Evidence for the Prosecution 
The Smith's front doorkitchen windows (front area)Minnoch's DoorMinnoch's apartmentsBessie's bedroomMadeleine's bedroom windowsJohn's bedroom windowSmiths' drawing roomSmiths' dining room
      
 

Archibald Smith, Advocate.  Sheriff-Substitute of Lanarkshire (by the Lord Advocate) - The prisoner was judicially examined before me, and emitted a declaration on 31st March, which I identify.  It was freely and voluntarily emitted, after she had been duly admonished.  The two letters now shown to me were exhibited to the prisoner, and signed by her.

Cross-examined by the Dean of Faculty - Only four letters in all were shown to the prisoner.  She was examined on a charge of murder.  The greater part of the questions were put by me. The statements in the declaration were all made in answer to questions.  The answers were given clearly and distinctly.  There was no appearance of hesitation or reserve.  There was a great appearance of frankness and candour.  The declaration was of some length.

[End of testimony]  [Back to Index of Witnesses] 
Ann Duthie or Jenkins - I am the wife of David Jenkins, joiner, and I live at No. 11 Franklin Place, Glasgow.

I knew the late M. L'Angelier. He lodged in my house. He first come to me about the end of July and he remained in my house as a lodger till his death.  His usual habits were regular. Sometimes he was out at night.  Not very often at first, but frequent of late. His general health was good till about January.  I recollect his having an illness somewhere about the middle of February. He had an illness about the 22nd of February, and he had one eight or ten days before that. I cannot exactly remember the day.

The night he was first attacked, he wished the passkey, because he would be late. I went to bed and did not hear him come in. At eight in the morning, I knocked at his door and got no answer.  I knocked again, and he answered "Come in, if you please."  I went in, and found him in bed.  He said, "I have been very unwell; look what I have vomited." I said, "I think that's bile." I did see what it was that he had vomited -  it was a greenish substance. There was a great deal of it.  It was about the thickness of gruel.  I said, "Why did you not call on me?  "He said, "on the road coming home I was seized with a violent pain in my bowels and stomach and when I was taking off my clothes I lay down upon the carpet.  I thought I would have died, and no human eye would have seen me.  I was not able to ring the bell. If you please to make me some tea, I think I will not go out."

[By the Lord Justice-Clerk] Did you find him on the carpet or the bed?  - I found him on the bed.

I emptied out what he had vomited.  I advised Mr. L'Angelier to go to a doctor, and he said he would. He told me not to make any breakfast but said he would take some tea then he went to some sleep.  He slept, I think, for about an hour -  till nine o'clock.  I went back to him at that time and found that he had had a sleep and was a little better, and would go out. He got his tea when I went to him at nine.

Mr. Thuau, saw him also; he lodged, at that time, in my house.  I think, as far as I can remember, that he rose betwixt ten and eleven o'clock.  He went out.  He said he was going to his place of business, but intended also to call upon a gentleman. His place of business is at number 10 Bothwell Street, Messrs. Huggins.  It is not very far from my house but a good many streets off.  He returned about three in the afternoon.  He said he had been at the doctor, and had got a bottle which he had with him.  I do not remember if he said he felt any better; he took the medicine.  I do not remember that he had complained of anything else besides the pain in his stomach and bowels.  He did complain of being very thirsty.  When he returned at three o'clock, he still complained of being thirsty but not so much as before.

The illness did make a change in his appearance - a great change.  He looked yellow and not like what he used to be.  He became dull in appearance.  Before that his complexion was fresh.  After that the colour left him - a great deal. His skin became dark under the eyes and the red on his cheeks seemed to be more broken.  He complained of cold.  I remember him, after he came in, complaining of being very cold.  When he came in, he lay down on the sofa, and I laid a railway rug over him but do not remember doing anything to his feet.  He never was the same after.  He got a little better but when asked how he felt, he always said, "I never feel well."

I can not tell exactly what was the date of his first illness but the second illness was about 22nd February.  It was on a Monday morning about four o'clock when he called me and, on going to him, I found him vomiting.  It was quite same was the same kind of stuff as he had vomited before.  I think the same both in colour and in kind.  There was not quite as much of it as last time.  He complained of the same pain in the bowels and stomach, and of thirst. He was very cold.  I was not aware he was out the night before - he said nothing about that.  I put more clothes on him and jars of hot water to his feet and stomach. I made some tea, and he had a great many drinks - toast and water and lemon and water.  He got a little better.  I left him and called about six.  He was a little better then.  He did not rise till the forenoon.

I think this was on 22nd February, because he had bought a piece of boiling meat on the Saturday from. Stewart, St. Georges Road. He had a passbook with Stewart, which I now identify.  I see the piece of meat entered on 21st February and it was sent on the Saturday before that illness, which was on the Monday morning. A doctor came - Dr. Thomson - on the Monday. Thuau went for him in the forenoon, but I do not remember the hour he called. The doctor left a prescription for powders, which I sent for and got.  L'Angelier was eight days, I think, in the house, and away from his office. I recollect him taking one or two powders, but cannot say if he took the rest.  He said he did not think they did him the good he expected.

Dr. Thomson came more than once.  L'Angelier said, - "The doctor always says I am getting well," but he said he did not feel well; he said, "I do not think I am getting better." He said this often.  He went to Edinburgh soon after.  I cannot say the date, or how long it was after this illness.  I think he was eight days away.  He came back, I think, on a Tuesday.  Thuau told me at four that L'Angelier would be back that evening and I got in bread and butter. I identify his passbook with Chalmers the baker.  The bread and butter are entered on 17th March.  He returned that night at half-past ten.

