he_bai-in Mr De-
 Long's   I kept the key in the pocket of my pantaloons, which I did not take
 off that night, as I  sat up writing out the papers  relative to the inquest. Dt-
 Lon* told me there was no other key than the one which he gave me.  A man
 name'd Squires sitting in the room asked me to show him the stomach.   1
 simply took the bottle  from my pocket  and let him see it.   Next day the
 stomach was placed in a clean dish,  in the presence of the jury, as Drs. Uross
 and  Proctor  wished  again to see  it, the post  mortem examination navmg
 previously barn conducted by  candle  light.    No one besides the  doctors
 touched it. The table was between me and them.  The stomach was in tne uisn
 about fifteen or twenty minutes.  It was then replaced in the bottle and sealed
 in the presence of the jury.  The stamp I  used was a penny piece.  1 am not
 sure that a penny piece was used on the twine that I wound round the box.  l
 rather think I used an ordinary wafer stamp—but  am not confident.   I gave
 the package to Mr. Robert Barker, one of the jury to take to Kingston, on the
 day it was sealed.                        .             .   .
   Robert Bakker  M.D.—I was  one of  the jury who enquirod into the death
 of Mrs. King.   The bottle containing the stomach was delivered to me. The
 stomach was secured a* described by last witness.  I received  it on  the morn-
 ing of either the 10th or 11th of November, and by the twelve o'clock train
 I went o Kingston.  The package was in my earpet bag, which I kept in my
 hand all  the time.  In the  evening I saw the Profess- r of Queen's College,
 who declined to give me a decisive answer until next morning.  I left my
 ba* in a closet of the laboratory, which I locked up.  Next morning I called,
 took it away  and returned with it to Brighton—the package  being precisely
 in the same condition as when I received it.
   Cross-examined.—When the stomach was placed in the bottle it (the bottle)
 was not at once corked.   The post mortem examination was conducted in  the
 school-house, in the presence of the jury.   There was fourteen or fifteen on the
 jury.  No  one,  that I saw, either went near to  the body or touched it.
 1 do not think that during the post mortem examination any of the relatives of
 the deceased were present.   It was not impossible,  certainly, for any of  the
 jurors to drop something into the basin whi«h contained the  stomach; but I
 do not think any of them went near it.  The mouth  of the  bottle was  not
 corked on the day the stomach was  taken from the body, it was merely covered
 with paper tied down with string.  Next day I procured a cork, and when the 
1
jury re-assembled the Coroner produced the bottle in the same state as it had
been the day previous.
   Mmon Davidson recalled. —I received the bottle from Mr. Barker, the same
day that he returned from Kingston.  I placed it in a locked closet, and kept
it until the morning of the 13th..   I then  started with it for Toronto.  I got
as far a* Colborue. when, learning that King had been  arrested, I determined
to return.   I gave  the stomach to ilr. Keeble, the conductor, to take to Pro-
fessor Croft.
   Cross-examined.—Between the  time I placed the bottle in the closet after I
received it from Mr. Barker, and the time I took it out on the thirteenth, I did
not see it.
   James Keeble examined.—I am a conductor on the Grand Trnnk.   On the
13th  November  last,  I  received  a  small box  from Simon  Davidson.  He
instructed  me not to let it out of  my custody until such time as I placed it in
the hands of Professor Croft.  This was about seven o'clock, A.M.   I locked
it up in a cupboard of the baggage car used for bonded  goods.  Upon arriving
in Toronto, I gave it to Professor Croft.
   Cross-examined.—No one besides  myself had access  to the cupboard.
   Henry  Croft examined.—I  am  professor  of  chemistry at University
College, Toronto.  I received the box and bottle from last witness.   The box
was sealed  with common seals.   The cork in the bottle had the stamp of a
penny  piece upon  it.     The stomach  was   emptied into a  glass  with
water.  The liquid was  allowed to settle ; the upper part was poured off,
and a sediment left.  This sediment was examined and found to contain white
arsenic.  The fluid contents of the stom-ich were then analysed and also found
to contain  arsenic.   I next examined the' coats of the stomach, and found more
arsenic in them.  The quantity of arsenic  I found in the stomach was eleven
grains.   I  wrote to the Coroner to send me  the  liver and kidneys of the
deceased.
   Simon Davidson-  v;is recal'ed and proved  the second exhumation of  the
body  ; the taking out of the  liver, and  its delivery carefully sealed to E. D.
Moore, express agent.
   E. D. Moore exmnined.—On the 19th  of November. I received  ajar from
last witness, and kept  it in my  possession until I delivered it to Professor
Croft.
   Cross-examined.—I  placed  the jar in  an iron safe inside my car.  It was
locked up.   Next day I delivered  it to Pr fessor  Croft.
   Professor Croft recalled.—I aualysed the liver, and found  small quantities
of arsenic  in it.   Arsenic cannot be put into the liver after death.  It must have been
taken in during life  that is the reason I wrote for the I ver.  I  sent to the C oroner,
Mr. Davidson, some tubes containing metallic  arsenic which I  took from the
liver. (Six tubes hermetically sealed, containing  the arsenic, were produced.)
I did not analys" the whole of the liver.
   Cross-examined—1 did not determine the quantity of arsenic found In the
liver.  It was very  little, not sufficient to cause death.  In the stomach itself
I found but little aiseuic—in the contents of the  stomach about eleven grains.
The  stomach, with   the  exception of a slight  blush at the extremi tit#, was
healthy. It is possi' le  o put  arsenic in this portion of  the body after death.
I  do not think the paper round the bottle was sealed. The box was sealed.  I
have no means of knowing whether the arsenic was put into the stomach after
death or not.  However much  might be taken into the stomach, even when  it
reaches one or two ounces, very little finds  its way into the tissues of  the sto-
mach and  liver.  Inflammation  supervenes general y about two hours after
areeuic has been taken.   Much more  arsenic is generally taken lhan is found.
Death  from arsenic may ensue in  six lours after taking it, or extend over
eight or ten days. I have read of cases where ptrsons have taken arsenic, and 
have died from it several days after, without tak ng any in the interval.  I do
not think the poison could have been taken into  the stomach I examined, long
before death. There was no inflammation, though there was a commencement
of it, in the extremities of the stomach. Some poisons have a cumulative effect. «
A succession of doses may be given before they take any effect ; but the cumu-
lative power may, in the end, produce death.  I  have known this to  be the
case with digitalis; but never heard or read of it with arseuic.
  Re-examined by Mr. Gait.  I know of no case wherein arsenic has acted as
a cumulative poison.   The  sixteenth of a grain is about the usual allopathic
dose of arsenic.   If a succession of such  doses bad i.een taken, providing the
party lived a short time afterwards, no traces of it would be found.   Arsenic
administered in large  quantities, will produce a narcotic effect.  None of the
appearances usually attendant on the taking  of  arsenic were present in the
stomach.  The absence of the usual indications by no means excludes the pos
sibility of the presence of arsenic.   The absence of symptoms is the exception.
  Nathaniel Ri'ssell Proctok, M.D., examined.—I assisted at \hepost mortem
examination of the body of  Sarah Anne King.  The body was brought to the
school house, and placed  upon a door.   It presented a rather healthy appear-
ance for one deceased.  There was considerable  fat over the muscular parts.
Dr. Gro-s made the incision, and laid  bare the stomach, liver and  an impreg-
nated  womb.  There  was  a dark appearance  on the outer covering,  which
might have  been occasioned by coming in contact with a dark fluid. With this
exception, the organs  were healthy.   We examined  the bowels, which were
coloured, from something, we supposed, which had passed through them.  The
rectum was also coloured.  This we attributed to inflammation.  The womb was
removed ; it contained a foetus, which was quite healthy.  The placenta was cut
through, but we found nothing wrong. We removed the sternum, and examined
the heart and liver, which were quite  healthy.   The  lungs presented a con-
gested appearance. I never  examined  any one before who had died of arsenical
poison.
  Cross-examined.—The congestion of the lungs was not such as was sufficient
to cause death.   The inflammation of the rectum is, I consider, a sign of arseni-
cal poison.  The surface of  the 6tomach was congested—it scarcely amounted
to inflammation ;  it was a state of engorgement; I cannot say to what extent.
Taking the stomach a* a whole, it did not appear to me to be a healthy sto-
mach.   I cannot say how long the inflammation I observed had existed.  I did
 ot  examine very  particularly the whole of  the inner coating.  Before the
Coroner. I  did not use the word " inflammation"—" congestion"  was the
word.   I  supposed the  colouring of the coat was caused by the dark fluid I
found inside the stomach.   I examined the neck of the womb.  There was no
trace of disease of any sort.   The age of the foetus was between three or four
months, and presented a healthy appearance.  When the skull was removed,
the brain contained a little  more fluid than is ordinarily the case.
  A. E. Fife, M.D., examined.—I was called in to see the late Mrs. King.  I
think Dr. King sent for me, perhaps about three weeks before her death.  She
was vomiting at intervals.  I prescribed for her ipecacuanha and camphor.  I
gave the prescription to Dr. King. He told me  that bis wife was vomiting at
intervals—that she was pregnant, and that she had ulceration of the vagina.
I called four or five times a terwards, and prisoner stated to me that the diffi-
culty at the vagina  was better.  The last sime I saw her that she could converse
with me was the night before her death.  She said to me, in the course  of the
conversation, " I feel much  better than I have any time since my illness." She
appeared to me much better.  She did not look like a  dying woman.  The last
time I saw her was on the morning of her death.  I cannot say how many hours
had intervened between then and the time I left her on the previous  evening.
