Treatise on Poisons by Sir Robert Christison

animals, constitute the least conclusive of all the varieties of the present branch of evidence. For the flesh of animals that have died of poisoning is not always deleterious; while on the other hand flesh is sometimes rendered so by natural causes, as will be seen in the Chapter on Diseased and Decayed Animal Matter. This subject stands much in need of careful and methodic investigation. And it is of more practical importance than might be imagined at first sight. For the question has actually occurred in a legal inquiry in this country,—Whether poisoning in the human subject may be caused by the flesh of a poisoned animal? In regard to some poisons it is well established, that animals killed by them may be eaten with impunity, such as game killed with the wourali poison, or fish by cocculis-indicus. This seems the general rule. But it is not clear that all poisons are similarly circumstanced. The only systematic researches hitherto undertaken on this question are some recently made at Lucca by Professor Gianelli; of which however I have only seen an abstract. He found that the blood, urine, and lungs of animals poisoned with arsenic acted as a poison on small birds, such as sparrows, whether the parts were taken from the body while the animal was alive, or after death; but that alcohol, cherry-laurel water, corrosive sublimate, sulphate of copper, tartar-emetic, acetate of lead, nitrate of silver, trisnitrate of bismuth, chloride of tin, sulphate of zinc, laudanum, acetate of morphia, strychnia, and cantharides, had no such effect.[116] Orfila has since shown some reason for doubting the conclusiveness of Gianelli’s investigations; and on repeating them, obtained such results as render it doubtful whether any reliance can be put upon experiments made upon small birds.[117] Guérard however has ascertained, that dogs, fed on the flesh and entrails of sheep which had taken arsenic, were attacked with vomiting and purging, became reduced in flesh, and at length would not eat what was put before them; but none of them perished, or seem to have been seriously ill. Arsenic was detected in their urine.[118] The importance of the inquiry, which the preceding experiments are intended to elucidate, will appear from the following singular case, for the particulars of which I am indebted to the kindness of Mr. Jamieson of Aberdeen, who was employed by the authorities to investigate it. An elderly woman, who kept fowls which occasionally trespassed on a neighbour’s fields, one morning observed four of them very sickly; and in the course of the day they became so ill that she killed them. She cleaned and prepared two of them for cooking, buried another, and gave away the fourth to a beggar, who was afterwards lost sight of. Next day soup made with the half of one of the fowls was given to a little girl, who suffered severely from sickness and vomiting, and also to a cat, which was similarly affected for the whole evening. On the day afterwards the woman herself and a female lodger, took broth made with what remained of the fowls, and also ate the gizzards; but the remainder was thrown with the offal upon the dunghill. In the course of five or six hours both women were attacked with severe illness. One had sickness, vomiting and great coldness; but after encouraging the vomiting with hot water and then taking some spirits, she got better in the night-time, and next morning was pretty well. The other, who was the owner of the fowls, was seized somewhat later than her friend with great thirst and shivering, and next day with pains in the stomach, severe sickness, and fruitless efforts to vomit. On the sixth day, when a medical man first saw her, she had great pain throughout the abdomen, much thirst, difficult breathing, a red, dry tongue, and a very frequent, small pulse. Next day the pain and difficult breathing became worse; and in the evening, after an attack of sneezing, she became gradually insensible and motionless, in which state she remained till the tenth day, when she expired. The stomach and intestines did not present any distinct morbid appearance; but the vessels of the brain were turgid, there were about two ounces of serosity in the lateral ventricles, both corpora striata were softened anteriorly, and a clot of blood as big as an almond was contained in the right anterior lobe of the brain.—A judicial investigation being ordered, it was ascertained that the fowl which the woman buried as well as the remains of the other fowls which were thrown upon the dunghill, had been carried off. But on searching the dunghill more carefully afterwards, the contents of one of the crops, which had been taken out and examined by the lodger, were discovered in the rubbish; and in the mass Mr. Jamieson detected a considerable quantity of arsenic. This incident happened in 1836. More lately the same gentleman met with another extraordinary attempt of the same kind. A farmer, about to be married, gave directions for killing in the evening some fowls which were to be sent to the house of his bride where the ceremony was to take place. The killing of them however was accidentally delayed; and next morning, on the hen-house door being opened, the fowls ran furiously to the well, drank water incessantly, and died in an hour. On examining the bodies, Mr. Jamieson found arsenic in large quantity in their crops and gizzards. On each of these occasions a particular individual came under suspicion; but the evidence against them was too slight to justify the authorities in bringing a formal charge; and consequently the proceedings did not go farther. In the former instance the evidence in favour of the flesh of poisoned animals being sometimes poisonous is strong; and the history of the woman’s case, although death seems to have been caused directly by apoplexy, renders it probable that even dangerous results might accrue. The preceding remarks will enable the medical witness to know under what circumstances accidental observations or intentional experiments on animals furnish satisfactory proof. Before quitting the subject, however, I have to add, that there is another purpose, besides procuring direct evidence, to which experiments with animals may be applied with great propriety;—namely, the settling disputed questions regarding the physiological and pathological properties of a particular poison. The science of toxicology is not yet by any means