4. Lastly, the poison which has been absorbed into the system, and may

consequently be detected in certain circumstances in the textures of the body at a distance from the alimentary canal, may also be removed beyond the reach of analysis, by being gradually discharged along with the excretions. It has been fully proved in recent times, that in poisoning with arsenic the poison may be found in ordinary cases, for some days after being swallowed, in the liver especially, but also in the other textures, in the blood, and in the urine; but that if a flow of urine be established and kept up, in nine or ten days, and sometimes much sooner, it can no longer be discovered anywhere by the nicest analysis.[102] _Is the discovery of poison in the body or the evacuations essential to establish a charge of poisoning?_ It was mentioned at the commencement of the present section, that the chemical evidence is generally, and correctly, considered the most decisive of all the branches of proof in cases of poisoning. But some toxicologists have even gone so far as to maintain that without chemical evidence, or rather, in more general terms, without the discovery of poison either in the body itself or in the evacuations,—no charge of poisoning ought to be held as proved. This, however, is a doctrine to which I cannot assent. In the preceding observations on the evidence of general poisoning it has been several times alluded to as unsound; and repeated opportunities of establishing exceptions will occur in the course of this work, under the head of individual poisons. At present it may be well to illustrate its unsoundness in reference to those charges of poisoning, where no particular poison is pointed at by the medical evidence, but where a whole class of poisons must be kept more or less in view. Even here I apprehend there may be sufficient evidence in the symptoms and morbid appearances, without any chemical facts,—to render poisoning so highly probable, that in conjunction with strong moral evidence, no sensible man can entertain any doubt on the subject. Several illustrations might be here given; and some will be found scattered throughout the work. In the present place a few instances will be mentioned which cannot be conveniently arranged any where else, and which are well worthy of notice, as being striking examples of the decision of questions of poisoning without chemical evidence. A man of doubtful character and morals, well acquainted with chemistry and medical jurisprudence, and of disordered finances, was known to harbour a design on a friend’s wife, who possessed a considerable fortune. At last he one morning invited the husband to breakfast with him at a tavern; and they breakfasted, in a private apartment, on beef-steaks, fried potatoes, eels, claret, and rum. They had scarcely commenced the meal when his guest complained of feeling unwell; and soon afterwards he vomited violently. This symptom continued, along with excruciating pain in the belly, for a long time before the prisoner sent for medical aid; indeed he did not procure a physician till the sufferer had been also attacked with very frequent and involuntary purging. The physician, who, before seeing his patient, had received the prisoner’s explanation of the apparent cause of the illness, was led at first to impute the whole to cholera caught by exposure to cold; but on returning at seven in the evening, and finding the gentleman had been dead for an hour, he at once exclaimed that he had been poisoned. On the body being inspected much external lividity was found, contraction of the fingers, and great inflammation of the stomach and intestines, presenting an appearance like that of gangrene.[103] On analyzing some fluid left in the stomach, no arsenic or other poison could be detected. The attention of the inspectors was turned specially to arsenic, because the prisoner was proved to have bought that poison, and to have made a solution of some white powder in his kitchen not long before the deceased died. The prisoner in his defence stated, that the deceased had been for some time much weakened by the use of mercury, and while in this state was seized with cholera; and he likewise attempted to make it probable that the man, in despair at his not recovering from a venereal disease, might have committed suicide. The council of physicians who were required to give their opinion on the case state on the contrary, that the diseased was a healthy man, without any apparent disposition to disease; that there was no pretext whatever for supposing suicide; that the inflammatory state of the stomach and bowels supplied strong probability of poisoning with arsenic, but not certain evidence; that acute gastritis from natural causes is always attended with constipation; that the deceased presented symptoms of stupor and other signs of derangement of the nervous system remarked in rapid cases of poisoning with arsenic; that cholera is very rare at the end of November, the season when this incident occurred; and that the poison might well be discharged by vomiting. Although all the prisoner’s statements in defence were contradicted by satisfactory proof, and the medical evidence of poisoning was supported by a chain of the strongest general circumstances, the crime was considered by the court as not fully proved, because the prisoner could not be induced to confess, and because poison was not actually detected in the body. But on account of the very strong probability of his guilt, he was, in conformity with the strange practice of German courts in the like cases, condemned to fifteen years’ imprisonment.