I called about dusk in the evening, jind between eleven and  twelve  the next 
9
morning.  I was present at the third  post mortem examination.   The mucuons
membrane appeared as though it had  be«n inflamed.  The rectum presented a
like appearance.  ThiB might have been caused by the action of the impreg-
nated womb.
  Cross-examined.—When I first called on Mrs. King, Dr. King said she was
too ill to speak to me, and consequently I held no conversation with  her.  I
think, but I am not sure,  that Dr. King once spoke to me about making a per-
sonal  examination of his wife.  One of the powders I prescribed Wi uld present
a gray appearance ; another was  a mixture of yellow and black.  The symp-
toms  Dr. King described in their general character, I  did  not consider incon-
Bistt nt with a woman four or live months advanced in pregnancy.   No  other
physicians w» re called in,  with the exception of Dr. Gross, who was there on
the day  of her death, when she was in a state of coma. I have heard something
about an accident she once bad, in getting either in or out of a buggy.  She
complained  to me of a pain in the head—'hat was all.
  Jamks Gilchrist, M.D.,  examined.—I saw the body, but found no trace of
organic  disease.  We examined th« brain.  It was apparently a little softened,
but that I attributed to the length of time the woman had be-n dead.
  Pilkix Gross, M.D.—I saw Mrs. King two or three hours before her death.
I had not seen her during her illness  before  that.  I was present at the first
post mortem examination. The stomach of the deceased was placed in a bottle—
thfre  was nothing to seal it with.   Next morning when the jury were called
together it was sealed.   Ligatures wee placed round each end of the stomach.
The body did not present  an emaciated appearance.   The liver was hardened.
The  lower  part  of the right  lobe  of the lungs was slightly congested—the
remaind r was in a healthy state.   The heart was bealthy, and the womb also.
The inner coat  of  the stomach was slightly discoloured.   I saw nothing to
cause death.  No one had anything to do with the stomach except Dr. Proctor.
I was present wheD the liver was taken out for Professor Croft.
  Cross-examined.—The  liver was hardened I  think by the  absorption of
arsenic.   I should think it would  take a large quantity of arsenic to produce
such an  effect.  It might be produced by a continuous  taking of arsenic.  A
large  portion of poison  ought to be found in the liver. The inflammation of the
stomach was very slight.   I did not discover  any signs  of  ulceration in the
neck  of the womb.  The marks could not have disappeared in three  or four
weeks.
  This concluded the medical testimony so far as the post-mortem examination
was concerned.  The Court adjourned fifteen minutes for refreshment.   Upon
re-assembling -
  Elizabeth Jane Lawson was examined.-  I am the mother of the late Mrs.
King.  On the 14th of October I went to see my daughter, and found her very
ill.   The Doctor  met me at the door of  the  house, and told me that she had
been very sick.  I went in, and she said she was  a  little better.  Soon  after,
the Doctor gave her a little medicine.  It was a pure white.  It was mixed in
the spoon.  She was very sick after it.  She tried to prevent herself vomiting.
The doctor said, " Keep it down, Annie."  She tried to do so, but could not.
She vomited a great deal; but was better afterwards.  The vomit  was of a
dark  greenish colour.  The vomiting  continued fifteen or twenty minutes.
During  her illness and always after taking the medicine, she was very  thirsty.
We had  to keep  a tumbler of cold water by her.   I remained with her all
night.  The prisoner was present, and prescribed for his wife.   I went to the
house about 9 a. m.  The  first dose was given  soon after nine o'clock; the
second about eleven.  The next powder had just the  same effect as the one
previously administered.   My daughter told me on this, the first day, that the
doctor said  she could  net get well.   She complained that the medicine was
fiery tasted.  In the presence of the prisoner, she told me that he said  she was 
10
 cankered and ulcered, and that she could not get well.  From that day until
 the day of her death, I wras not  abjent from the  house more  than one hour.
 Dr. King constantly waited upon her, and said frequently, '• I would give any
 other patient, Annie, more of this medicine than you."  I saw the Doctor give
 medicine to my daughter after the visit of Dr. Fife, the evening before her
 death.  He brought something in a tea-cup, and said  " Here's Dr. Fife's good
 medicine, Annie."  He told me  to mix it with some water, and give it to her.
 She did not take it—she put a little  on the end of her tongue, and said it was
 so fiery that she could not drink  it.   This was about eight o'clock.  About an
 hour after the prisoner brought some of his own medicine.   It was in a spoon
 —mixed with water.  It caused vomiting, and her father, who was there, said
 she could not live;  and that he must have a jury of doctors.  He urged  upon
 the prisoner to  send  for more physicians.   About twelve o'clock he sent for
 Dr. Fife.  My husband went  for him, but found he had  gone to Colborne.
 When my husband came  back, my daughter was  very ill.   She had got into
 such a state that she could not drink.  Her  father wanted Dr. Gross.   King
 said he knew what Gross would give  her—ppium. or camphor, or something of
 that sort.   Father asked, would it ease her; and King said it would.  He then
 asked his wife if she would take it.   She said she would if it would do her
 good.  He then went to his office and fetched something in a spoon.  [He
 always  mixed  the  medicine in  the office.]  Annie took it, and soon after
 wanted to vomit.   He held her down on the bed, by putting his hand on her
 shoulder.   She  said,  '-Oh, oh, I cannot, I cannot, I am dying."  He said—
 "Keep  it  down.  Annie."  She  vomited  on the bed linen  something of  a
 greenish hue ; with little pieces of skin in it.   When she vomited, the Doctor
 said—" Now she has thrown" it off- she may have  a little on her stomach, but
 it will not do her any good   she must have some more."   Father said—" Give
 her very little."  " Yes," said the Doctor, I will not give her a quarter what
 Dr. Gross would give her."   He  went away and brought back about as much
 as he had given ber before.   He  gave her the medicine, and Annie was going
 to sleep.   I asked if she felt better ; she said she did. She  went to sleep, and
 did not <^ake again. ??  I recollect finding a likeness in the coat pocket of the
 prisoner.  I did not tell  him that it had been found ; I  said it bad been  so
 rumoured, and  he; denied  having  such a likcnens.  The coat hung in his wife's
 room, aed wag one he usually wore.   The likeness  produced is that of Misg
 Vandervoor*.   l have often conversed with King respecting the pregnant state
 of his wife.  He said she was ulcerated.   She had  a child about twelve months
after  her marriage   I a-ked  him what made some  black spots on her under-
 clothes.  He said it was iron  in  her  blood, that  her blood was in a very bad
 state, and told me that I ought not  to wash them, but to burn them, as, if I
had a cut in my hand, I might get poisoned.
  Cross-examined—She complained of pains as if she was in labour, only after
 she was taken sick.   She  did not  complain of severe pains only  when  sick.
She complained of pain after  having an injection.  She was troubled with
discharges of a  copious nature.   About  three weeks  before  she was taken ill,
she was alone at my house, and told  me that her husband had said her womb
was ulcerated and in such a state  that, she might drop off in  the night, and he
being alone with bur, it might be  considered strange.  He had  told her to tell
me this, she said  I recollect some conversation taking place about Dr. Fife
examining her.  She asked what was  the use.   She did not positively decline.
She did not  decline.  She said, " William Henry, you know what  is the
matter with me—why send  for Dr. Fife?"  Dr. Fife examined her, but only
her tongue.  I remember my daughter falling from the buggy ;  she did not fall
on her head.  She thought  she did,   but  the Doctor said—"Oh, no; it was
only my arm, Annie."  She  was not unwell  after  it;  she drove down  to
Consecon the 6arae day.  The Doctor administered rredicine four or five times 
11
a-day.  It was always a whit■• upxiure in a spoon   The dose of medicine he
gave her, at about nine o'clock  the evening before her death, was like the rest.
We left the oom about an hour after she went  to  sleep, the night before her
death.  Father and I left the room about 1 o'clock, and went to bed ;  the Dr.
said he would  watch her. In the morning we went to her room, and the Dr. said
she  had never slept better.  Her father spoke to her to wis • her good-bye, as
he  had to go  to work,  but she  did not answer.  He said he was afraid she
would not wake again.  I said I will soon see if she will awake, and I bathed
her stomach with cold water.  I said  she has no feeling - this is not a right
sleep!  I tried to wake her, and called  her by her name.  She tried  to open
her dear eyes, but could not!
  Re examined by  Mr.  Gait—The undercloth"* produced belonged  to my
daughter.   There were spots on them, which the Doctor cut out.
  The way in  which the mother 6f the deceased  gave her testimony was very
affecting.  The prisoner leaned over the side of the box with  his eyes fixed
firmly upon her, all the time she was  giving her evidence.
  Norman Bethunk. M.D., examined—I  have  been in the Court- during the
whole of the trial.  The symptoms I have heard described are such as are
caused by an irritant poison.  The symptoms of arsenic vm-y, but the  effect is
the same.   When taken in large  doses, it sometimes acts as a narcotic. The
amount of arsenic found  in the  stomach of deceased was very large.   Arsenic
does not always produce redness  of the stomach.  Tn the case of a  servant
girl who poisoned herself within the last twelve months at Yorkville.  I found
no redness of the stomach, although it was full of the poison.   The symptoms
of poisoning by arsenic are first: faintness accompanied by nausea.  Then there
is a burning  sensation at the  throat, heavy pain  at the  stomach, constant
retching,  fodowed by purgation.  I Lave heard the way in which deceased died
described.  A large dose of arsenic would produce such effects.
