Horseshoe, Parish of Frampton Cotterell, Bristol

 

 

MURDER OF HUSBAND BY POISON. Hannah Curtis, aged 55, was charged on the coroner’s inquisition with the wilful murder of Thomas Harris. The prisoner is a decent looking woman, and was dressed in a large scarlet shawl, black velvet bonnet, and dark gown. She pleaded not guilty in a firm voice. During the proceedings she was allowed to sit. Mr. Skinner and Mr. Greaves, Q.C. appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. Cooke for the defence. Mr. Greaves shortly stated the case for the prosecution. The prisoner was charged with the wilful murder of her husband, by poisoning him; and he felt sure that in a case of this seriousness, he need hardly call their attention to every fact. He begged the jury to cast away from their minds all they had previously read with regard to the case, and impartially consider the evidence, and form their own good and proper conclusion. On the one hand, every death caused by poison was a grievous offence, committed secretly, and therefore difficult of detection; on the other hand, it was difficult for a prisoner to show his innocence. And therefore was necessary for the sake of the public and the prisoner that they should look at the evidence on both sides and be satisfied beyond doubt that the prisoner was guilty of the murder. The circumstances of the present case were these. The prisoner at the bar had been married to the deceased for twenty years. They lived at Coalpit Heath; the deceased was a hatter, and the prisoner augmented his gains by selling tarts and other eatables. The deceased, who had never been in good health, in the beginning of April was worse; but on the 19th of April he was much in the same state as usual and went about in the air and to his work. On that day he was taken seriously ill, vomiting blood; and from that time never got well again. He rallied to some extent, but on the 26th he was taken worse, and though a medical man saw him, he died on the 30th. No suspicion of foul play had been created, and things went on quietly until the 26th of May following, when the prisoner, much to the astonishment of everybody, married another husband. This created suspicion, and the affair was talked about. A communication was made to the coroner, relative to the death of the deceased; the body was exhumed, and examined by Mr. Herapath, the eminent chemist, and the result was, that it was proved the deceased had died of poison. There was a large quantity of poison, not only in the stomach, but in the circulation and the solid parts of the body. Then came the question, by whom had the poison been administered? The prisoner and her husband had lived in their house alone; from the time he was taken ill to the time of his death, though different persons may have handed the deceased things of which he partook, there was no single instance in which anything had been made up for him except by the prisoner. He did not say what the prisoner made up; the witnesses found the things which they administered made up in the room. Who, then, administered the poison? There was no suggestion whatever that the deceased had any reason to destroy himself. But the evidence would go further: enquiries were made to ascertain if the prisoner had bought poison, and he should distinctly prove that some days before the death of the deceased, the prisoner purchased arsenic, representing that she wanted it to destroy a black cat. The prisoner, then, not only bought poison, but had opportunities of administering it. There was circumstance connected with Curtis, the prisoner’s present husband, which bore on the case. He would show that prisoner complained of being ill-treated by the deceased about Curtis, of whom he was clearly jealous. On the 2nd of April, too, the prisoner told another person that she had had her fortune told; that the fortune teller told her her husband had been ill, and had got better ; but that he would be taken ill again and taken off suddenly ; that she would not a widow long, but that an offer would be made to her, and that it would be her own fault if she did not accept it. She also said that she saw the man going backwards and forwards with his work. As soon as the deceased died, too, she mentioned this story to another witness, adding, “how strange that such things should come true.” He should show that Curtis was at the house of the prisoner on the night her husband died, and alone with the prisoner; and he should produce a statement made by the prisoner, that Curtis had offered her marriage on the very day that her husband died. In addition to that, there was very remarkable circumstance which occurred on the day of the adjourned inquest. He believed that the prisoner had an idea that the possession of poison could not be traced to her, and she denied that she had ever bought poison. Subsequently she was told that the person who had sold her the poison was coming against her, and then she was thrown into a state which he would leave the witness of it to describe. This was the substance of the case, and he entreated the jury to give fair attention to it. If they had any reasonable doubt of her guilt, in Heaven’s name acquit her; but if they did not entertain any doubt, then it was the duty of the jury, however painful it might be, to find a verdict of guilty.