He was in the habit of  receiving a great many letters, but I thought they were addressed in a gentleman's hand.  There were a great many in the same handwriting.  He never told me who the letters were from.  I identify a photograph of a lady which I saw lying about his room.  I said, "is that your intended, Sir"  He said, "perhaps some day."   I did not think the letters came from a lady. I always took in the letters, but he never said anything about my taking them in.  I knew he expected to be married about the end of September, 1856.  He wished a bedroom and dining room.  He said he was going to be married about the end of March, and said he would like me to take him in.  I did not agree.  One time, when he was badly, I said," it will be a bad job if you get ill and you going to get married." He said, " it will he a long time before you see that, Mrs Jenkins."

On his return on 17th March he asked me if I had a letter for him. I said I had not, and he seemed disappointed.  He stayed over the 18th and left on the 19th, and when he left he told me to give any letters to Thuau, who would address them.  He said he was going to Bridge of Allan.  A letter came for him on the 19th.  It was the same as the others that had been coming.  I gave it to Mr Thuau to address. I cannot say if any came on the Friday, but one came on the Saturday  in what was more like a lady's writing than the others.   I gave it to Thuau.  L'Angelier said he would not be home till Wednesday night or Thursday morning of the following week.  He was very much  disappointed at not getting a letter, and when he went away he said, "if  I get a letter I may be back tonight."  I don't know whether he went anywhere else before going to Bridge of Allan.  I identify an envelope as like the one that came on the Saturday but I cannot speak as to the other one shown me.

I next saw L'Angelier on the Sunday night about eight o'clock. I was surprised, and asked why he came home. He said, "the letter you sent brought me home."  He asked when it came. I said, "on Saturday afternoon." He said he had walked fifteen mile but he did not say where he had come from. I understood he had been at Bridge of Allan.  He told me to call him early next morning.  He said he intended to go back by the first train, but whether or not to Bridge of Allan I cannot say.  He looked well, and said he was a great deal better, and almost well. He went out that night about nine o'clock, and before going out he said, "if you please, give me the passkey.   I am not sure but I may be late."

I saw him next about half-past two on the Monday morning.  He did not use the passkey.  The bell rang with great violence.  I rose, and called, "who's there?" He said, "it is I, Mrs Jenkins; open the door, if you please."  I did so.  He was standing with his arms closed across his stomach.  He said, "I am very bad; I am going to have another vomiting of that bile."  The first time I had said, "that's bile," and he had replied, " I never had bile;  I never was troubled with bile." He said he thought he never would have got home, he was so bad on the road.  He did not say whether it was pain or vomiting.  After he had come in he asked for a little water. I filled a tumbler, and he drank it empty.   He wished come tea.  I went into the room before he was half-undressed, and he was vomiting severely.  It was the same kind of matter as before, and it seemed so both in colour and substance.  There was gaslight.

The second occasion was the easiest.  On the third occasion he suffered great pain.  I said, "were you not taking anything that disagreed with you? - referring to his food at Bridge of Allan.  He said, "no, I have taken nothing that disagreed with me;  I never was better than when I was at the coast" - meaning, as I understood, at Bridge of Allan.  I said, "you have not taken enough of medicine and he said, "I never approved of medicine.  He was chilly and cold, and wished hot water to his feet and stomach.  I got jars of hot water, and also three or four pairs of blankets and two mats.  He got a little easier, but became very bad at four o'clock.  I said I would go for Dr. Thomson, in Dundas Street.  He thanked me, but said it was too much trouble so early.  I said, " No."  He told me the name and residence of the doctor, but said he feared I would not find the way.  I said, " No fear." He got a little better; but about five he got very bad again, and his bowels got very bad.  I said I would go to the nearest doctor - a Dr. Steven.  He asked what kind of a doctor he was, and told me to go and bring him.

I went for Dr. Steven at five o'clock.  The doctor was badly, and could not come.  He said to give twenty-five drops of laudanum, and to put a mustard blister on the stomach, and hot water, and that if L'Angelier was no better he would come.  L'Angelier said he could not take laudanum. I gave him plenty of hot water. He said that a blister would be of no use; he was only retching.  About seven o'clock he was dark about the eyes.   I again proposed to get Dr. Steven; and he was anxious, this time, that I should go for the doctor.

When the doctor came he ordered mustard immediately, and I left the room to get it.  I did not hear the doctor ask L'Angelier what was wrong.  I said to the doctor, "Look what he has vomited"; and the doctor said, "Take it away, it is making him faintish." I got mustard, and the doctor put it on. He said he would wait to see the effect, and gave him, I think, a little morphia.  He stayed about half an hour.  I went in with more hot water, and when I was applying it L'Angelier said, "oh, Mrs. Jenkins, this is the worst attack I ever had." He said, "I feel something here," pointing to his forehead.  Dr. Steven said, "it must be something internally; I see nothing wrong." L'Angelier said, "can you do anything, doctor?" He said time and quietness were required.

I left the room, pointing to the doctor to come, and I asked what was wrong.  He asked if L'Angelier was a person that tippled?  I said he was not.  The doctor said he was like a man that tippled, and I assured him that L'Angelier was not given to drink.  I remarked, "it is strange; this is the second time he has gone out well and returned very ill; I must speak to him and ask the cause." The doctor said, "that will be an after-explanation," and he said he would be back between ten and eleven.

The first time I went back to him L'Angelier asked me what the doctor thought. I replied, "he thinks you will get over it"; at which he said, "I am far worse, than the doctor thinks." I saw him several times.  He always said, "if I could get some sleep I should be better." About nine o'clock, when I drew the curtains, he looked badly. I asked if there was no one he would like to see.  He then asked to see a Miss Perry, and told her address Bath Street or Renfrew Street, I think No. 4 . I sent for her. I went out and in three or four times.  The last time I went in he said "Oh, if I could get five minutes' sleep, I think I would get better. These were his last words. I left him, and went back quietly in five or ten minutes. I thought him asleep, and went out.  The doctor came soon after.  He asked for his patient, and I said he was newly asleep, and that it was a pity to waken him.  He said he would like to see him, and we went in.  The doctor felt his pulse, and lifted up the head, which fell down.  He told me L'Angelier was dead.  I think I have told all I know.