  Cross-examined-*-The  fact of excessive vomiting existing in a pregnant
female is the exception : I have heard of cases, but have never been  called to
treat one.   I have heard of the action of cumulative poison—of poisons which,
administered in medical  doses, have a cumulative effect, and produce death.
Strychinia is one, and digitalis another.  It used to be considered that arsenic
was one of those also, but it is now doubted I have myself never administered
more than an eighth of a grain of arsenic at once.  In the case I mentioned
at  Yorkville,  death ensued in half an-hour.   I should  not cxpi'ct to find
inflammation,  but  I  should look for  it when the poison had been given 24
hours before.  Arsenic does not produce headache.
  To a Jury-man—Continued vomiting would produc headache.
  En.  M.  Hodoer, M D.. examined  I agree with Dr. Bethune. The symptoms
I have heard described are those of  an irritant poison, such as arsenic would
produce.
  Cross-c.\-unined   The discharges I have heard the mother sp- aking of might
issue from a female in  the earlier months of pregnancy, and  no disease exist,
though I think not so copiously.  Pregnant females at e affect-d with vomiting
sometimes, but not accompanied with the burning sensation and thirst spoken
of.   I do not believe that  > rsenic is a cumulative m"dicine.  I consider it  a
very  safe medicine.  I  have continued it  in doses for  two  months, with
occasional intermissions.   I  have sometimes had to discontinue it, because  it
has produced nausea. It  is not, therefore,  a cumulative poison.  One grain
of ipecacuanha administered  will not produce sickness, perhaps, but if followed
up, it will do so.  Orlila's opinions have now been overthrown by Taylor, who
denies the cumulative powers of arsenic.  The  trial of Palmer caused much
attention to be given to the study of poisons.
  To Mr. Gait.—I do  not know  that  difficulty in passing the  urine is a
symptom of poison  by  arsenic. 
12
  Dr.BETHcxE recalled. -Christison says that difficulty in passing the urine
 a a sympton of arsenical  poisoning.   I knew  a  case myself, in England, of
two weeks' standing, corroborative of this.
  Margaret A. Nrx, an aunt of the late .Mr. King, examined.—She described
the symptoms of deceased, and corroborated  the  evidence of Mrs. Lawson.
King administered the medicine generally.  Once I gave her some out of his
hand.  It was a white powder, and settled at the bottom of the  spoon  She
said  it was like fire  in her mouth.   Twice, I recollect  he gave her medicine
which had a comforting effect.
  Cross-examined.—I did not state that she  felt  better after the dose I gave
her, when I was before  the Coroner. It was misunderstood, through my stating
that  I saw her better on two occasions after the Doctor had  given her medi-
cine.  When she told me the Doctor add she was ulcerated  she  said she did
not think she was so  bad as  he said  She did not comp ain to me  of any
discharge.
  John M. Lawson—(father of Mrs. King).—I visited my  daughter when  I
heard she was ill.  I  asked her husband what was the matter with her.   He
Baid  that she was  cankered  right through, and that her womb was nearly
closed up.   He said  before her "face that h r case was incurable—that she
must and would die.  I urged  upon him to get other doctors several  times.
He at last said he would have Dr. Fife.  I did not consider  that he (Dr. Fife)
did any good, and I wanted other doctors. Dr. King on these occasions would
get quite angry with me.   The night before my daughter died, I said, " Wil-
liam Henry, if God spares my life, I will have a jury of  doctors in the morn-
ning."   He asked me who I should have.  I  said  Dr. Gross for «>ne. He said
Dr. Gross was the  greatest enemy  he had, and that he knew what he would
give  his  wife. I  asked what  Dr Gross would give,  and he said calomel or
opium.   Witness here  detailed the  circumstauces  of  the death of deceased
exactly as narrated by his wife.
  Cross-examined.—The last dose I saw him give  her  was about one o'clock.
He said it was opium.
  Sarah  H. Young, examined.—I saw Mrs. King on the  14th.  Dr. King told
ire that his  wife  had  complicated diseases,  and was incurable.  She was a
healthy looking person, and about twenty six years of age. When I suggested
that  other physicians should be called  in, he objected to it.  He said  he would
not call in Dr. Gross, and as  to Dr. File, he had called on  him.   In conver-
sation with him about  her, he told me that she was not to his mind—a very
good wife to get money, but he would like her improved in many respects.
  Simon Davidson was  again recalled, and produced two letters which he took
from Dr.  King's trunk.
  Melinda Freeland Vandervoort, examined.—I  know the prisoner at the
bar.  I received the letter produced  from him. _ I  sent him the  likeness pro-
duced and the enclosed note.
  Cross-examined.—Mrs. King asked  me to send  the likeness to her.   I never
had any improper intercourse with Dr. King.
  To Mr. Gait.—I directed the likeness to Dr. King.  I thought that when I
got the letter  it was written for amusement.   I sent him this letter in answer,
for amusement!
  Mr. Galt—(severely)—Go down—I  must  read  these letters, but do not
wish to do so in your presence!
  The following letters were then read by the learned Counsel:—
                      (Enclosed with the portrait.)
                                                             Betiiule.
  Dr.—Please inform me if you receive this.   I  arrived home safe and  quite
well.                                            Truly yours.
   W. H.  Kiso, M.D.                                       M. F. VAN. 
13
                                                    Brighton, Oct. 10.
  Sweet little lump  of good nature,—I long looked with prudent anxiety
for the arrival of the object of my thoughts, but began to despair.  Still, I had
too much perseverance to give up, and alas!  I walked to the P. 0. this morn-
ing  (Monday)  and found  the most precious thing (except the original)  on
earth.  Better to me than all  California.  I will not, however, tell you what
it was, but could I indulge in the hope that those  winning and genal smiles
would tver be found >n my possession, all troubles would then cease.   It is a
perfect infatuation to me.  Can you keep from sacrificing yourself upon the
hymeneal altar for the next year?   I wish so.  Now I am at a  loss  to know
whether to take this as a token of friendship or 1---.  Will you inform me
which you mean it for, and if the latter it  will certainly soothe and refresh
my drooping spirits? All you say shall be perfectly confiderdial. You need never
have the least suspiciou of this token being seeu or handled by any other  than
its present possessor.   Furthermore, if you correspond with me I will guaran-
tee upon my word and honour that  detecti .n shall never happen   You are
therefore, perfectly  safe ; but oh !  could I but kuow whe ber you could  reci-
procate my feelings or not.  Much would I give to be assmed on this point.
It might give me the most exquisite joy, or it  might cause me bitter pain.  Yet
this token shall cheer me many a  time while ridiug through the lonely wild.
  I must claim your indulgence that your sense of propriety and good taste
will i ardon me for thus punctually giving expression to my feelings.   Do not
betray the confidence I have reposed in you.   0 ! I would like to say a thou-
sand things to you that flash through my imagination like a panoramic display,
but I must not venture ior the present.  May  I hear from that ol ject so  de*r
to u,y h----?  Why is it so you might ask ?   Well, I would  like to tell that
some other time.
  Please accept ten thousand thanks for such a treasure as I received this
morning.  It shall always  remain in  my possession uuless called for by its
identity.
  0 !  those lovely smiles, so  plainly delineated, I must think you meant for
something.  I cannot possibly hedeeeptious. They have told y<u en.  ugh that
you may judge pr tty ueirly where my h----is  now could you be induced to
tell me where your's is?  0 *o !
  You w U observe  that this letter is anonymous for fear somebody might get
your keys and read  it; as it is, if they should, they would not be w iser, but
my name shall he----.  Yon know whom it is from just as well as if my name
was appended.   Do you remember----, and cc, ee, and'• going to  Califor-
nia."  Well, when you write  sign Van.  Do not judge of my literary attain-
ments from the style of th-'se hasty thrown together sent nces, for I paid more
attention to ideas than style.   Come and visit us whenever you can.  ---- is
very sick—last night we thought she would die.
                                             Your sincere 1----,
                                              . Sidney, Oct. 18th, 1858.
  Dkar Doctor,—The t;me has come for me to respond.
  Your's of the HHh in^Unt came  to  hand in good repair, and exceedingly
pleused was I while perusing its contents.   It is with much pleasure, but at
the same time with a degr. e of emlmrrassment, that 1 embrace the opportunity
to write yon one.  I  feel an  unusual warmth of friendship for you, and n> t
being ip the habit of po (raying my  weakness by way of the pen. expect to
find it no  easy task—h wever, hope it  will  he  accept d.  I hardly know in
what manner to address you, as ciicumstaices are with jou, it appears almost
in vain for me to think only  as  a  friend  of you.   Yei something seems to
whisper,  " still hope." 
                                  14

  Since I first had the pleasure of an introduction, my heart is constantly with
you, and I'm not contented a moment 0! could I forever be with you ; I think    '(
I should be happy, lor indeed I  enjoyed myself to excess during my stay in
your pr-sence,  though suppose now rmust eradicate such thoughts  from  my    |
mind:  for y u are married, and my destiny must be to love and not share your     \
interesting society.   We are some distance apart, yet trust ou#ties of friend-
ship, although of short production, are such as not to allow time or distance to     *
sever.  Perhaps you'll pardon my familiarity when you come to realize that
you  have  unlinked the  tender cord of affection until you have an alarming
influence over my girlish nature.
  One  smile onl from you- c.mntenance can inspire a depth  of veneration in
my bosom never  felt by  me for auy  individual.   Well now, Dr., don't you
consider it very wrong for me t•> correspond with you.  I'm afraid if known
it would destroy " Annie's" happiness, and  lor instance, if I was in her posi-
tion, I  would much rather be in my grave than sutler the idea of your  intimacy
with another, though perhaps you merely express some of your ideas  to me for
pa8ti i  e, so I hope you'll not continue  them, for I am easily  flattered,  and it
may prove to be something very  serious.  I am  very lonely.   My  " sister"
has not returned as yet.   I am pretty well, and hope you enjoy the same bles-
aing.   Please answer, if you deem me worthy.   I hope you'll not criticise.