 

The following witnesses were called: — John Harmer: I am the undertaker at Zion Chapel, Frampton Cotterell. I knew Thomas Harris. On the 30th of April last I assisted to lay out his body. I buried him on the 5th of May following. The body was disinterred on the 29th of June. I saw the prisoner at the time of the funeral. She behaved in a prudent and straightforward manner.

Cross-examined: She conducted herself as a middle aged woman would. I have heard that deceased and prisoner were not man and wife but lived as such. She kept a bakehouse and sold tarts round the country for many years. Joseph Thatcher, the nephew of the deceased, fetched me to the house on the day Harris died. I do not know that a second body was dug up after the inquest on Harris.

 

Edwin Day: I am a surgeon, at Hambrook; I was directed by the coroner, Mr. Ellis, to examine the body of Harris. I made a postmortem examination. I removed the stomach, liver, intestines, kidneys, and the rest of the abdominal viscera, excepting the bladder, properly secured them in a jar, and took it to Mr. Herapath. I had seen Harris before his death, first on the 20th of April. He appeared in a very emaciated state. On entering the house he said to me—” I was working in the garden, and felt a tickling in the throat, and threw up a quart of blood.” I asked him the colour, and he said it was bright red. I suspected it came from the lungs. The prisoner was outside the house at the time holding my horse. I saw deceased on the 27th and 28th, and he was worse; I sent him some medicine, consisting of sulphate of magnesia and diluted sulphuric acid. I am certain that there was no arsenic in the medicine.

 

Cross-examined: I was not called in at an enquiry on another body which was dug up. I think the deceased came to me a year or before, complaining of a pain in the stomach.

 

He appeared to be labouring under indigestion. I am not aware that was liable to vomiting. I attended the deceased on the 25th, by desire of his wife, have not had much experience in persons poisoned, accidentally or otherwise. The blood led me to suspect that there was a rupture in the lungs of the deceased. I changed the medicine on the 28th, because I found the man in a sinking state. I sent him some ammonia and opium to soothe him, as I thought he was dying. No complaint was made to me by the deceased of burning in the throat. The first medicine might create burning in the throat to a certain extent. I do not recollect that Harris was once under my care for period of thirty-two weeks. I am the doctor of a club at Hambrook, but I do not know that Harris was a member of it. Prisoner seemed to treat the deceased kindly.

 

Mr. William Herapath sworn I am an analytical chemist, residing in Bristol. I have, unfortunately, been examined in many cases of this kind. Mr. Day brought the abdominal viscera to me, and I examined them. First, I directed attention to the stomach. There was no food in it: but a yellow pasty mass covered it. My examination took place on the 19th of June. The stomach was perfect; arsenic is anti-septic, and would preserve anything it touches. I examined the pasty matter and found arsenic in it.

 

I found similar pasty matter in the intestines ; I separated from those a mixture of arsenious acid in crystal, and crystals of ammonia and phosphate of magnesia. Arsenic usually sold in the shops is white arsenic, commonly called arsenious acid. In the yellow pasty matter, there was yellow sulphuret of arsenic. The putrefaction of the body would change the colour. The magnesia must have been administered in some way. The action of the phosphoric acid contained in the stomach, and the administration of the first medicine would account for the crystals of ammonia phosphate of magnesia. I found arsenic in the liver, showing that it had passed into the circulation, and also found it in the substance of the stomach. I have no doubt whatever that death had been caused by arsenic, because I found arsenic present, and I also discovered symptoms of inflammation of the surface of the stomach and intestines, in patches, such as would be produced by arsenic. The effects of taking arsenic vary; the most common are sickness, purging, burning pains, sometimes gripes, sometimes paralysis, sometimes salivation. There are cases when all are absent; and others in which two or three are combined. There must have been a large quantity of arsenic administered. I found three grains. About four grains is the smallest quantity known to produce death. Cross-examined: Some quantity of arsenic must have passed off. I have never known, in my own practice, life to be prolonged more than twenty-four hours after its administration, except where it is administered in very small quantities. Redness and swelling of the eyes are sometimes, but not always witnessed in persons who have died from arsenic. Where a man was addicted to drinking, the effect of arsenic on the stomach would be to hasten death. I do not assume that the throwing up of blood is necessarily caused by arsenic. I am satisfied that the blood thrown up by Harris did not come from his stomach, because I found that no vessel had given way.