I did not ask L'Angelier where he had been. I knew, from the time he said he was going to be married, that there was a private correspondence; but I did not know who the lady was or where she lived.  That was the reason why I did not ask where he had been at nights.  Miss Perry came but she was too late. I sent my little boy to Mr. Clark, another lodger; he was at the National Bank.  Clark came, and also Chrystal, a grocer.  Stevenson came, but not then.  Chrystal went in and shut L'Angelier's eyes.  He said he would send word to his employer.  A Mr  Scott, the foreman of Menzies, an undertaker, came first.  Stevenson, from Huggins & Co., came also.  Dr. Thomson, M. Thuau, and Dr. Steven were sent for. I told Stevenson I wished him to take charge, and he did so.  The clothes which L'Angelier took off at night were on the sofa.  They took a letter out of his pocket, and some one said, " This explains all." I saw the letter and said, '  This is the letter that came on Saturday." When the letter was got Thuau and Stevenson were there, and perhaps Kennedy.  I cannot say which said "This explains all," I think Stevenson.  Stevenson locked up the things.  At that time I did not hear anything said of an examination.  The examination by the doctor was, I think, on the Wednesday.  All the things were left just as they were till Stevenson locked them up. 

When L'Angelier came from Bridge of Allan on the Sunday he had a tight short coat or jacket, with handkerchief in breast pocket, and he wore a Glengarry bonnet.  I did not see him go out; he had a bonnet when he came back at two, but I cannot say if it was the same.  He had bowel complaints on both of his first illnesses.

Cross examined by the Dean of Faculty - As to the first illness before the 22nd, I cannot speak to the date of it. It might be eight or ten days before the second illness.  I think so, but I cannot remember the date.  The first illness was much worse than the second. I think he began to complain of his health in January.  He had a sore throat, then a boil on his neck, and then another about the end of January.  On these illnesses I suggested that it was bile that was wrong with him.  I was troubled with that myself, and my symptoms were something like his, but not so violent.  There was purging on both of his first illnesses. 

The second illness was on a Monday morning, the 23rd. He dined at home on the Sunday.  On the Saturday night he said he was not very well, and did not intend to go out on Sunday.  He was taking fresh herrings, with sauce of eggs and vinegar, on that Saturday, and I said, "That is not good for you." He used many vegetables.  He said he always got them at college in France, and was never the worse.  I cannot say if he was out on the Sunday.  I think I would have recollected his asking for the key, but Thuau sometimes let him in.  He was confined to the house eight days after that Sunday.  I only remember him being out one about the 23rd or 24th.  Dr. Thomson visited him during these eight days.  After his first illness he brought home a bottle.  I do not recollect his bringing more than one.  The bottle was laudanum.  There were eight bottles and some powders in his room after his death.  The authorities got the bottles.  Mr Murray, I think, and Stevenson were there.   This was some days after the death, I think, but I am not sure. I was in the room when they took the bottles away. Murray put some questions to me, but I do not remember what they were.

L'Angelier spoke of coming back on the Thursday night if a letter came on the day he went to Bridge of Allen.  Thuau sent the letter after him, but he did not come.  The letter came about half past three on the Saturday.  Thuau came in to dinner about six o'clock, and re-addressed it.  I think it came by the last post, before dinner. L'Angelier said he was a little better when he came from Edinburgh; but I knew a greater difference on him when he came from Bridge of Allan.  He took tea and toast that Sunday night. I cannot say what he had on when he went out on Sunday nor when he came in next morning.  The gas was out in the lobby, and when I went into the bedroom he was half-undressed.  He said he had been very bad, but he did not say what it was.  He did not say he had been vomiting on the way home.  After he came back he vomited a great quantity of stuff.  The chamber-pot was quite full, but he did not vomit much after I emptied it.  He purged twice - once before I went for the doctor and once after.  I gave him hot water; he vomited much, and got better.  That was before the chamber-pot was emptied, which was done after the doctor came, and by his orders.  Before he came I told L'Angelier I would keep what he had vomited, and let the doctor see it.  There was laudanum in his press, but he refused to take it, and said he never could take it.  "Besides," he said, "it's not good; it has been standing without a cork."  Dr. Steven assured me, that L'Angelier would get over it the same as before.  I think on the morning of his death he complained of his throat, but I cannot say.  The doctor gave him some water, and he said it was like to choke him; and I think he also spoke of his throat.  When he was in bed that morning he always put his arms out of the clothes, stiff-like.  I cannot say if his hands were clenched, but his right hand was clenched when he died.

Miss Perry came about ten o'clock. I asked, "are you the intended, Ma'am?" and she said, " Oh, no! I am only a friend."  I had supposed, when L'Angelier asked to see her, that she was the intended.  I told her he was dead.  She was very sorry - very strikingly so - very much overwhelmed; cried a great deal.  I was surprised.  My message to her, by the little boy, had been that L'Angelier was very bad, and, as soon as convenient, to come and see him.  I took her in to see the body after it was laid out.  When she said she was not the intended, I said I heard he was going to be married, and how sorry the lady would be.  She kissed the forehead several times.. It was not violent grief.  She cried very much, and said how sorry she was for his mother.  I cannot say that she spoke as if she knew his mother. L'Angelier had two wooden writing desks in his room. I took note of the things taken away. I know of some of the clothes, but other things I don't know of. I was not in the room when the boxes were searched. I was in the house; when I once went in, they got the gas lighted, and said, "That will do," or "That's all that's required."  I do not recollect any lady calling for L'Angelier.  A married lady and her husband were once at tea with him.  Sometimes messages came from ladies.  When L'Angelier was badly, a can of marmalade and some books were sent.  "Mrs. Overton" was on the card.  L'Angelier had an illness one night about the end of August or beginning of September. He said his bowels had been very bad, and that he had not been in bed all night.  That was the same night on which there was a fire in Windsor Terrace.

