5. The next article among the moral circumstances,—the simultaneous illness of other members of the family besides the person chiefly affected,—depends for its conclusiveness almost entirely upon the researches and opinion of the medical witnesses.
The fact, that several persons, who partook of the same dish or other article, have been seized about the same time with the same symptoms, will furnish very strong evidence of general poisoning. A few diseases, such as those which arise from infection or from atmospheric miasmata, may affect several persons of a family about the same time; and hysteria, and epilepsy, have been communicated to several people in rapid succession.[[130]] But I am not aware, that, among the diseases which resemble well marked cases of poisoning either with irritants or with narcotics, any one ever originates in such a way as to render it possible for several persons in a family to be attacked simultaneously, except through the merest and therefore most improbable accident. Cholera perhaps is an exception. But when cholera attacks at one time several people living together, it arises from bad food, and is properly a variety of poisoning. In such cases, too, the fallacy may in general be easily got the better of, by finding that the store or stock, from which the various articles composing the injurious meal have been taken was of wholesome quality.
Hence it may be laid down as a general rule, that, perhaps if two, but certainly if three or more persons, after taking a suspected article of food or drink, are each affected with symptoms, furnishing of themselves presumptive evidence of poisoning, and have been seized nearly about the same time, and within the interval after eating within which poisons usually begin to act,—the proof of poisoning is decisive. Several late cases might, in my opinion, have been decided by this rule. Thus it might have decided the important case of George Thom tried at Aberdeen in 1821 for poisoning the Mitchells, and likewise that of Eliza Fenning, about whose condemnation some clamour was made in London in 1815. In both instances, as will be mentioned under the head of arsenic, the symptoms were developed so characteristically, that from them alone poisoning with arsenic might have been inferred almost to a certainty. But even if the symptoms had been somewhat less characteristic, all doubt of general poisoning was set aside by the fact, that four persons in the former case, and five in the latter, were similarly and simultaneously affected, and all of them at an interval after eating, which corresponded with the interval within which arsenic usually begins to act.
Sometimes it happens, that while one or more of a party at a certain meal suffer, others escape. Such an occurrence must not be hastily assumed as inconsistent with poison having been administered at that meal. For the guilty person may have slipped the poison into the portion taken by the individual or individuals affected.
If it be proved that all who ate of a particular dish have suffered, and all who did not have escaped, the kind of moral evidence now under review becomes strongest of all. It is well for the medical jurist to remember also, that such evidence is very useful in directing him where chiefly he should look for poison.
At other times it happens that the several people affected, suffer in proportion to the quantity taken by each of a particular dish. Too much importance ought not to be attached to the absence of that relation; for it has been already mentioned that habit, idiosyncrasy, and the state of fulness of the stomach at the time, will modify materially the action of poisons. But when present, it will often form strong evidence.—A good illustration of what is now said may be found in the case of Thomas Lenargan, tried in Ireland for the murder of his master, Mr. O’Flaherty. He had for some time carried on an amour with O’Flaherty’s wife; and afterwards, to get rid of the troublesome surveillance of the husband, contrived to despatch him by poison. The crime was not suspected for two years. Among the facts brought out on the trial the most pointed were, that O’Flaherty’s daughter and two servants were affected at the same time with the very same symptoms as himself; that they had partaken of the same dish with him; that the severity of their several complaints was in proportion to the quantity each had taken; and that others of the family, who did not eat it, were not affected.[[131]]
Another remarkable instance of this kind has been recorded by Morgagni. A clergyman, while travelling in company with another gentleman and two ladies, was setting out one afternoon to resume his journey after dining at an inn, when he was suddenly taken ill with violent pain in the stomach and bowels, and soon after with vomiting and purging. One of the ladies was similarly affected, but in a less degree; and likewise the other gentleman, though in a degree still less: but the other lady did not suffer at all. Morgagni found, that this lady was the only one of the party who had not tasted a dish of soup at the commencement of dinner. But he was puzzled on finding that the gentleman who suffered least had taken the largest share of the soup, while the clergyman had taken less than either of the two that were seized along with him. He then remembered, however, that in the district where the accident happened, it was the custom to use scraped cheese with the soup in question; and on inquiry he was informed that they had each added to the soup a quantity of cheese proportioned to the severity of their illness. Here, therefore, Morgagni was led to suspect the presence of poison; and accordingly, after the whole party had fortunately recovered, the innkeeper acknowledged, that in the hurry of preparation, he had served up to his guests cheese seasoned with arsenic to poison rats.[[132]] This interesting anecdote shows, that the truth in such cases is not always to be discovered without minute inquiry and considerable adroitness. In the case of poisoning with arsenic in wine formerly alluded to,—where all the individuals at table, to the amount of six, were severely affected during dinner,—the soup was the article suspected, because all had partaken of it; and, accordingly, the soup and vomited matter were sent to me for analysis. On detecting a trace of arsenic in the vomited matter, but none in the soup, I suggested that some other article might have been used in common by the party, and mentioned the wine as a probable article of the kind. It turned out that all had drunk a single glass of champagne from a particular bottle; and in the wine remaining in this bottle arsenic was found in the proportion of half a grain per ounce.[[133]]
Cases of this nature are so instructive that no apology need be made for mentioning one example more which lately came under my own notice. In the case of Mary Anne Alcorn, convicted here in the summer of 1827, of having administered poison to her master and mistress (a case already referred to for another purpose, p. [75]), it was proved that a white powder was introduced in a suspicious manner into the gravy of baked beef, which gravy was subsequently poured over the beef. Now the master of the family dined heartily on beef, potatoes and rice-pudding, and mixed the greater part of the beef gravy with his pudding; the mistress ate moderately of the first slices of the beef, took very little gravy, even to the beef, and none at all to the pudding; a little girl, their niece, dined on pudding alone, without gravy; and the prisoner dined after the family on the beef and potatoes. Accordingly the master suffered so severely as for two or three days to be in danger of his life, the mistress was also severely, but by no means so violently affected, the little girl did not suffer at all, and the servant had merely slight pain and sickness at stomach. The evidence thus procured was exceedingly strong, more particularly when coupled with the fact, that the beef used was half of a piece, the other half of which had been used by the family two days before, without any ill consequences.
6. The next article of the moral evidence relates to suspicious conduct on the part of the prisoner during the illness of the person poisoned. Under this head it is necessary merely to state what I conceive to be, with reference to the present branch of the proof, the duty of the medical practitioner who happens to attend a case of poisoning.
In such a conjuncture he is undoubtedly placed in a situation of some delicacy. But on considering the matter attentively, good reasons will appear why he should adopt the course, which, I believe, our courts of justice will expect of him, and keep some watch over the actions of any individual who is suspected of having committed the crime. On the one hand, no one else is by education and opportunities so capable of remarking the motions of the different members of the family dispassionately, without officiousness, and without being observed. And on the other hand, it is undoubtedly a part of his private duty as practitioner, to protect his patient against any farther criminal attempts, as well as part of his public duty to prevent the vomited matter and other subjects of analysis from being secretly put away or destroyed. No one can be so occupied without many accessary particulars coming under his notice. And certain it is, that on several trials the practitioner has contributed, with great credit to himself, a considerable part of the pure moral proof. For an example of discreet and able conduct under these trying circumstances, the reader will do well to refer to that of Dr. Addington, the chief crown witness, both as to medical and moral facts, in the case of Miss Blandy.[[134]] It is almost unnecessary to add, that in acting as now recommended, the physician must conduct himself with circumspection, in order to avoid giving unnecessary offence, or alarming the guilty person.