 

Re-examined: If the stomach were excited by arsenic, it might cause a vessel in the lungs to burst.

 

Charles Wall; I am assistant to Mr. Moreton, grocer, of Frampton Cotterell. I recollect the prisoner coming to our shop on Friday, the 26th of April, for groceries. After she had paid for the groceries, she said—” I want a small quantity of arsenic —how do you sell it?” I said” Two-pence an ounce.” She said she would have a pennyworth. I wrote “Poison” on the paper, and while wrapping it up, I said, ” You have not got tired of life?” She said, “No, I have not.” She added, that a black cat came to her house, and took away her tarts; that the cat had taken two off, tins and all. She also said she wanted to give the cat “a bit of something ” I said, You know it is poison, I suppose I will put it into paper, and mark it  “poison?” She said to the other persons in the shop, ” Wall do think that I have lived all these years in the world and am such a fool as not to know what poison is yet.” I had seen her the day before in the shop. She said to a third person, who was there, that Thomas was poorly. On the day I sold the poison, I said, “How is Thomas to-day?” She said he was very poorly all night and had been spitting up a quantity of blood.

 

Clara Barlow, a servant of Mr. Moreton, I was in the shop at the time.

 

Cross-examined I am confident the 26th was the day on which prisoner bought the poison. I was doubtful at first, but I have since refreshed my memory. She said that the cat came to her bakehouse.

 

Clara Barlow: I serve in Mr. Moreton’s shop; I went into my master’s service on the 8th of April. I know the prisoner, who used to come to my master’s shop. I recollect her coming when I and Wall were in the shop; she had some groceries; afterwards I saw Wall pack up something for her; he wrote “poison” on the packet. Wall asked her if she knew what it was, She said, “do you think I have lived in the world all these years and don’t know what poison is ?” There were other customers in the shop at the time. I was serving some of them. Prisoner said she wanted the poison to kill a black cat that came and took away her tarts. This took place in the third week after I went to my master’s. I am not confident what day it was, but I think it was on a Friday. I knew it was the third week by the dress I had on.

 

Cross-examined: We do not book the things paid for, after we have got the money once. (Laughter.) The learned judge said this was really shocking, when a woman was being tried for her life. If this was repeated, he would clear the gallery.

 

Cross examination resumed: Wall spoke to me about the day on which this happened.

 

James Hale: On Tuesday, April 2nd, I was returning to Frampton Cotterell from Bristol with my master’s cart; I gave a lift to the prisoner, and another woman who I don’t know. Passing through Stapleton some conversation took place. Prisoner told me that she had had her fortune told; I asked what the fortune woman told her. She said that the woman told her her husband had been very bad, but had got better, but that he would soon worse, and be took off very sudden; that she would not a widow very long, before she would have another offer, and it would be her own fault if she refused it. I asked her what sort of a man she was to have. She said she frequently saw him going to and fro to his work.

 

George Holden: I am a gardener at Frampton Cotterell. I was acquainted with the deceased. I recollect seeing him on a Friday evening in April, about eight o’clock; he died the Tuesday week following: that would be the 19th of April. On the Friday morning, he was in good health. I saw him next morning; he was then crawling along with a stick in his left hand, and his right hand on the wall. He was very ill. He made a complaint to me. He seemed to be in pain, and putting his hand on his stomach, said, “How bad I am!” He complained of sickness.

 

Cross examined: I do not know any church at which prisoner and deceased were married. It was reputed that they were not married.