[The fire at 207 St Georges Rd and 2&4 Windsor Terrace was on 21st August 1856]

Re-examined by the Lord Advocate - The topcoat and Balmoral bonnet now shown me are like L'Angelier things - like the coat he had on when he died, and the bonnet or cap he had on that night, but he had two or three caps. I identify his portmanteau.  When I said to Miss Perry the intended would be sorry, she told me not to say much about the intended, or to leave the matter alone.  I identify the morocco leather bag, which belonged to Thuau, and L'Angelier had at Bridge of Allan.

To the Court -  On the last illness, my inquiry as to his taking anything referred to Bridge of Allan.  His answer was, "No, I never was better than the few days I was at the coast." I never asked where he had been that night, as I thought he might be visiting his intended.  My husband was away all the time, and I saw him only once about New-Year time.  The letters that came on the Thursday and Saturday I took from the post, and laid down in his bedroom in the morning. I saw the Saturday one more fully, and, I noticed that the handwriting was very like a lady's.

To the Dean of Faculty - While L'Angelier was lodging with me, I left home about the end of August, and was away all September.  L'Angelier's illness was before that.

To the Court - Thuau was in Edinburgh during L'Angelier's last illness.  He had gone there on the Saturday.

[End of testimony] [Back to Index of Witnesses] 
Catherine Robertson, lodging-house keeper, (by the Lord Advocate) - I live at No. 6 Elm Row, Edinburgh.  On 10th March a gentleman came to my house for lodgings.  He was a foreigner.  He did not tell me his name, but I saw "M.  L'Angelier" on his portmanteau.  He left on the 17th.  He said that he had come from Glasgow, and was going to Bridge of Allan.  He seemed in good health, but said he had been an invalid.  He was in good health while he lodged with me.
[End of testimony] [Back to Index of Witnesses] 
Peter Pollock, stationer, Leith Street,   Edinburgh, (by the Lord Advocate) -  I knew M. L'Angelier. I saw him on 19th March last.  He had come from Glasgow.  He called at my shop. He had come for a letter he expected at the Post Office in Edinburgh.  I knew he had been lodging in Edinburgh for a week.  He did not get the letter. He left the same day for Bridge of Allan at quarter past four.

Cross examined by the Dean of Faculty - I saw him about two o'clock.  He said he had come straight from Glasgow.  I saw him twice.  He did not get the letter.  He came back in about half an hour, and left me about three, saying he had got no letter, and was to leave for Bridge of Allan.  This was on Thursday the 19th of March.

[End of testimony]  [Back to Index of Witnesses] 

Charles Neil Rutherfoord (examined by the Lord Advocate) - I was postmaster at Bridge of Allan in the beginning of this year. The envelope shown me is stamped at my office. It must have come on the 22nd of March. A gentleman of the name of L'Angelier left his card at my office about the 20th. I gave the letter to him when he called.

Cross examined by the Dean of Faculty - I know nothing about the letter but from the postmark of 22nd March. On our mark the letter B denotes the arrival, about half past ten. The mail would leave Glasgow about seven in the morning.

[End of testimony]  [Back to Index of Witnesses] 

William A. Stevenson , examined by the Solicitor General - I am warehouseman with Huggins & Co., Bothwell Street. The late M. L'Angelier was in our warehouse under me. He was unwell in March, and got leave of absence that month. He said he was to go to Edinburgh. He afterwards, went to Bridge of Allan. I did not see him in the interval. I got a letter from him from Bridge of Allan. The postmark is Bridge of Allan, March 20. The letter is in these terms:-

Bridge of Allan,
Friday.

Dear William,

I am happy to say I feel much better, though I fear I slept in a damp bed for my limbs are all sore, and scarcely able to bear me - but a day or two will put all to rights. What a dull place this is. I went to Stirling today but it was so cold and damp that I soon hurried home again. Are you very busy? Am I wanted? If so, I am ready to come home at any time. Just drop me a line at P.O. You were talking of taking a few days to yourself so I shall come up whenever you like. If any letters come please send them to me here. I intend to be home not later than Thursday morning - Yours sincerely,

P. Emile L’Angelier.

That is his handwriting. He generally signed "P. Emile L'Angelier." In our office he was generally called Emile. To that letter I now identify my reply - which I got back at the Post Office, Bridge of Allan. I was sent to Bridge of Allan on Friday, 27th March, to take possession of M L’Angelier's property. He had been four and a half years with Huggins & Co. I got notice of his death on the Monday forenoon from Corbet, a partner of the firm. I went to our place of business, then to the French Consul's office, where I saw Thuau, a follow-lodger of L'Angelier's. Thuau told me that Dr. Thomson was L’Angelier's medical man. We went there, and got Dr. Thomson to go with us to Mrs. Jenkins's. We saw the body there. I heard of another medical man, a Dr. Steven, having attended him; we sent for him, and he came. There was then no suspicion. The doctors said an examination of the body was the only way in which more could be known. I authorised that to be done next day (Tuesday). In consequence of the examination I informed the Fiscal. I did not expect L’Angelier to be in Glasgow on the Sunday night; that was inconsistent with his letter to me. When I went to his lodgings on the Monday I saw his clothes lying on, his bedroom sofa. I examined them, and found on them various articles - a bit of tobacco, three finger-rings, 5s. 7 ½d., a bunch of keys, and in his vest pocket were a letter and its envelope. I identify these. The letter reads -

Why, my beloved did you not come to me? Oh, beloved, are you ill? Come to me sweet one. I waited and waited for you, but you came not. I shall wait again tomorrow night, same hour and arrangement. Do come, sweet love, my own dear love of a sweetheart. Come, beloved and clasp me to your heart. Come and we shall be happy. A kiss, fond love. Adieu, with tender embraces. Ever believe me to be your own ever dear fond Mini

The letter was addressed " Mr. E. L’Angelier. Mrs. Jenkins, 11 Franklin Place, Great Western Road, Glasgow." When I found this letter I said something, but I cannot exactly say what it was. I said this letter explained his being in Glasgow, and not at Bridge of Allan.