                                          Your, unwavering,
                                                          L----,
                                                               VAN.
   While  the  let ers were being read the prisoner showed no sense of shame i
but rather seemed co share in the am isement which could not be repressed.
  John II. Vandervoort, examined. -The prisoner  came to  my house in  Sid-
ney, about ten o'clock at niyht,  on the 8th  November.   I had never seen  him
before. That was the first time I ever saw him.  I was in bed when he  came.
He knocked at the door.   I asked who  was there—he said. " A friend, who has
a message for your daughter."  I called my daughter,  who came d>wn  and
shook  h tuds with him  He said  the message must be delivered in private, and
took her into auother room   They went into a room and remained there an
hour.  I went and asked  if that message was  delivered yet.   They Baid no.
By and by they came out.   K ng s*id to me that  his wife had  unfortunately
died ;  that they had got her body up, and that in consequence of a likeness of
my daughter, which had been found in  his  coat pocket, a warrant was  issued
for his apprehension, and for that of  Meliuda also. He urged me to allow
bim to take her to her aunt's on the other side.   I consented to this, and she
went.  She returned in about three week's time.
  Cross-examined.—King  did not say  anything to me about one of the Law-
ton's threatening to shoot my daughter.
   Elizabbth Vandervoort, wife of last witness,  examined—Said she could
not *wear to the prisoner.  The person  who took away   her daughter told her
that he was accused of poisoning his wife, but that he was innocent.
   Clinton M. Law.son examined.  I am the brother of the late  Mrs. King.  I
have seen this portrait before.  I saw it on the Saturday preceding the Thurs-
day on which my sister died.  This, in connection with the finding of other
letters, excitod my suspicion.  Si-ter died on Thursday and was  buried on
Sunday.   On Monday I complained to  the Coroner.  1 was not present at the
inquest.   Thu  Coroner  gave me a warrant  to arrest  Dr.  King.   I went to
Kingston  on Friday,  and from thence to Cape Vincent.  From  information I
got at  the Poet-office, I went six or eight mites up the country to a house kept
by a man named Bate.  Gordon, the  United  States Marshal went into the
house.   I stopped before I got there, so that I might not be seen.  He bad not
been in three minutes when Dr King jumped out of the window.  I ran after 
15
him.  He ran towards the woods, but as  I was after ' \m quick, he  turned
into a barn.   We went in and found him under the straw in a hog's  nest.
  Cross examined.-  I  had a revolver;  I said he must be shot if he ran.  A
lawyer told me that I had no right to take him, and told him so too.
  Mr. Cameron.—And yet he came.
  Witness (with great determination).—Well, I guess he did 1
  Mr. Galt.—Did he come willingly ?
  Witness.—No, Sir; no, tir-ee!!
  Gerard 0. Clark, a constable examined.—The prisoner told me that he had
given his wife poison, but  that he had  not  given her arsenic.   He  admitted
that he had given her morphia and hellebore.  I took a number of letters from
a trunk of the prisoner's.
  Cross-examined. - The conversation  took  place on the 14th November.  We
said he never gave  his  wife any arsenic ;   that if it was given  to her at all,
some ore else must have given it to her.
  Mr. Galt.—That is the case for the Crown, my Lord
                   EVIDENCE FOR THE DEFENCE.

   Mr. Cameron was afraid he could not  get  through to-night ; he had eight
 witnesses to examine, and would be glad if his Lordship would adjourn.
   The application was refused.
   Charles J. Hempel,  M.D., Was  first  called.   When  the oath was admin-
 istered, several jurymen declared that  he did not kiss the book.  They there-
 fore made him d» it twice or. thrice, to  make certain.  The episode created
 quite  a commotion in the jury  box.   He said—I  am Professor of  Materia
 Medica and  Therapeutics, in  the Homoeopathic College of Pennsylvania.  I
 know the prisoner.  He studied unde*- me two seasons.  The gist of Homoeo-
 pathic practice is this—for the cure of disease we administer medicines which,
 if taken by a healthy person, would produce a  like disease.   We might be
 called upon to prescribe for a disease which has exactly the very same symp-
 toms as those produced by arsenic, and which might be considered by persons
 who did not know it was a disease, to be a case of arsenical poisoning.  Thus.
 in cholera morbus the symptoms occur, for which  a physician would prescribe
 arsenic :  and the symptoms of arsenic,  if  prescribed in a large dose, would
 be exactly like the symptoms of cholera morbus.   The first symptoms attend-
 ing  the  illness  of  deceased, might be  occasioned  by an attack of  cholera
 morbus.  , The nausea and vomiting  might also have been considered as the
 natural results of pregnancy.   These  symptoms  are generally  found to exist
 Ave or six weeks after conception ;  they may  exist during  the whole term, or
 during the first five or six  months of  pregnancy.  In my  judgment I do not
 think  that deceased  could have  taken  so large a dose of arsenic  at once as
 Professor Croft found, without leaving  more marks of inflammation.   The
 inner surface  of a  stomach in a healthy state would have  pretty much the
 appearance of good hick cream.   An inflamed  stomach, on the contrary,
 would have the appearance of cranberry saucer—a deep red  colour. In homoeo-
pathic treatment I have given as much as  one-fifth of a grain of arsenic in the
 case of Asiatic cholera,  and  have repeated that do3e  from twelve to fifteen
 times in the course  of forty-eight  hours. The  patients have done well, and
recovered. A dose of arsenic to act narcotically would have  to be very great.
To produce such a result, I should  think  not less than ninety or one hundred
grains would have to be  administered.' I should expect to find, after such a
dose as that,  when analyzing the  stomach, at least sixty grains.  I have seen
fatal results follow the cumulative effects  of dig tals, but not of arsenic.   The
eame effects have followed from medicinal doses of strychnine.  From the 
16
evidence I have heard, I think tne deceased might have died in consequence
of her nervous system having become exhausted ; or she might have died from
the cumulative effects of arsenic.  The discharges might  have been produced
from disease in the neck of the womb, or by local irritation.                .
  Cross-examined-Dr. King was in our coll ge two sessions; he!  wasone or
our best students.  Arsenic is used in homoeopathic practice,  ine giving 01
infinitessimal doses is not the principle upon which homoeopathy is tounueu.
I consider.Dr. King was competent to practice after studying for two *v**o™
in our college.   There are seven chairs, all of which  he  had  to attend.  fcU
satisfied our professors that his medical knowledge was up to the requited
standard.  The prisoner took his degree in March, 1858   It is expedient to
give  arsenic in some cases of vomiting.  I am not satisfied with the pof-mor jn
inamination.  From the examination they made, the physicians could  not tell
whether ulcers existed or not.  The  - omb might be ulcerated in the  interior
 without external inflammation existing.  If  ulceration  ex.sted, the least
 internal examination would reveal it.  Ulceration might  have been caused  y
 pregnancy.  Three grains and upwards of arsenic will suffice to produce death
 but six or  ten grain!  have been taken without  this result-much depends on
 the state of the system.   I do not think the deceased died  from arsenic m
 poisonous  doses, but from  the  cumulative effects  of  several do  es.   In  my
 opinion, the weight  of evidence  is in favour of the idea that arsenic is a cumu-
 lative  poison.  Dr.  ------, of Paris  a  celebrated  physic.au,  ,ives it in
 cutaneous diseases  in large portions.   The largest dose given  by him is a
 quarter of a grain, six or eight times in two or three days.  I cariuot say how
 long it would remain in the system before it became el.m,nited.  1 never braid
 of giving one-fifth or one quarter of a grain to a .woman m fever.   I would give
 moderate  doses of arsenic  first  in treating a disease which required it.  1 hirst
 is very apt to occur in cases of arsenical  poisoning.  The  arsenic may  have
 been givtm as medicine in the  present case.  The ar.-en.c_ in this bottle  con-
 taining globules,  marked Arsenic 2, is the second trituration  It  is produced
  n this  way-one grain of arsenic is n. xed with ten grains of sugar  of in k.
 One  grain of  this in  its turn  is mixed w.th ten grains of sugar of milk
 bo that one hundred globules of Ar-enic 2 wo .Id be necessary to make one grain
 of artenic.  Arsenic t could not r, m tin in the system ; it would become elimi-
 nated, in  consequence of  the mixture of sugar of  milk.   *™" *"»**£
 this way may cumulate.  I never knew of arseneous acid being  adm metered
 in homoeopathic  practise without being  prepared with  sugar.,f milk^  we
  endeavour to stop  short of symptoms of poison.   Ith.uk ™*e Hymptoms of
  the  deceased were attributed to arsenical poi>on    Hellebore might  produce
  vomiting retching, and nausea   Bedado ma might  affect  the bra.n ; arsenic
  affects the liver.  Doce.tsed must have Uken some arsenic.              .
    Re-examined by Mr. Cameron - Purging  is  a u<ual ■effect of  poi-on ng by
  arsenic.  The  fall of deceased  would likely aggravate her malady.   The acci-
  dent muht not have any ser ous result*  -ill sever d we-ks  had  elapsedI, a id
  then have induced  vomiting, sinking, enervation ail coma, resulting id deattt.
    To a Juror  UAlib r*. might be used in pre Dan;y in ca-es or  voraing.