 

Robert Bishop: I am a hatter, at Westerleigh. I shaved Harris on the Sunday week before he died. The prisoner was present; deceased was very bad; his wife said he seemed bad, and had been bad for some time. I was with him again on the Saturday after. He was upstairs in bed; the prisoner was present. Harris asked me to give him a little water; he said was very bad and feverish in his stomach; the prisoner gave me some water in a china cup out of large pitcher. She went into a back room to get the water. When deceased had taken the water, he was sick and threw it up. There was a teapot on the hob, and I gave him some tea from the teapot in the same china cup. The tea was ready-made. The prisoner poured the tea into the cup, and I gave it him. He threw that up too, in two or three minutes. He did not seem particularly in pain. She was in and out of the room. While downstairs, the deceased called out, “My dear, come to me!” He was sick at the time and seemed to be in pain. She came, and he said he should like a little drop of wine. She gave me the money, and I went for some. Before I went for the wine, he threw up his hand, and said, ” Lord, have mercy on me!” I got the wine in a little white phial bottle, which the good lady gave to me. I gave the wine to her downstairs and then went upstairs to the deceased. She came up about a minute and a half afterwards, as quick as she could get it ready. She brought up the wine, mixed with water, in the same teacup. The landlord who sold the wine said it was too strong, and it must be mixed with water. She gave me the cup, and said, “Robert, give it to him.” I did; he said in about two minutes, his stomach was warmer and warmer and threw it up again. His wife took away the utensil every time he threw up. I went for Thatcher, Harris’s nephew, about four o’clock in the afternoon. When I came back, the teapot was on the hob downstairs. Thatcher came, and I went for the doctor, got some medicine, and gave it to the deceased. I poured it into the same china teacup that I had before. This was about half-past nine. He swallowed the medicine and flung it up in a minute. After that he said, “Lord, have mercy upon me! I shall soon a dead man, Robert.” The doctor came about ten o’clock, and I went away with him. On Sunday morning I saw him; he was still very ill. I saw him again on the Monday morning; he seemed getting worse. I never saw him alive again. I shaved him on the Friday, two days before he was buried. I saw Dinah Wiltshire there, and prisoner talked with her about the man. The prisoner said some days before I had seen him, she made a rice pudding, and the deceased relished it well, and eat a good deal of it.

 

Cross-examined: I only shaved the deceased out of kindness. Prisoner seemed puzzled at his death and was describing to her neighbour what he had been taking. Harris was very often in liquor. The deceased had an opportunity of speaking to me privately, if he wished. The prisoner and he sometimes sat hand in hand. I went for Thatcher, the nephew of the deceased, and also to the doctor by the prisoner’s request. During the time I was with deceased the conduct of the prisoner was kind in every respect. The water the prisoner gave me was perfectly clean; I saw no sediment in the cup at any time.

 

Martha Thatcher: I am the wife of William Thatcher, quarryman; he is nephew of the deceased. No one lived with the deceased, and the prisoner. I went to the house of my uncle on the Sunday before he died; he was in bed very ill; he complained of pain in the throat and stomach. Mary Ann Elliott, his daughter was there. He directed her to go to the doctor to change his medicine, because it brought on the burning heat in his throat and stomach. I saw the deceased on the Monday; he seemed to be growing worse. He asked for something to moisten his mouth, and I gave him some tea spoonful’s of arrowroot. It was on the table mixed in a basin. I saw the prisoner next day; she seemed distressed. She said she should miss him, and all that sort of thing. She said she went to Bristol, somewhat before then, and had her fortune told; that she was told she should bury her husband shortly. I stayed at the house after the funeral had started. The prisoner asked me if a man named Curtis was at the funeral. I said no. She said she thought he would have been there. Everything I saw given to the deceased was ready mixed.

 

Cross-examined: It was open on the table to everybody. Curtis is a shoemaker: he was an old acquaintance of the family, The body looked natural after it was laid out.  