To the Lord Justice-Clerk - I did not know who Mini was.

By the Solicitor General - I was intimate with him in business, not much otherwise. I found a bunch of keys in his pocket. I kept them, and on that or the following day gave them to T. F. Kennedy, our cashier. I know L'Angelier had a memorandum book. I saw it on the Monday, but where I got it I cannot say. I identify it. I know the handwriting to be his. I took the book to our office, sealed it up, and I saw it subsequently given up to the police officer Murray, under a warrant.

Cross-examined by the Dean of Faculty - [Look at that label], - "Glasgow, 30th March. Found in the desk of the deceased Pierre L'Angelier, in the office of W. D. Huggins & Co., 10 Bothwell Street." That is my signature. I put it into his desk. It was not then sealed up. I did not take it out after I put it in. I saw two officers open the desk. I am not sure which officer took it. The label bears that it was found in the desk. They found it there. I saw the book when they got it, and when they opened the desk. When I found the memorandum book in L'AngeIier's lodgings on the Monday, Dr. Steven, Dr. Thomson, Thuau, and T. F. Kennedy, and perhaps Mrs. Jenkins were there. I cannot say if they knew of the book being found by me. I put it into the desk, but I cannot say if that was the same day. It was the same week. I did not carry it about in my pocket. I sealed it up and put it on one of the desks. I found it there again. I cannot say how long it lay on a desk; I think it remained till next day (Tuesday). I do not mind of putting it into the desk. I saw it several times lying. It was opened once or twice on Monday by me. It was sealed, and opened, and sealed again, the ordinary office seal being used. I saw it in the desk, I think, on the Wednesday morning, as the Fiscal desired me to bring the letters. I took some letters, but not the book. I saw it; it was not then sealed. I never saw L’Angelier write in this book. His desk was opened frequently, and when this was done and they were looking at the letters, I was always present. T. F. Kennedy, our cashier, Walker, our invoice clerk, Miller, one of the warehouse lads, and it may be others, were present; but not a single man who was a stranger to our establishment was there except the Rev. Mr Miles. He did not see the letters. He came to inquire about the death. I saw him once or twice. I made no list of the things in L’Angelier's lodgings, nor any list of the things in the desk. I saw the letters. They were numbered in the office.

Re-examined - I did not notice any of the entries on the day I got the memorandum book. All the entries between 11th February and 14th March are in L’Angelier's handwriting. The last entry is on 14th March.

To the Dean of Faculty - The entries are in pencil. Some of them are very faint, and it is difficult to identify such.

To the Solicitor General - I was accustomed to see L’Angelier write in pencil.

To the Court - The entries are not at all about business.

The Solicitor General - then asked the witness to read these entries.

The Dean of Faculty objects to this being done.

Witness was removed.

The Dean of Faculty argued that there was no evidence whatever of this book being a journal at all. It might be a memorandum book but it was irregularly kept, and there was no reason to believe that the entries were put under their proper dates.

The Lord Advocate, in reply, stated that the memoranda were in L’Angelier's handwriting, as had been proved, and that they were written under certain dates. Whether all these entries were written on the dates they bore was another matter, but they would be able to prove that very many of the things mentioned therein did happen on the dates when they were entered. That, therefore, this was most material and weighty as evidence he thought it was impossible to deny. They had there, in the deceased’s handwriting and under certain dates, a mention of circumstances which tallied with many of the events, as they would be able to prove. He thought if they showed, as they could show, that the entries after 7th March were all entered at their proper dates, it would go far to prove that the other entries also represented circumstances which took place under their dates.

The Court retired for consultation, and on their return the Lord Justice-Clerk said they were of opinion that, in the present state of the case, and with the information the Court had, they could not allow these entries all to be read. At present they did not know the individual by the name in the entries, or by the blank that occurred in one or two of them. They gave no opinion as to whether it would be competent to have the entries read when a foundation was laid for them.

The witness was then recalled, and the examination resumed.

When I was at Mrs. Jenkins's on the Monday I did not see the desks. I did not examine the repositories on Monday. On that day I examined his desk in our office. There were a great many letters there; I examined some of them, and I observed they were principally in the same handwriting. I locked the desk. On Friday, the 27th, I went to Bridge of Allan. I went to Mrs. Bayne’s. She showed me some things of L'Angelier's - a portmanteau, a cigarette-case, a travelling rug, a leather bag, and a dressing-case. The portmanteau and leather bag, which I identify, were both locked, but the dressing case, which I also identify, was open. I desired Mrs. Bayne to send them to Huggins's office, which she did. In L'Angelier's lodgings I found keys to open the portmanteau and bag. The bag I found contained a leather letter-case, in which were several letters. In the portmanteau I found clothes and a prayerbook, but no letters. I sent the bag and portmanteau locked to Mrs. Jenkins's. I gave the letters and papers in the desk to Murray, the police officer. I saw them put into a box, which I sealed in Murray's presence. It was taken to the Fiscal's office, and I saw it opened there. I did not then initial the letters, but I did so some days afterwards. From the handwriting I believed them to have been the letters which had been in the box. I went with Murray to Mrs. Jenkins's. Murray took away the bag locked. I afterwards took the key to the Fiscal's office, and saw the bag opened and the letters taken out. Murray afterwards opened a desk of L'Angelier's at Mrs. Jenkins's. I did not think there was another. I saw Murray take away all the letters that were in different articles at Mrs Jenkins's. He put them into a parcel, and I saw them afterwards in the Fiscal's office. I did not go with Murray there. I cannot say what letters were found in the different places. The four letters shown me are all in L'Angelier's handwriting. I was present at the funeral on Thursday, the 26th. He was buried in the burying-ground of St. David’s Church. I was present afterwards when the body was exhumed. I saw the body on Tuesday, the 31st. It was the same body. I read some of the letters in the small travelling bag. So far as I examined them I kept them in their original envelopes. I did not shift the letters and envelopes, to my knowledge.