[104] In this instance—considering the kind of symptoms, their commencement during a meal, the rapidity of death, the signs of violent inflammation in the stomach after so short an illness, and the facility with which the absence of poison in the contents of the stomach may be accounted for, more especially if it be supposed that the poison was administered in solution,—I consider the medical evidence of death by poisoning so very strong, that, the general evidence being also extremely strong, the prisoner’s guilt was fully demonstrated. A case of the same kind, but of still greater interest, is that of Mary Anne M’Conkey, who was tried at the Monaghan Assizes in 1841 for the murder of her husband. I am indebted for the particulars to Dr. Geoghegan, one of the principal Crown witnesses. The prisoner who had been too intimate with another man, and had been heard to express her intention of getting rid of her husband, was observed one day before dinner to separate some greens for him from the plateful intended for the rest of the family. None of the latter suffered at all. But her husband was taken violently ill immediately after dinner, and died; and a neighbour accidentally present, who partook, though sparingly, of the same dish with him, was also similarly and violently affected but recovered. The deceased before finishing the greens said they had a disagreeable sharp taste, and was seized soon after with burning at the heart, tenderness at the pit of the stomach, vomiting, coldness, a sense of biting in the tongue and tingling through the whole flesh, excessive restlessness, occasional incoherence, locked-jaw, clenching of the hands, and frothing at the mouth; and he expired three hours after the meal. His neighbour, two minutes after finishing his greens, experienced a sense of pricking in the mouth and burning in the throat, gullet, and stomach; then salivation, a feeling of swelling in the face without actual fulness, general numbness and creeping in the skin; next excessive restlessness, coldness of the integuments, dimness of sight, and stupor; about an hour after the meal he became speechless, repeatedly fainted, frothed at the mouth, and clenched his hands; vomiting ensued, with considerable relief, and subsequently he had frequent attacks of it, with purging, tenderness of the epigastrium, cramps, and tingling in the flesh; and from these symptoms he recovered so slowly as to be unable to work for five weeks. The only morbid appearance of any note in the body of the deceased was a number of irregular brownish-black patches on the inside of the stomach. No poison could be detected in the contents or tissues of the stomach; none could be discovered in the house except a corrosive-sublimate solution which the prisoner used for a gargle; and none could be traced into her possession. A variety of circumstances of a general nature, which are passed over here for brevity, as not strictly appertaining to the present view of the case, threw very great suspicion over the prisoner. The medical witnesses deposed, that poisoning could alone explain the medical circumstances; and Dr. Geoghegan was of opinion that death was owing to some vegetable poison, although he could not specify the particular substance. He suspected, however, that it was monkshood. In these views, when consulted by him before the trial, I entirely concurred. Considering the taste observed by the deceased at the time he ate the greens, the rapidity with which he was taken ill afterwards, and the very peculiar symptoms, unlike those of any natural disease with which physicians are acquainted, and agreeing with those which are produced by monkshood,—considering also that another individual, who partook of the same dish with him, was similarly and simultaneously attacked, and with a severity proportioned to the quantity he took, while other persons who ate the same food from a different dish, did not suffer at all,—it appears to me that poisoning was clearly established; and I also think that the general evidence brought home the charge of administering the poison to the prisoner. She was condemned and executed, and confessed before execution, that she did poison her husband, and that the substance she used was the powdered root of monkshood, which is well known as a poison to the peasantry of Monaghan under the name of Blue Rocket. It is scarcely necessary to add, that great caution must be observed in applying the general principle here inculcated. But the opposite doctrine, that no charge of poisoning can be established without the discovery of poison in the body or in the evacuations, appears to me a great error, though upheld by no mean authority. Under that doctrine few criminals would be brought to justice, were they to resort to a variety of vegetable poisons, which in certain seasons are within the reach of every one. SECTION IV.—_Evidence from Experiments on Animals._ Evidence from experiments on animals with articles supposed to contain poison is more equivocal than was once imagined. But it may be doubted whether some medical jurists have not overstepped the proper limits, when they hold it to constitute little or no proof at all. Evidence from express experiments should rarely form part of a regular medical inquiry into a charge of poisoning. For in the first place, to make sure of performing an experiment well requires more experimental skill than the generality of practitioners can be expected to possess; then, as will seen in the sequel, evidence procured from this source can very rarely be more than presumptive; and lastly, if the quantity of poison in the suspected substance is great enough to affect one of the perfect animals, it may generally be recognized to a certainty by its physical or chemical properties. For these reasons it is not likely, that, in an inquiry undertaken by a skilful toxicologist, he will put himself in the way of delivering an opinion on the force of such evidence. But it is nevertheless necessary for me to consider it in detail, because he may have to give his opinion regarding experiments made inconsiderately by others, or accidents caused by domestic animals eating the remains of substances suspected to be poisoned. The matter subjected to trial may be either suspected food, drink, or medicine; or it may be the stuff vomited during life, or found in the stomach after death; or it may be the flesh of poisoned animals.