 

Joseph Thatcher: l am a nephew of the deceased. On Saturday before my uncle’s death, the prisoner came to my house and said, “Joseph, your uncle’s very bad and wants to see you” I said, ” I will go and see him.” She said, “If you don’t go you may not see him alive anymore.” I went between five and six o’clock. I saw the prisoner, and she said to me, “What do you think Uncle has been saying?” I said I could not tell. He said ” When I do die, you will fob me off on the common” (A new church had been built there.) He said he should not like to be buried there, and she had asked the reason, and he had answered, “Because I shouldn’t.” He said he should like to be buried at Frampton Church. I went up to my uncle and he said he should like to be buried at Zion Chapel with his father. I told him I would see him buried at the chapel. The prisoner came into the room while I was talking with my uncle. I asked him where the pain was, and he said it was a burning pain in his stomach. He asked for something to wet his lips, and she brought him something of the colour of tea. He vomited immediately. I took the vessel up, and he said, “Joseph, you must put it down; he can’t stand the … of it.” I said I would stay that night or another night” if I was willing; she said she did not see the need of it, as I worked hard, and she did not like to break my rest. I soon afterwards left the house. I heard of my uncle’s death on Tuesday. I was there in the evening. I found Curtis there with the prisoner, staid a few minutes, and then went away. I saw the prisoner shortly after the funeral; the prisoner said Curtis had given his son-in-law notice to quit his house. My aunt married Curtis about three weeks after my uncle’s death.

 

Cross-examined: I married a second wife myself the day that my aunt was married to Curtis.

 

Re-examined : I believe the prisoner and deceased lived comfortably together. Prisoner had a bakehouse.

 

Thomas Williams: I am in the service of Mr. S. Holder who keeps the Horse Shoe public-house, at Frampton. On the day before the funeral, I was sent to prisoner’s house with some beer and glasses. The door was open; I saw the prisoner then. She told me to put the glasses on the floor, and as I was doing so, I turned my head and saw Curtis behind the front door. I mentioned this. I saw the prisoner at my house afterwards; she said she had been forced to hear before the congregation that I had seen Curtis behind the door the day before the funeral. I told her I had told Charlotte Dando, and that I did see him. She said Curtis stood behind the door to make room. The deceased was lying dead in the other room.—

 

Cross-examined: – Prisoner did not tell me “It was not Curtis, it was my brother Moses.” I went with the beer between eight and nine in the evening.

 

Aaron Bryant: I am a coal miner, at Frampton. She told me, that on the same morning that Thomas died, Curtis was going by the house and made an offer to her. She told me this on the day that the body was taken up. It was just after the bier was taken up. —

 

Cross-examined: I am a nephew of Harris.

 

Martha Holder: I am the wife of Samuel Holder, of the Horse shoes. I recollect Harris dying. I saw the prisoner at her house after his death. She was not in mourning, and I asked her how it was she had not widow’s weeds on.  She said she did not like widow’s weeds; she did not like black. I said it was usual; she said she should have her bride’s favours on before weeds. This was either on the Wednesday or Thursday before the Sunday she was married.

 

The adjourned inquest was held at our house on the 5th of July. The prisoner came, and I told the prisoner that Wall was come, and was evidence against her, that she had purchased arsenic. I asked her if she had. She said she never had in her life. I said, “Perhaps Wit come in your favour.” I noticed she looked very frightened, she caught hold of me, and said, ” What shall I do, Mrs. Holder?” I said, ” What can you do? I am sorry for you.” I said, “You had better have an attorney.” She said, “Do you think he’ll be any good!” I said “Yes.” She seemed very faint, and I told her she had better send for her husband. She said she had something to say to me. I said she had better not say anything to me or anyone else. Her daughter came in and said, “This is not a place for confession, Mrs. Holder.” The prisoner desired her daughter to fetch Curtis. —

 

Cross-examined: she fainted away when I told her not to say anything to me.

 

Ann Going: I am well acquainted with the prisoner! I was at her house a few days after Christmas. In the evening Curtis came in. Prisoner and I had a few words of talk. Prisoner and Curtis went out. Prisoner came back in a quarter of an hour and said Curtis had wanted to measure her for a pair of …. boots. In a few minutes I went away, and while going I saw Curtis go into the house, and the door was shut after him. The deceased was not at home at that time. Prisoner called on me a few nights after that, and said Harris was very jealous of her. She said, “that evening you were at my house, Thomas came home very jealous, knocking up a row.” I said “Jealous!” She said ” yes, very jealous of Edmund Curtis, but I shall Iet him know about that.” She often spoke to me of Curtis afterwards.