The Court at this point adjourned till the following morning, and the record bears - It being now six o'clock in the evening, in respect of the impossibility, with a due regard to the justice of the case, of bringing this trial to a conclusion in the course of the present sederunt - therefore, and in respect of the necessity of the case, the Lords continued the diet against the panel till tomorrow morning at ten o'clock, and ordained the haill parties, panel, assizers, and all concerned, then to attend, each under the pains of law; and the haill fifteen jurors now in the box to repair, under the charge of the macers of Court, to the Regent Hotel, Waterloo Place, Edinburgh, to remain under their charge till brought here tomorrow morning, in the hour of cause above-mentioned, and being strictly secluded, during the period of adjournment, from all communication with any person whatever on the subject of this trial, the Clerks of Court having liberty to communicate with them in relation to their private affairs. Meantime ordained the panel to be carried to, and detained in the prison of Edinburgh."

Second Day-Wednesday, 1st July, 1857.

The Court met at ten o'clock.

William Stevenson, recalled, and examined by the Solicitor General - On Wednesday morning, 25th March, before delivering the great mass of letters, I personally delivered some to Mr. Young, Joint-Fiscal. I did not mark them, but I took a note of the date of postmarks. They were afterwards numbered by me - in the hands of the Fiscal. I took a note of the numbers when put on. This is it. I had a note of the postmarks. - one had not a postmark. I have not my note of the postmarks,

The Dean of Faculty - It is extremely loose this sort of evidence.

The Lord Justice-Clerk - Nothing can be looser or more singularly unsatisfactory than that there should be the slightest deficiency in the proof in such a case.

Cross-examined by the Dean of Faculty - Mr Young, the Fiscal, did not mark the letters. A clerk of the Fiscal's was, I think, present at the time. I never saw the Sheriff - he was never present. Mr. Hart was not present. I have not now got the note of the postmarks. I destroyed it. I think the Fiscal saw the note when I laid it down to compare it with the numbers; but he did not tell me to keep it.

To the Solicitor General - I gave up seven letters, I think, on the Wednesday, and the five now shown me I identify by my initials and the numbers I put on them, and the word "desk" which word was to explain that I got them in L’Angelier's desk in our office. I read portions of some of these letters before I gave them to the Fiscal. I did not look at the contents when I gave them up. I first communicated with the Fiscal on the subject on the afternoon of Tuesday, 25th March, after the doctors had made their post-mortem examination. I did not on the Tuesday believe there was any ground for a criminal charge; but on the Wednesday I felt uncomfortable about the case. My feelings then pointed to a quarter where he was likely to have been.

Cross-examined by the Dean of Faculty - I have a memorandum of the letters here. There were six letters in, the memorandum. When I said seven that included one found in the breast-pocket of the deceased. I am not aware of having seen No. 56 of my list. The numbers were put on the letters in the Fiscal’s office in my presence. I was requested to take letters of different dates. I cannot tell why these numbers were put on. All these five letters have envelopes and the postmarks are on the envelopes only. When I checked the letters by the postmarks. I cannot say that some were in the same envelopes as before; I merely believed them to be the same. I had no other means of identifying the letters themselves. I was precognosced several times; I have not been precognosced since I came to Edinburgh. I saw parties connected with the Crown yesterday, or the day before, and this morning. This morning I saw Mr. Wilson and Mr. Bray, of the Fiscal's office in Glasgow. They did not ask me about the letters. I told them I was in a most uncomfortable position about this matter; that I had got quite a sufficiency in the Court, and that I wanted to be done with it. That was not in consequence of anything said by those gentlemen; it was because I felt exceedingly uncomfortable and very unwell. As to the entry about the six letters, I cannot say when it was made.

To the Lord Justice-Clerk - The entry was not made on 25th March. That was the day on which I got the letters.