    A. H.  Fland RS M. D., ot  Philadelphia, was next examined.  I hold 'be
  chair of Chemistry and Toxicology in the same   oll-ge as Dr. Hernpel   1 do
  not know the pri/m-r.  I have been at the College only during  he las- course
  of lectures.   I  practised allopathy for  eleven years   I have bee,,.  in oouit
  during the day.  a .d I have hrard the  symptoms  of^dec as £  describe
  have never met with -» c ise of arseneous poisoamg in human beiugs, but have
  made expsrimeate on eve and dogs in Class, and  think the W^\«» ftj
  I have used arsenic in doses of oue-fift.eth to oue-tifth  of  a grai...   I 8»°uld
   expect to find a stomach into which large d.w s had boe., taken,  more nfiaiued
   X that of the deceased.  It is a conceded fact tl.at the symptoms in brute 
17
animals are like those in human beings.  Much inflammation usually appears
in thes omachof brutes a'ter the administration of arsenic.  I should myself
in prescribing for  a person who exhibited  symptoms like those of  d ceased
during pregnancy, have used arsenic.  I should expect to find ulceratio lwhen
copious  discharges were  made, as in the case of deceased.  Tne symptoms
could not be accounted for on any other hypothesis.  The ulceration of the
neck of the womb, with cancerous tendency, would be very dangerous during
pregnancy.
  Cross-examined- The most satisfactory reason I can assign for the  death of
the deceased was the fall from the buggy. It is a very obscure case.  I account
for the presence of arsenic in this way— Professor Croft said that  it was loose
in the stomach, which leads me to think it was  put in after death—(hissing
in the court, which was suppressed)—otherwise it would be in a state of  paste,
and would stick to the stomach.  The death of Mrs. King might have resul ted
from medicinal disease.  The best toxicologists think that arsenic is a cumula-
tive poison.   Purging is a constant symptom of arsenical poisoning—almost
universal.  Arseuic might have got into the liver from small medicinal doses.
It could  not from one large dose
  Mr. Galt—Do you set your opionion against that of Dr. Croft, a maD who
is well  known in  your own country, and has had cases on your side of  the
water as well as this ?
  Witness—Professor Croft is not a physician, Sir!  I graduated in Philadel-
phia in 1850.   I attended two courses  of medicine.   I never saw arsenic in  a
human being  at all.   I  did  not  understand  that  Professor Croft said he
examined cases of poisoning  by arsenic.
  Mr. Galt—You  have not seen  cases of poisoning by arsenic  in man or
woman, but you have poisoned cats and dogs?
  Witness—Yes, sir.   (Subdued laughter.)
  Mr. Galt—And  you think it more likely that the fall from the  buggy caused
the death of deceased, than the arsenic  found in her  stomach?
  Witness—I do  think so.  (Mu;murs.)
  Mr. Galt— Then I  have nothing more to say  to you—you may go!
  Thomas Nicol, U.D., of Simcoe, C.W.,  examined— I have been* practising
for three .years.   I have experimented with arseuic upon myself.  It is
frequently used in homoeopathic practice.   I hav? given one-tenth of a grain
in intermittent fever.  I do not  think the quantity of arsenic found in the
stomacn of  deceased was  sufficient to produce the symptoms  of narcosis
described.  It is quite insufficient to produce narcosis.  At least ninety gruins
are necessary.  It  m-^re frequent y takes two hundred than a smaller quantity.
A teaspoon might hold  fif y grains ;  a table spoon about five hundred and
thirty  grains. I  believe arsenic to  be  a cumulative poison.  In 1855,  I
experimented on myself.  I took, each day  for twenty-one days,  three doses of
one-third of  a grain. I  took altogether  seven and a half grains.   I had no
symptoms until the eighth  day,  The  symptom*  were thirst and vomiting,
accompanied with violent purging, and symptoms resembling intermittent
fever.   They continued for twenty-one or twenty-two days after I had ceased
to  take the  arsenic. I have also tested belladonna, which, aft' r a time,
produced symptoms like paralysis of the legs.  I consider the  cause of  the
death of the  deceased was the shock of  her nervous system by the fall from
the bugjy.  If arsenic bad been administered twenty four hours  before  her
de-i h inflammation would have been developed.  The stimach should have
exhibited a brilliant red, brightening  every day  after dea'h.   Arsenic,
administered  in several small doses, has an antiseptic effect upon a dead body ;
it tends to prevent decomposition.  In  one  large dose, it indues putrefaction.
I wa* acquainted with the  pr soner at  College, and boarded with him during
one of the sessions which  he attended.
        2 
18
   Cross-examined—The fall  from the buggy might be an adjutant, but not a
 primary cause of death.  Enervation might be.  If in a stomach where twelve
grains of arsenic were found  there was no inflammation. I should  look for
other causes  of  death.  I am not  an analytical chemist;  I studied as other
medical students u-ually study chemistry.
  The Court  then adjourned, at about half-past six.
                     SEC< >ND DAY—WEDNESDAY.
  The Court opened at half-past nine o'clock.
  Henry Belfokd was the first witness called.  He said—I  have known the
prisoner at the bar twelve or fourteen years.  I am the Reeve of the township
in which he lived.  I would suppose the prisoner to  be  about twenty-five
years of age.   In the earlier part of his life, he was larming with his lather.
Subsequently, he taught  school for about four months.  After that, he went
to the Normal School in Toronto, aud then taught in Hamilton.  I have formed
a  very high  opinion  of tho prisoner's character.   I have  had  frequent
intercourse with him.   He has always been au  advooate  of  temperance and
morality.
   Rhhaiid DeLong,  examined—I  reside  in  Brighton.  I  have known the
prisoner since the spring  ot  1858.   He attended my family.  I was satisfitd
with the skill and knowledge he displayed.   He was  in  attendance on  my
family for about six weeks.  His treatment  was satisfactory and succefsful.
   Another witness was called to testify to the chatacter of the  prisoner, but
not being in court, the evidence for ihe defence was here closed.
   Mr. Camekon  then proceeded to address the jury for the defence.  He said-
May it please  your   Lordship  Gentlemen of the Jury—After the patient
investigation you have given to this trial, 1 am quite sure you will be ready to
bear with me, if, in the observations I shall make,11 shall appear  to  take  up
more time than is usually taken  in the  addresses I deliver to juries,  because
the circumstances of this  case are so peculiar aud so important,  and require so
careful  an examination, that no  time that  can be given by myself, by the
Judge, or by you can be  said  to be thrown away> when on the investigation
of  those circumstances  depends  the  life  or  death  of  a  fellow-creature.
There is nothing which men are called  upon to  do which is more important
than the duty devolving  upon us at this  moment.  There is no position more
painful than that of men, who sit, like you, to declare by  their  verdict, what
the course of an individual like yourselves shall be for the few hours or days
if the verdict is  given against him, which he  has to live, should the sentence
of the law be carried into effect.  Our duty  we must perform  carefully.  It is
a duty we must  perform faithfully, because  we know that  the life or death of
a being in health like ourselves rest upou the course we may take. Then, gen-
tlemen, that  being so, I  have a right to ask you in the fhvt place to  do that
which your own sense of  justice your  own  intelligence, your own  reason'ng
powers will induce you to do ; to ditmiss from your minds everything in  the
shape of prejudice ; to dismiss from your recollections all that you may have
heard out of  doors ; anything that may have been stated as a fact which has
not been proved here ;  and to recollect that  it is upon the  evidence which has
been giveu by the witnesses in  that box, and upon that eviden. e  alone, that the
law calls upon you to pronounce upon the innocence or guilt  of the prisoner.
I ask you—I  require you to bring that kind of calm consideration to the case,
indisptnsably necessary for the proper balancing of the different facts which
have been  brought   lo  light.    I  ki.ow  that  there  have  been — p<r
haps   from   prejudice — pe. haps   from  the  natural  irritation  which
must  have   arisen   in  the  minds  of   the  relations   of   the  de- 
19
ceased —I  know that  there  have been  spread through  that  part of t-e
country from which the prisoner has come, statements both prejudicial and
wrong.   I know that there have been publications in a newspaper of that lo-
cality, which must have tended strongly to prejudice the prisoner in the minds
of the people of the surrounding country, and  tended greatly to prevent that
kind of fair play every man is  entitled  to  who trusts  himself to God aud his
country.  I k ow that in a paper published in Brighton a great deal had  been
stated that was not proved before you yesterday ;  and when I know that,  I
am sure you will bear with me when I tell you that anything you may  have
heard from what oth-rs have state!  must be placed entirely on one side.   The
effect of these tales  are only to  bring more  or less a  prejudicial  influence
against  the prisoner ; and while putting before you the facts, as far  as I can
dissect  them from the  evidence, I press  upon  you not  to allow  anything
which you have heard out of doors, in the lea-t degree in the world, to affect the
verdict  you will be called on to give—to judge sincerely, truly, and honestly
upon the evidence alone. I knowtrom th" experience I hav<" had during these As
Bi/.es,that we are fortunate in having upon this jury men of intell gence who will
bring the best of their  reasoning powers fully to  bear on all  the facts ot
this case, and judging from the verdicts you have already given, I feel certain
that honestv of purpose will be carried by you  into your jury room, and what-
ever may be the issue—if for  the life—or if for the death of the prisoner, I
feel I may rely with certainty upon your  careful consideration.   For are the
facts again t him in this trial?  I  do not think they are.  There  are  facts
which the prisoner's own unfortunate conduct has placed against him, without
the presence of  which I would fe-1 no more hesitation in demand ng a verdict
of acquittal, than I would in  any otheT ordinary case which had been  tried
during  this assizes ; put these one or two circumstances away, and  it would
be  impossible for you  to find a verdict  against  the prisoner.   My learned
friend,  yesterday,  placed before you,  in  a  way which did him the  highest
cradit,  the facts of the case, calmly, clearly, and honestly.  He attempted  to
make no impression he ought  not to have made.  He felt  it his duty to see
that the law was properly administered ;  that the  law recognized the princi-
ple that »very man was to be considered  innocent until proved guilty.   And
in the recognition  of that fact,  he felt it was not part  of his duty to allege
one single fact or circumstance until  established by evidence.  I am sure  it
could not have been otherwise than the admiration of the court to see that no
amount of feeling was  allowed to  enter into  his address.   Let us  first  take
from the commencement of the case.that with which my learned friend set out,
and let ub ask ourselves as a preliminary point, a point  upon which  I lay
great stress—of the manner in which the stomach of the deceased was placed,
aud the circumstances attending  its transmission from Brighton to  Toronto.