 

—Cross-examined: Curtis is younger than prisoner.

 

John Webb: I am parish clerk of Winterbourne. Prisoner and Curtis were married at Winterbourne church, on the 26th of May.

 

Mr. W. J. Ellis: I am one of the county coroners. At the adjourned inquest, the prisoner told me she was married to Harris.

 

—Cross-examined: She was at liberty at the time.

 

Mary Ann Elliott:  I am daughter of the prisoner by her first husband, one Jennings. Harris was her second husband.

 

Mr. Greaves said he considered it his duty to put the witness in the box, but he should not examine her.

 

Examined by Mr. Cooke: My mother and deceased lived on good terms, except when he was in beer. He often got drunk and then quarrelled and was abusive. My mother had a bake house. I have heard my mother say the cats have got into the kitchen and eat the meat and butter. There is a “squint hole” in the bakehouse; I have known the cats get through there. There was a buffet in the kitchen where earthenware was kept. The deceased was not liable to sickness. I have never seen deceased take magnesia, but I have heard him say he took it as a cooling medicine. I can’t say if magnesia was kept in the buffet. I went to see the deceased on the 19th of April; he was sick then. My mother brought deceased some peppermint tea; he would not take it; he did not like the smell. I heard him say, in my own house, that the cat had eat his meat, that if he could catch it, he would kill it.

 

Examined by Mr. Greaves: I thought the peppermint tea smelt of laudanum.

 

Mr. Cooke made a long and able defence for the prisoner; The jury, he said, must consider whether the facts of the case were not consistent with the innocence of the prisoner, as well as with her guilt; and if they were, then it was the imperative duty of the jury to adopt the innocent construction, and acquit the prisoner. In this country the crime of murder was so odious that the very moment it was hinted at, everybody was on the alert, and the country had a right to proud of it ; and nobody grudged the labour by which the facts could be sifted. He hoped this feeling would explain a great deal what he might call the fringe in the case. He did not mean dispute that the deceased had met his death by poison, for Mr. Herepath had conclusively proved that; but he thought there was a solution of the case perfectly consistent with the innocence of the prisoner. The man died of poison; but was he murdered? Was it deliberately administered to destroy life? Was it given by this woman He would ask the jury had they any notion at that very stage of the case—supposing for a moment the man was murdered—how the poison was given to him? It became a matter of great importance to fix the mode. The talk about the pudding was just what might be expected—the women were wondering what the man died of, and his wife told what he had eaten. On the 19th the deceased was seized with vomiting, and he continued vomiting every day up to the time the prisoner bought the arsenic. There was no pretence for saying that the arsenic was given in the tea, the water, or port wine; the witness showed that the cup was clean, and that there was no opportunity of mixing it. Then as to the hasty marriage. Would any woman act in such a way if she were guilty? The deceased had his friends and relatives about him at the suggestion of the prisoner; there was no concealment whatever; the poison was bought openly; and the suspicion of foul play was created because the prisoner got married again. Why, if she had given the deceased poison, she must have been very clever and artful, for it was clear from the evidence that it must have been administered in small doses. The prisoner was not married to Harris. What motive, then, had she for depriving him of life? If Curtis came to marry her, she had a chance of getting a respectable position in life, which she had never had before But how did the deceased get the poison into his stomach? He was instructed that the prisoner had no idea whatever. Harris was accustomed to get drunk, and in the habit of dosing himself with magnesia—a white stuff. The arsenic was obtained not secretly, but openly, in Frampton, at a shop in which the prisoner dealt, in the presence of several persons, who knew her perfectly well. The arsenic was put in a buffet in the kitchen, amongst the earthenware, according to common custom; it was taken for magnesia by the unfortunate man, who administered it to himself by mistake. The learned counsel then entered into an elaborate analysis of the evidence. The prisoner possessed no chemical knowledge, which was necessary to poison the deceased gradually; her conduct from the 19th of April to the 5th of June was perfectly consistent with innocence ; her marriage, though it took place with indecent haste, must be judged by the manner of the place; for they had it in evidence that the nephew of the deceased, who laid him out and conducted the funeral, took a second wife on the very day that the prisoner married Curtis. As to the fortune-telling, it was one of the idle stories which fortune-tellers were accustomed to fit to wishes of those who came to them. It was nothing more than one of the remarkable coincidences which all men had met with. The continued emptying of the utensil was the proper act a clean woman; yet this was made an evidence of guilt. If the jury found the prisoner guilty, it must be in the belief that prisoner gave the poison in small quantities ; and if she did, then she must also have known that arsenic would preserve the intestines, and thus furnish proof against her. If the vomiting was caused by poison, how could the jury reconcile this with the fact that the vomiting commenced on the 19th and the poison was not bought till the 26th ? If poison were given on the 26th, how could they reconcile the fact that the symptoms before and after the poisoning were precisely similar? It was a case full of suspicion, certainly;  but the jury were not to find the prisoner guilty on suspicion. It must be made out to their satisfaction that she administered arsenic.