so perfect, but in particular cases topics may arise, which have not hitherto been investigated, and which it may be necessary to determine by experiment. Experiments on animals instituted for such purposes by a skilful toxicologist are not liable to any important objection. On the trial of Charles Angus at Liverpool in 1808, for procuring abortion and murder by poison, a trial of great interest, which will be referred to more particularly afterwards, it appeared from the evidence of the crown witnesses, that the poison suspected, corrosive sublimate, could not be discovered in the stomach by certain methods of analysis; and that, although corrosive sublimate is a powerful irritant, the villous coat of the stomach was not inflamed. But then it was proved by experiments made by one of their number, Dr. Bostock, that animals might be killed with corrosive sublimate without the stomach being inflamed, and without the poison being discoverable after death by the tests he used in the case.[119] An attempt was made on the side of the prisoner to throw out this line of evidence as incompetent, on the ground of the discrepant effects of poisons on man and on the lower animals. But it was admitted by the judge, on the plea that it was only to illustrate a general physiological fact, and not to infer proof of poisoning. The importance of experiments on animals to settle incidental physiological questions has lately been again acknowledged in a very pointed manner in an English court of law: for a set of experiments, to settle the question of the rapidity with which hydrocyanic acid acts, was instituted before the trial by the medical witnesses, at the request of the judge who was to try the case.[120] SECTION V.—_Of the Moral Evidence._ It is not my object to treat under this head of the moral evidence generally, which is required to establish a charge of poisoning. But as it is well known that in criminal trials medical witnesses have for the most part nothing to do with the moral proof, while at the same time in cases of poisoning the medical and moral circumstances are always intimately interwoven and apt to be confounded together, it is necessary for me to specify those particulars of the moral evidence, which either require some medical skill to appreciate them, or fall naturally under the cognizance of the physician in his quality of practitioner. I shall enter into greater details under this section than may perhaps appear to the medical reader necessary, chiefly that I may redeem the pledge given in the introduction to the lawyer and general reader, and endeavour to show how powerful an instrument a medico-legal investigation may become in skilful hands, for throwing light on almost every branch of the evidence. The moral or general proof in charges of poisoning is almost always circumstantial only. The circumstances of which it usually consists relate, 1. To suspicious conduct on the part of the prisoner before the event, such as dabbling with poisons when he has nothing to do with them in the way of his profession, or conversing about them, or otherwise showing a knowledge of their properties not usual in his sphere of life:—2. To the purchase or possession of poison recently before the date of the alleged crime, and the procuring it in a secret manner, or under false pretences, such as for poisoning rats when there are none on his premises, or for purposes to which it is never applied:—3. To the administration of poison either in food, drink, medicine, or otherwise:—4. To the intent of the prisoner, such as the impossibility of his having administered the poison ignorantly, or by accident, or for beneficial purposes, alleged or not alleged:—5. To the fact of other members of the family besides the deceased having been similarly and simultaneously affected:—6. To suspicious conduct on the part of the prisoner during the illness of the person poisoned,—such as directly or indirectly preventing medical advice being obtained, or the relations of the dying man being sent for, or showing an over-anxiety not to leave him alone with any other person, or attempting to remove or destroy articles of food or drink, or vomiting matter which may have contained the poison, or expressing a foreknowledge of the probability of speedy death:—7. To suspicious conduct after the person’s death, such as hastening the funeral, preventing or impeding the inspection of the body, giving a false account of the previous illness, showing an acquaintance with the real or supposed effects of poison on the dead body:—8. To the personal circumstances and state of mind of the deceased, his death-bed declaration, and other particulars, especially such as tend to prove the impossibility or improbability of suicide:—9. To the existence of a motive or inducement on the part of the prisoner, such as his having a personal quarrel with the deceased, or a hatred of him,—his succeeding to property by his death, or being relieved of a burthen by it,—his knowing that the deceased was with child by him. Upon many of the particulars now enumerated, important evidence may be derived from the medical part of the investigation; and not unfrequently such evidence can be collected or appreciated only by means of a medico-legal inquiry. 1 and 2. On the first two articles, suspicious conduct or conversation on the part of the prisoner before the crime, and the possession or purchase of poison by him, little or nothing need be said. The medical witness may of course be asked whether the conduct or conversation proved betokens an unusual acquaintance with poisons and their effects. And his opinion may be referred to regarding the nature of suspected articles found in the prisoner’s possession. As to the purchase of arsenic under the false pretence of poisoning rats, it may be observed, that a great deal more stress is usually laid on such evidence than it seems to deserve; for there are few houses, in the country particularly, which are not more or less infected by them. On the other hand, too little weight is attached to the circumstance of the purchaser not having warned his household of poison being laid. Such conduct ought in my opinion to be accounted extremely suspicious; for so far as I have remarked, the fear with which unprofessional persons regard the common poisons is such, that I can hardly believe any master of a house would actually lay poison without warning the servants and other inmates of his having done so.