In trials of this nature, much depends upon the identity of  the substance sub-
 mitted to  chemical  analysis.  Nothing  is more  necessary  than  that the
 strictest and clearest proof shall be given, that the substance submitted to the
chemist shall be in exactly the same state as  when taken from the body, and
 that nothing shall  be allowed to mingle with  it, which would in  the  loiist
degree  tend to make any change  beforehand of any part of the human  body,
intended for chemical analysis.  The  rule of law with regard to this  is  so
plain, so clear, so distinct and so well laid down, that I cannot do better  than
 quoteo tjyou the authority of a man who by lawyers and physicians on  both
 sides of the Atlantic is admitted to be the best authority upon Medical  Juris-
 prudence this  age has  produced.  The  learned Counsel  here  quoted  from
 Taylor's Medical Jurisprudence, insisting upon the conditions  already men-
 tioned  by  him  (Mr. Cameron)  and mentioning a striking case, in which it
 was remarked, that in one case a stomach had been put into ajar hastily bor-
rowed from a neighbouring grocer's shop, and as the jar could not be shewn to 
20
be clean, the evidence was htld  to be insufficient.  It also mentioned that a
private seal should be placed upon the package.  Now, the Crown  told us that
previous to giving the packHge containing the stomach to Mr.  Barker, it was
sealed in this way—the stomach  wa3 first put into a pickle  jar and  corked.
This cork was sealed  with a penny piece.   The bottlej was then placed  in
brown paper, which was sealed also ; and then  put into a box, which in its
turn was sealed  with three common wafer seals.  Professor Croft said it was
only the bottle which was sealed—that the paper was not sealed, and that the
three seals on the outside of the box were common seals of  the kind described
—ea-y of replacement if  broken.  How did the paper get broken ?  How did
the paper which wus sealed by  the  coroner get broken open ?   How did  it
happen that that parcel which the coroner put into the box, with a seal upon
it, was received by Professor Croft w ithout a seal ?  Then  again,  gentlemen,
how did it happen  that the coroner told us that before the bottle was removed
from the school-room where the inquest was held, it was stopped with a cork,
and that the professional men  who examined the body, and Mr. B uker,  who
took this stomach to Kingston,  state there was nothing but paper put  over
that bottle, tied down by  a string- and you will remember Barker said that he
himself went out and purchased  the cork that was placed in the  bottle the
morning he took it to Kingston.  These  are discrepancies of a most  impor-
tant character.  I wish you to bear them in mind, because I do not state one
single thing that is not borne out by the evidence.  I read to you the opinion
of Taylor on this point, and I tell you the law he lays down  is  essentially
necessary to the safety of every mun who is accused of  poisoning where  that
is to be determined by a chemical analysis of a portion of  the  human body.
The stomach,  once in the bands of Professor Croft, I think no  objection can
be shown to the medical knowledge which produced the results we have seen ;
because probably I should find it difficult, not merely  within the borders  of
our own country, but even in the Old World to find a man more competent
to perform the duties of  chemical analysis  than Professor Croft.   He  bears
not only a high  reputation in this land, but  also in the land from which he
came, and therefore there is nothing in the  application in any of the tests
which science  has  provided, to  which objection can be made.  Putting our-
selves in that position, however, we have to  be convinced not merely of the
fact of the presence of arsenic, but that this arsenic was the cause of death,
and unless we are certain of that, no conviotion can take place.  Now, gentle-
men, we have to consider what are the effects of poisoning in this  way.   Are
those effects so entirely uniform,  of so marked a description that  it is impos-
sible ever to be mistaken in their  appearance ?   Has  arsenic  a  cumulative
effect ?   And if so, is such an effect consistent with the innocence of  the pris-
oner ?  What are the usual effects of poison of this description  ?  Tenderness
to pressure, nausea and vomiting, followed by purging of some character  or
other  It has been shown, that except in extreme  cases, that after death,
where these symptoms have been present during life, that there has been not
merely inflammation of the intestines, but almos universally, inflammation  of
the tissues of the body.   And when you prove these symptoms so described,
then you have to  ask yourselves,  whether there are diseases incident to the
human frame which  offer symptoms of a similar  character ; and if  so, are
these symptoms consistent with the innocence of the prisoner ?  In the  case
before us there is an entire absence  from beginning to end of  purging.  We
have not had one single word of  testimony, in this case existing  over  three
weeks, to show that, there was any purging at all ; a matter quite  impossible
if the deceased died from arsenical poisoning.   There is also an  entire absence
of another symptom, and no one  would be more ready to admit than the chem-
ist who analysed the body, that  the presence  of an irritant poison for days
and wteks, could not exist in the stomach without the  inflammation being  of 
                                   21

an extensive character ; so extensive that it could not by any possibility be
mistaken.  The stomach examined by Professor  Croft,  he tells us, was of
a healthy character,  with  a slight  blush,  but without  the least  symptom
of having  been  subject to  an  irritant poison  for  many weeks.  I say
many  weeks,  because  we  have,   duriug  all  these  weeks,  the  same
symptoms   exhibited day  by  day—exhibited to the last.   Three  weeks
before the  death of  deceased, we have persistent vomiting, continuing from
the time she was first'ill to the day of her death.  In not  one instance has it
been shown in cases of arsenical poisoning that the stomach  has presented a
healthy appearance, unless death has ensued in less than ten hours.   I cannot
find a single instance where the stomach did  not offer a highly inflamed sur-
face, and more frequently  still of actual ulcers.  But there is  a supposition
tbat the  poison was taken »he night  before the death of deceased  between
eight and nine o'clock -1 thiuk the mother said a later  time—and the death
ensued about twe ty-three  hours afterwards.   There is no case on  record of
a person filling into a state of coma, where the dost;  of arsenic  has  been less
than ninety grains, and as in this case  there  was not a symptom of vomiting
after the last administration, even  allowing for elimination, there can be no
question that, instead of eleven or twelve grains being found, there  ought to
have been fifty  or sixty a' leas .   This brings us to another supposition. The
deceased was gone with child four or five mouths.   She  had been suffering
from some  irregularity, of a  chracter  certainly  calculated to make any
womau feel that there must  have been  something the matter with the neck
of the womb.   For weeks before  she was taken ill, her mother spoke of it as
being something unusual.   This position was, as I will show to you, precisely
that in which many women have  been during  pregnancy.   There has been a
constant vomiting, sometimes of a greenish  liquid, sometimes of a blackish,
attended with every  one of the symptoms described by the witnesses.  If, in
addition to this, I show you that the effects of a fall—of the very least con-
cussion of the brain   may go on quietly until coma and death ensues, then I
shall have  made  out a case,  independent of other circumstances,  that will
entitle me to claim a verdict of acquittal for the prisoner.   Mr. Cameron here
read from  " Churchill on the Diseases of Women."   It said, in  effect, that
nausea and vomiting might commence soon after conception, and be contin-
ued until gestation.  The  fluid vomited might be yellow, green,  blue, or
black, depending upon the  condition of the micous membrane.   There was a
case given in  which, though the surface of  the neck of the  womb had a
healthy aypearance, when cut it was found to contain matter.  Another case
was mentioned, of a woman,  four months pregnant, who  died with symp-
toms exactly  the same as  those of the  wife of the prisoner.  True,  there
was no arsenic  found in the stomach of  any of those women, and therefore
we have to meet the stand   taken by the  prosecution  in this case.  It would
be observed tha there were two schools  of medicine—the Homoeopathic and
Allopathic.   Homoeopathy  is not a system of infinitesimal doses, as has been
generally supposed.   Dr. Hempel repudiated the  idea.  It is a system based
upon the maxim similis sim It—upon the principle that those  medicines which
would produce  the same kind of  symptoms in a healthy  body, that the body
is suffering from,  are most  likely to effect a cure.  There is no doubt, then,
that according to this theory, the prisoner adopted the treatment which ought
to be adopted.  To say that there has  been mal practice is one thing—to say
that he has been guilty of murder is another.  If the doses he administered
were too large, he is guilty of malpractice  but  not of murder.  But can
this  poison so  administered have a cumulative effect ?  That effect is thus
explained.  A small dose of poison may be given,  which though innocent in
itself, yet by the idiosyncrasy  of some particular body, this poison may cumul-
ate  in the sysem, and cause death—although the remedy was the particular
        2* 
•)0
remedy which oueht properly  to be administered.   The case of a Swedish
sailor, to whom strychnine had  been administered in this  way, was here
quoted ;  and a celebrated French writer—whose name Mr.  Cameron did not
give, said that in the  same way as lead  might cumulate in  the system, and
produce paralysis  and death, so might arsenic.  Becksmith  was quoted  to
the sanie effect.  Mr. Cameron then dwelt upon the contrary  opinions  given
on this point at the trial of Palmer, in England, where the physicians of the
old school were not opposed by  homoeopathists. but by allopathists, and were
divided one against the other.  Amid these conflicting opinions, Mr. Camer-
on  continued, you gentlemen must consider, whether  there is anything con-
sistent with the innocence of the prisoner.  The last  witness who was called
said that the prisoner told him that he had not treated his wife with arsenic
at al .  When firs: questioned  he  said,  the statement was made in such a
way as to convc *  the meaning that it had not been  administered in poison-
ous doses.  Evidently  he had mistaken the import of the  prisoner's words.