By the Dean of Faculty - It appears in the book after an entry on 24th April. I found letters belonging to L'Angelier in the tourist's bag in the desk in the warehouse in a leather portmanteau at his lodgings, and also in the desk in his lodgings, and one in his vest pocket. I can't say how many letters there were in the desk at the warehouse. They were numerous. Part of them were, wrapped in two brown paper parcels, and part were lying loose. The two parcels were sealed with the company's stamp. They had been sealed by L'Angelier himself apparently. As to the seven letters I gave to the, Fiscal, I don't know whether they were in a sealed packet or lying loose. I cannot identify any of the letters found in the desk, except the six in the desk which I have spoken to, and the one found in the vest pocket. I don't know how many letters I found in the travelling bag. They were not very numerous. I should say under a dozen. I did, not count them. I read a portion of them. In the portmanteau I have no idea how many I found. They were numerous. I think they were partly loose and partly tied with twine or tape. I saw them in the Fiscal’s office. I presumed them to be the same, but I cannot distinguish those found in the portmanteau, nor those found in the desk at the lodgings. I recollect L'Angelier going to Edinburgh. I never saw him after he went there. He was not back to the warehouse, to my knowledge. I have seen a number of letters in the same handwriting as those now- shown me. The signature is "M. A. P."; it is Miss Perry's signature. I found portions of this handwriting in all his repositories. I can't say as to the small bag. I can't say how many in this handwriting I may have seen. There were a good many; I think not so many an in the other handwriting - not nearly so many. My impression is that there would not be one-half of them in this handwriting. I could not say if there would he a third, but there were a good many of them. I should be inclined to say, speaking roughly, that there were 250 to 300 of all the letters found, in all handwritings. I understood that L'Angelier corresponded with a number of ladies in the South and in France. I have seen letters addressed to ladies in France and in England. I have heard him speak about ladies in England. He was a vain person - vain of his personal appearance very much so. He never spoke of himself to me as very successful among ladies. He was of a rather mercurial disposition - changeable. His situation in Huggins's warehouse was packing-clerk. I am not aware what money he had when he went to Bridge of Allan or to Edinburgh. I saw the first medical report made by Dr. Thomson. It was made on Tuesday, the 24th. Shown seven medical reports, witness was asked to find it.

The Court - You had better show it to him.

The Dean of Faculty - It is not there - that is the point.

Witness - Need I look for it then?

The Dean of Faculty - No; but you saw a report.

Witness - Yes; it was on a small slip of paper. There is a report here by Dr. Steven and Dr. Thomson, dated "28th March." The report I speak of was made on 24th March. It was given to me, and I gave it to Mr. Young, the Fiscal. I have not seen it since. (Shown a portmonnaie.) This was got, I think, in L'Angelier’s vest - at an events in his clothes. There were three rings in it, which I have already spoken to as having been found on him. I did not give this up to the Fiscal with the other things. It was found on the Monday that he died; it was locked up in one of his drawers; it was not taken out till all the articles of dress were packed up a considerable time afterwards; it was then packed up in one of the portmanteaux; I have no note of when it was given up, but I recollect giving some articles out of the portmanteau to Mr. Miller and Mr. Forbes, agent for the prisoner.

To the Lord Justice-Clerk - I was several times precognosced; at the time of the first precognition I understood there was a criminal charge against someone on account of the death of L'Angelier; and it was known I was the first person who had any of the articles in his repositories. I have not the of the first precognition. I think it was after giving up the articles to Murray on the 30th. On none of these occasions am I aware that the Sheriff was present during my precognition. I understood at the time that it was known and understood who the letters in the first handwriting were from, and I knew that the charge was murder. The party was in custody at that time. Murray is an officer belonging to the Fiscal. I did not see the Sheriff or the Fiscal at the desk or repositories while I was there. The letters were put into a bag by me, and no inventory was made. Everything in the shape of letters was given up. The box containing the letters found in Huggins's office was sealed up. I am not aware whether the bag was sealed up. The letters found in the lodgings were put into a brown paper parcel. I am not aware whether it was sealed. There was another officer with Murray, and he initialled some.

The Lord Justice-Clerk - You seem to have done all that you thought necessary, and with much propriety, in the way of making memoranda, though not in the way that the Fiscal would have done it. But during any of your precognitions were you asked to go over the letters and put any marks on them to enable you to say where they were found? Witness - Not when they were delivered up. Afterwards I was requested to put my initials on some of them.

The Lord Justice-Clerk - I think it right to say that I know of no duty so urgent, so impressive, and so, imperative as that of the Sheriff superintending and directing every step in a precognition for murder; and that, in the experience of myself as an old Crown officer, and of my two brethren as Sheriffs, the course which this case seems to have taken is unprecedented. I must say that, although your memoranda (addressing witness) were not made artistically or scientifically, I think you have done the best according to your judgement and experience; nor do I suppose that there is any imputation against you.

The Dean of Faculty - No, on the contrary.

The Lord Advocate - I think it right to say that, perhaps before the end of the case, in some respects the observations of your lordship will be modified.

The Lord Justice-Clerk - I only speak to what occurred in reference to the examination of one witness, who apparently received all the letters founded on to support a charge of murder, I presume.

The Lord Advocate - With regard to the fist stage, unquestionably there was very great looseness.

The witness then left the Court on the understanding that he was to hold himself in readiness for being recalled.

[End of testimony]  [Back to Index of Witnesses] 

Dr Hugh Thomson (by The Lord Advocate) - I am a physician in Glasgow.  I knew the late M. L'Angelier for fully two years.  He consulted me professionally; the first time fully a year ago.  He had a bowel complaint.  He soon got the better of that.  Next time he consulted me, on the 3rd February of this year,  he had a cold and cough, and a boil at the back of his neck.  He was very feverish, and the cough was rather a dry cough.  These are all the particulars I have.