 

The Learned Judge then summed up most carefully and minutely, admirably pointing out the evidence which bore for and against the prisoner. The case for the prosecution was that the prisoner bought arsenic on the Friday before the Tuesday on which the man died; that she had the means of administering the arsenic; and that if she did not, there was a difficulty in showing how it was administered. There was a motive in the mind of the prisoner for getting rid of the deceased—the strong motive of getting Curtis as her husband. In the prisoner’s favour were the great facilities which seemed to have been afforded to all persons to be present to have witnessed her whole proceedings, to hear any complaint which the deceased might make. Certainly, it did appear that she wished people to see the deceased; in this there was nothing like the consciousness that she was guilty of murder. Again, this was not the case of a person who bought poison in secret, in a place where she was not known, away from all those who might recognise her, or know that she was in possession of the fatal means. She bought it at the time her husband was ill, in the face of day, in the presence of several persons who knew her.

 

The jury retired, and after deliberating for forty minutes, returned into court. The Clerk asked if they had agreed their verdict?

 

The Foreman: After giving the case our best consideration we have come to the conclusion that the prisoner is GUILTY, but we strongly recommend her to mercy.

The Judge: On what ground?

 

 The jury gave no reply.

 

The Judge then put on the black cap, amidst profound sensation.

 

The Clerk: Prisoner at the bar, you have been found guilty of murder; have you anything to say why the Court should not now condemn you to die

 

The prisoner stood in the dock silent. The Judge: Hannah Curtis, you have been convicted, after the careful consideration of the jury, of the crime of murder – of that crime in its most revolting form—the poisoning of a husband by a wife. It is not my duty nor my inclination to add misery and horror of your condition by commenting on the enormity of your guilt. I have mentioned only as shutting out on earth all hope of pardon for such an offence.

 

Prisoner: Not guilty, my lord; not guilty.

 

The Judge: The jury have recommended you to mercy, they have assigned no ground for it, and I can see no reason why the utmost severity of the law should not be inflicted on you for this grievous offence of poisoning your husband.

 

The Prisoner: Not guilty, not guilty.

 

The Judge:  In a few days you must certainly meet your death on the scaffold. Let me implore you to employ the short interval in deep repentance of your enormous guilt, and in imploring from an all-merciful God, that pardon which you cannot have upon earth.

 

The Prisoner: I am not guilty – I am not guilty—innocent my lord! The Judge : The sentence of the court is that you be taken to the prison from whence you came, and from thence to a place of execution, and there be hanged by the neck, until you are dead and that when you are dead, your body shall be taken down and buried within the precincts of the prison in which you shall be confined, and may the Lord have mercy on your soul.

 

The prisoner then left the dock, apparently little moved.