We had evidence  that the  deceased was troubled with a copious  discharge
which might  have been caused  by an  irritation of the  vagina.   The pris-
oner requested his wife to allow Dr.  Fife to gmake a personal  examination,
but her delicacy  shrank from it.  She had confidence  in her husband, and
under  these  circumstances  was not  willing the examination should take
place.  From the beginning to the end of the case, we have  not one word  to
show  that these  partie* lived unhappily together ; that any jealousy  or
bickerings existed between them.   Not one single word, not  one  single syl
lable of that  sort.  If the  case had stood entirely here, I would have felt it
was unnecessary to go further into this matter.  But, gentlemen, men are
often foolish; and the  prisoner at the bar has acted foolishly.  What does
press against the^prisoner is the fact of the letters  which have been read  to
you, having been found in  the  possession of the prisoner.  We can  scarcely
understand how the parents of that young girl allowed her to be  taken away
to a foreign country in the dead of night, by a man  who was to them a per-
fect stranger.  The only thing which can  be said, is, that the prisoner did
not dishonour the girl, because we have the fact proved that  no improper inti-
macy took place.   We have also proved  that these two were only acquainted
a little more than  three weeks before the death of the prisoner's wife, and yet
his supposed  affection for this young  woman is assigned as the reason which
induced him to get rid of his wife.  The learned counsel in forcible language
urged the improbability of  the prisoner being actuated to commit so  great a
crime from so slight a motive, and after a glance at the efforts made by him
to elevate himself above the condition of a  meie tiller  of the soil, concluded
by appealing to the jury to weigh well the evidence aud to give his  client the
benefit of any reasonable doubt that might exist.
  Mr. Galt replied—When addressing the jury  yesterday, he had not felt it
necessary in the discharge of his duty to press  the case before he had clearly
and distinctly laid all the evidenc  before the court.   It was now before them,
and it 'became his painful  duty to  draw  their attention to  the  facts,  He
would take up the  arguments of his  learned friend as he  had delivered  them.
Mr. Cameron  had! first commented  upon the way in which  the stomach had
been delivered to Professor Croft.   But every one single  particular, required
by Taylor for the  purpose of preserving the stomach in the state that it was
when taken from the body, had been complied with.   The Coroner said that
the bottle in which the stomach was  placed,  was first  of all washed out by
himself.   Taylor laid it down that tbe vessels in  which the  intestines were
placed should be clean.  There  was a slight discrepancy between the  Coron-
er's evidence and that of Dr. Barker, but it seemed probable that  the C ron-
er's version  was the  correct one.  For this reason : he  said he placed  the
stomach in a bottle, which bottle he corked, and over the cork he tbd apiece 
23
of brown paper, and in that state carried it in his pocket from the  school house
where the inquest was held, to Mr. De Long's, a distance of three  and a half
miles.  The bottle was  placed in a small cupboard in the wall ; the key of
which was given him by the landlord, who  said he had no other.   This key
the Coroner put into the pocket of his pantaloons, which he did not take off
at all that night, as he sat up along time making out the papers  respecting
the inquest.  When he went  back to the cupboard he said the bottle was in
exactly the same  position and in the same  state as when  he placed it  there
the preceding  night.  He .'hen took  it to the room  where the jury  were
assembled.  A bowl was there procured, which he washed" out himself and
into which he emptied the stomach.  From the evidence it  did uot appear
that any human being touched it then.   It was replaced in the bottle, secured
in the way described, and delivered to the Coroner.  Why insinuate that
poison was placed in the  stomach?  Up to the time of the  prisoner abscond-
ing—up to the time he pointed the evidence of guilt against himself, it never
occurred to the mind of any person  to charge him  with having poisoned  his
wife.   Could it enter into the  heart of man,  could any person be found so
diabolically wicked that he could  have placed arsenic in the  stomach of that
woman, with the idea that upon being discovered,  it would af terwards,upon a
chemical analysis being made, lead to a charge of murder against the prisoner ?
That any one could have done it, if so minded, he (Mr. Galt) denied. But there
was one argument which was  unanswerable.  If arsenic could have been placed
in the stomach, it could not have been placed in the liver. That  was an opera-
tion of nature.   And would it not have been  a miraculous coincidence that
had arsenic been placed  in the stomach of the deceased  if subsequently, when
the liver came to be examined, arsenic should be found there too ?  For bow
should the man who placed the poison in the stomach know  that that identical
poison would be found in the  liver also ?  Having arrived at this poiut, it was
necessary to consider how the  arsenic did come  to be in the stomach.  Mr.
Cameron had urged as a very strong proof in  favour of the prisoner, the dif-
ference in the symptoms.  Every medical  witness who had been examined,
alleged that vomiting, and burning, and thirst, were symptoms of arsenical
poisoning.  But still his  (Mr. Gait's)  learned friend had  spoken  of the  ab-
sence of purging.  Let the jury recollect  that the witnesses  who spoke to
these  symptoms  were women.   They were  never asked a question on this
point,  aud were not likely to  tell of such a symptom without being asked.  If
Mr. Cameron intended to raise as a defence the plea that arsenic was not pres-
ent, he should have asked the  question himself.  It was not for him (Mr.  Galt)
to do it.  The arsenic was found in the stomach—it was  there.  But even
without that, there was one symptom which could not fail to carry  conviction
to the  minis of every one.  Mrs. Lawson said  that when the vomit came out
upon the bed clothes, there was a sort of small 6kins mixed with it, and when
the medical evidence for the  defence was  given,  we were told that that was
one of the symptoms of arsenical poisoning.  Then as to the Darcotic effect of
arsenic.   We heard a great deal about tha large quantity of arsenic  which
would be required to produce coma.  It was very singular we had heard noth-
ing of the last medicine which old Mr Lawson stated he saw the prisoner give
to his wife.  The last dose of medicine given to that woman was opium, and
she immediately fell into a state of insensibility.   What were the circumstan-
ces attending the last hours of that  unfortunate female ?  On the evening be-
fore her death, she appeared much  better.  She conversed with her mother.
Dr. Fife, who saw her, said she was not in a dangerous state—far from it.  A
dose of medicine was given to her about nine o'clock at night.  It occasioned
every possible symptom of arsenical poisoning and then at one o'clock in the
morning the prisoner gave her opium.  The way  in which  she came  to her
death was this,—arsenic was the  poison the prisoner used to occasion her 
24
death, but she passed out of this world through the effects  of  opium, having
at the same  time an amount of arsenic in her stomach which must have  pro-
duced death.  To his (Mr.;Galt's) miud, Dr. Nichol's evidence  proved entirely
the reverse of what he intended.  He said he took arsenic for twenty one days
—that for the first eight days he did not feel much effect from it.   But after-
wards he began to suffer from the effects, with all the symptoms of arsenical
poisoning.   If  that were  so,  and  if  his  theory  were  coriect,  that
arsenic would accumulate, he must  have  had six or seven grains  in  his
system.   If the effect  of the poison  was accumulative, this  would have
killed him, as two grains  and a half would produce  fatal effects.  Mr. Galt
here quoted  cases from books which Mr. Cameron had  used, against this cumu-
lative theory.  Professor  Hempel.  who was brought here on the part of the
defence, said he never knew the  cumulative effects of arsenic to produce death,
though he had read of such cases.   The way  in which the prisoner had spoken
to his wife of her disease,  saying that she could not survive her confinement;
that he wished her to tell  her mother of her trouble,  lest she  should drop off
snddenly, when it might be considered strange, next passed in review.   Then
the learned counsel  read the letters produced on  the first day of the  trial, and
asked the jury to notice the important fact  that King's letter to Miss Van-
dervoort was dated the 10th of October.  That although he said in that letter
that "------was very ill," evidently alluding  to his wife, she was not sick
until four days afterwards.  When Mrs.  King died, why did the prisoner run
away?  There was no charge nude against him.  And when he did determine
to abscond, why did he go to Vandervoort's—why did he  take that  girl with
him to Cape St.  Vincent ?  Was that  the conduct of a man who believed he
had treated  his wife medicinally with arenic?  When  at St. Vincent a United
States officer,  altogether  unknown to him, asked at  the door of  the house if
there was anyone there from Brighton, and immediately  the prisoner jumped
through a window, and made for the woods. Was that conduct consistent with
innocence ?  Did it not show a guilty knowledge in the min's mind ?  The
learned gentleman concluded by recapitulating the heads of his arguments in
a clear and concise form, which could not fail to impress  them  upon the minds
of the jury.
  His Lordship in charging the jury remarked that the question had been so
fully laid before them by the learned counsel, that there remained but  little
for him to say, beyond reading the evidence and making  such few  remarks as
seemed necessary. It was his opinion that  Barker was right  respecting  the
cork not being in the bottle until th-: morning when he took it down to Kings-
ton.  Professor  Croft  said that there was but slight  signs of inflammation ;
although  it usually followed the administration of arsenic, six or eight hours
after death.   This was certainly a circumstance in favour of the prisoner, but
it must also be taken into consideration that another medical witness said that
this would not be the case in all  circumstances.  The learned Judge then read
on without any remark the evidence, until he came to that of Mrs.  Lawson, the
mother of the deceased, which, he said, required much careful consideration.
The jury would remember  that  the, having the  idea  that the prisoner occa-
■ioned the death of her daughter, might be expected to entertain some feeling
against him.  The jury  would see how far her testimony  was borne out by
oth«»r witnessess, and how much  they could unreservedly  accept.   With
respect to the fall from  the buggy, according  to the mother, it  affected  her
daughter very little, and she  drove on to Consecon  the same day.  She  did
not complain of any illness until three weeks after this—about six  weeks be-
fore htr death.  It was important to note the exact position of affairs, because
much stress  was laid upon  the  matter for  the  defence.   Mr. Lawson
eaid  that   the  prisoner   had  declared  to  him  in  the presence  of  his
wife, (the deceased) that  she must die ; that she could  not survive Ler  con- 
25
finement.  This was  a strange remark for a  husband to make to  his wife.
Certainly he was her physician, and it was the duty of a medical attendant to
apprise his patient when in a dangerous condition.  Sarah Anne Yonge  swore
that the prisoner had declared to her,  on the first day of her illness, that his
wife did not suit him in many respects.   The jury would also notice that the
words in the letter of the prisoner to Miss Vandervoort, where he said----
" was very ill  last night"—four or five days before there was anything the
matter with her, as far as her family knew.  The jury would remember King
went to  Vandervoort's and  remained, late at night,  closeted with the  girl.
What passed on that occasion we knew not.  Neither party examined Melinda
Vandervoort, or put any questions with respect to what had taken place, but
the interview  occurred.   It  would be seen  that these gentlemen  who gave
medical evidence for the defence, were all of the Homoeopathic school, and it
appeared that they frequently administered arsenic as mtdicine.  Dr. Ilempel
agreed with Professor Croft, that arsenic, to find its way into the liver, must
be administered during life.   It would be for the jury to  consider how they
could reconcile this with the statement  of the prisoner to Clarke the consta-
ble, that he had not  administered any arsenic to his wife.  Reducing the
whole question  to as few points as possible, they would  stand in this way.
First, what was the primary cause of death ?  Was it from the use of poison-
or not, that is from poison administered as  poison, not as a medicinal prepare
ation ?  Arsenic was undoubtedly found in the stomach of the deceased, there
 was  no question about that.  Then was the stomach which reached  Professor
 Croft, the stomach of deceased ?  Fiom the evidence  given they must  say
 whether they were satisfied  that there was no  substance put into it;  and
whether there was any attempt, or whether there was any person interested in
doing so.  If that stomach was the stomach of  the deceased woman, then the
question arose, how came  the poison there ?, A theory of one of the witnesses
for the defence, was, that it must have been placed there after death, because
he considered inflammation  must  have supervened to a greater  extent than
spoken of by Professor Croft.  But the defence did not rest their case merely
on one theory.   Another was advanced—that arsenical treatment was  most
likely the course  to  be pursued,  and proper to be pursued in  the case of
deceased.  Then again other things were relied on, Buch as the falling of the
woman  out of the buggy.   The  fact  of there be ng so little inflammation
found, was, [no doubt, ttrong argument,  as an isolated fact.  But then the
jury  had to consider what  the  doctors  said with  regard to  the time at
which   inflammation  appeared—whether it  would  appear in   all  cases
of poisoning or not.  The liver contained arsenic, which it was admitted on
all hands c uld not have  got there after death.  Tlun suppos ng arsenical
treatment were pleaded,  what could be said of the witne s Clarke, the con-
stably who 6wore that the prisoner told him he did not use arsenic at  all?
The two attempts of the prisoner to esca; e must also be take^ into account ;
but the jury must be careful not to take that  as an absolute proof of guilt.
His Lordship noticed several other points of importance in the case, and, in
conclus on,  rcmi ded  the jury that tbey had a very important dniy to perform,
not only to  the prisoner, but also to society.  Their duty to the prisoner was
to Bee that he was not convicted on mere suspicion ; but  if they were con-
vinced of his guilt, they must not raise any fanciful doubt in their own  minds
for the purpose of returning a verdict  f acquittal.  Society  could  not exist
without a proper rd ministration of te  law, and  whenever  guilt  was clear,
society required at the hands of jurors that they should enforce the law.  But
if they did doubt, let them acquit the  prisoner, and might G^d a sist them to
come to a right c nclusion.
  The jury retired at three  o'clock,  but not  being able to agree they were
locked up for the night.   At ten o'clock they returned into court.  Th« clerk 
26
of the court put to them the usual question.—'• How say you gentlemen, is the
prisoner guilty or not guilty?"
  The foreman,  amidst  most profound silence, returned a verdict of GUILTY,
wi h a strong recommendation to merey.
  The prisoner did not appear to have  expected the verdict; and it was evi-
dently with much difficulty he  suppressed the emotion which was struggling
to make itself manifest.   He was immediately removed.
                           THE SENTENCE.
  It was not until the afternoon of Saturday the 9th of April, he was brought
up for sentence.   A rumour having obtained extensive circulation that the
prisoner intended  to speak before sentence was passed upon him, the Court
Room was crowded  in every  part.  About  three o'clock he was brought up
from the cell in which he had  so long  been confined, and placed in the dock.
He was of an ashy paleness.  The healthy colour that tinged his cheeks during
the trial was fled ; and  it  seemed that the shadow of death had since his
conviction prematurely settled upon his face.   The confidence, almost super-
ciliousness of manner w hich characterized him whilst listening to the witnesses
for the prosecution  and defence—had given way, and  he seemed to fully
realize the awful  position in which he stood.  He walked into the court with
a  firm  step.   On entering the box, he rapidly  and  anxiously scanned the
countenances of those who had seats inside the Bar, evidently looking for Hon.
Mr. Cameron, who so ably defended him, as if to read in his countenance that
all hope was not yet extinct.  Mr.  Cameron,  however,  was  not present, and
we fancied that his absence  was keenly felt  by the prisoner.  After two
prisoners, James  Dingman and Isaac Whitney,  had been sentenced to thirty
days in the Common Jail for stealing wheat, Mr. Galt rose and said —
   " I move, my Lord, that sentence be passed upon William Henry King."
   His Lordship—William Henry King,  you have been  convicted of the crime
 of murder ; what have you to  say that sentence of death be  not  now  passed
 upon you.
   The prisoner, amid a hu6h the most profound, replied in a clear, firm voice :—
   " I have this much to say,  that upon my most solemn oath I am not guilty
 of the charge laid  against me.  I  have  no doubt of this ; my conscience is
 perfectly clear upon this point."
   His  Lordship—After a fair and impartial trial by  an  intelligent jury you
 have been convicted of the crime of murder.   You have been assisted by able
 counsel.  Every circumstance  calculated to induce the  jury to  give  you the
 benefit of the doubt which is always in favour of the  prisoner, has been por-
 trayed ; but all has been in vain   It is not my  intention to dilate upon the
 enormity of the crime of which you have been adjudged  guilty.   As you are
 a man of education you will know what you have to do for the time you have
 to live, until the sentence of the Court is carried mL   In regard to the findiEg
 of the jury I  must say a few words, else that verdict  might  hold out to you
 false hopes.   The facts brought out on the trial against you were  of  so plain
 and pointed a character, that  they carried  conviction to the  minds  of the
 jury—and they felt that they  could not conscientiously do otherwise than ren-
 der a verdict of " guilty."  I must say that the facts carried conviction to my
 own mind ,  and that I entirely concur in the verdict of the jury in so far as it
 pronounces jou '• guilty."  The finding of the jury was accompanied  by a re-
 commendation to mercy.  It  is not in my power to avert from you the punish-
 ment which the law inflicts upon those who are convicted of the crime laid to
 your  charge.  I will not fail, however,  to forward the  recommendation to
  mercy to the proper quarter;  but I must say  plainly tin.;. I cannot add the 
27
weight of my position to it.  I cannot see that yours is a case in which such a
recommendation is justifiable.  I am  thus plain that you  may know your ex-
act position, and how little reason there is to hope for the influence of the Ex-
ecutive in your b half.  It is my duty to say that you must  prepare  to  meet
death.  You are, as I said before, a man of education ; and it is not necessary
for me to advise you to make an early application at the  Throne of Grace for
the forgiveness of your sins, as a preparation to meet your God.  It now only
rem ins for me to pass the sentence of the Court u> on you, which is, that you
be confined in the Common Jail until Thursday the 9th day  of June' next, on
which day you are to be t .ken to the place of execution, and there hanged by
the neck unt 1 you are dead.   And may the  Lord have mercy on yiur >oul.
   The prisoner listened to the remarks of the Judge and to  the sentence with
composure ; but in a few seconds after his Lordship ceased speaking, his  lip
quivered,.aud burying his f,<ce in his handkerchi f be wept convulsively. One
by one, the props upon which he had relied were knocked from under him—
the Judge had  extinguished  the 1 st ray of hope.   An ignominious  death
sta ed him in the face ; from it there was no escape.  He had assumed a calm-
ness and a confidence during the  trial that he did not feel.  But nothin"- now
was to be gained by  dece. tion.  HumanJJnature resuraee its sway ;  and the
man of strong will wept.   Better s >, than that he  went  to  his  dungeon un-
moved.  It gives grounds for the belief, that his heart is  not  so seared that
repentance is impossible or improbable. 
p  '
I