I prescribed for him. I saw him next about a week after 3rd February.  He was better of his cold, but I think another boil had made its appearance on his; neck.  I saw him again on 23rd February.  He came to me.  He was very feverish, and his tongue was furred and had a patchy appearance, from the fur being off in various places; he complained of nausea and said he had been vomiting and purging; he was prostrate, his pulse was quick, and he had the general symptoms of fever. I prescribed for him.  I took his complaint to he a bilious derangement, and I prescribed an aperient draught.  He had been unwell, I think, for a day or two, but he had been taken worse the night before he called on me.  It was during the night of the 22nd and morning of the 23rd that he was taken worse.  He was confined to the house for two or three days afterwards. I am reading from notes I made on 6th April. I made them from recollection, but the dates of my visits and the medicine were entered in my books. I visited him on 24th February and on 25th and 26th February; and on 1st March I intended to visit him, but I met him in Great Western Road.  The aperient draught I prescribed for him on the 23rd contained magnesia and soda; on the 24th I prescribed some powders containing rhubarb, soda, chalk with mercury, and ipecacuanha. These were the medicines I prescribed.  On 23rd February, I have described his state.  On 24th he was much in the same state.  He had vomited the draught that I had given him on the 23rd, and I observed that his skin was considerably jaundiced on the 24th; and from the whole symptoms I called the disease a bilious fever.  On the 25th he was rather better, and had risen from his bed to the sofa, but he was not dressed.  On the 26th he felt considerably better and cooler, and I did not think it necessary to repeat my visits till I happened to be in the neighbourhood.  It did not occur to me at the time that these symptoms arose from the action of any irritant poison.  If I had known he had taken an irritant poison, these were the symptoms I should have expected to follow.  I don’t think I asked him when he was first taken ill.  I had not seen him for some little time before, and certainly he looked very dejected and ill; his colour was rather darker and jaundiced, and round the eye the colour was rather darker than usual. I saw him again eight or ten days after 1st March.  He called on me, and I have no note of the day.  He was then much the same as on 1st March.  He said that he was thinking of going to the country, but he did not say where.  I did not prescribe medicines for him then, and gave him no particular advice. About 26th February, I think, I told him to give up smoking; I thought that was injurious to his stomach.  I never saw him again in life.

On the morning of 23rd March, Mr. Stevenson and M. Thuau called on me and mentioned that M. L’Angelier was dead, and they wished me to go and see the body, and see if I could give any opinion as to the cause of death.  They did not then know that I had not seen him during his last illness I went to the house.  The body was laid out on a stretcher, dressed in graveclothes, and lying on the table.  The skin had a slightly jaundiced hue.  I made the note from which I read on the same day.  I said it was impossible to give any decided opinion as to the cause of death, and I requested Dr. Steven to be called, who had been in attendance during the illness. I examined the body with my hands externally, and over the region of the liver the sound was dull - the region seemed full; over the region of the heart the sound was natural.  I saw what he had vomited, and the landlady volunteered a statement of the symptoms before death.  When Dr. Steven arrived he corroborated the landlady's statements as far as he was concerned. He could not account for the death.  There was no resolution come to on the Monday as to a post-mortem examination.  On the afternoon of that day I was called on by Mr. Huggins and another gentleman, and I said the symptoms were such as might have been produced by an irritant poison.  I said it was such a case as if it had occurred in England a coroner’s inquest would be held.  Next morning Mr. Stevenson called again, and said that Messrs Huggins & Co. requested me to make an inspection.  In consequence of that I said I would require a colleague and Dr. Steven was agreed on. I called on him, and he went with me to the house, and we made the inspection on Tuesday forenoon about twelve o’clock.  We wrote a short report of that examination to Mr. Huggins immediately.  We afterwards made an enlarged report.  I identify this report, which is in the following terms: -

"At the request of Messrs W. B. Huggins & Co., of this city, we, the undersigned, made a post-mortem examination of the body of the late M. L'Angelier, at the house of Mrs. Jenkins, 11 Great Western Road, on the 24th March current, at noon, when the appearances were as follows - The body, dressed in grave clothes and coffined, viewed externally, presented nothing remarkable, except a tawny hue of the surface.  The incision made on opening the belly and chest revealed a considerable deposit of subcutaneous fat, The heart appeared large for the individual, but not so large in our opinion, to amount to disease.  Its surface presented, externally, some opaque patches, such as are frequently seen on this organ without giving rise to any symptoms.  Its right cavities were filled with dark fluid blood.  The lungs, the liver, and the spleen appeared quite healthy. The gall bladder was moderately full of bile, and contained no calculi.  The stomach and intestines, externally, presented nothing abnormal.  The stomach, being tied at both extremities, was removed from the body.  Its contents, consisting of about half a pint of dark fluid resembling coffee, were poured into a clean bottle, and the organ itself was laid open along its great curvature.  The mucous membrane, except for a slight extent at the lesser curvature, was then seen to be deeply injected with blood, presenting an appearance of dark-red mottling, and its substance was remarked to be soft, being easily torn by scratching with the fingernail.  The other organs of the abdomen were not examined.  The appearance of the mucous membrane, taken in connection with the history as related to us by witnesses, being such as, in our opinion, justified a suspicion of death having resulted from poison, we considered it proper to preserve the stomach and its contents in a sealed bottle for further investigation by chemical analysis, should such be determined on.  We, however, do not imply that, in our opinion, death may not have resulted from natural causes; as, for example, severe internal congestion, the effect of exposure to cold after much bodily fatigue, which we understand the deceased to have undergone.  Before closing this report, which we make at the request of the procurator-fiscal for the county of Lanark, we beg to state that, having had no legal authority for making the post-mortem examination above detailed, we restricted our examination to the organs in which we thought we were likely, to find something to account for the death.  Given under our hands at Glasgow, the 28th day of March, 1857, on soul and conscience.

(Signed) Hugh Thomson, MD , James Steven, MD
Examination continued - I afterwards received instructions from the procurator-fiscal in regard to the stomach.  I was summoned to attend at his office before I wrote that report; that was on 27th March.  The contents of the stomach, and the stomach itself, sealed up in a bottle, were handed to Dr. Penny on the 27th . They were in my custody till then.  On the 31st I received instructions from the procurator-fiscal to attend at the Ramshorn Church, by order of the Sheriff,, to make an inspection of L’Angelier’s body.  Dr. Steven, Dr. Corbet, and Dr. Penny ware there.  The coffin was in a vault, and was opened in our presence, and the body taken out. I recognised it as L’Angelier’s; body.  It presented much the same appearance generally as when we left it; it was particularly well preserved, considering the time that had elapsed.  On that occasion we removed other parts of the body for analysis.  The report of the examination then made is as follows:" Glasgow, 3rd April, 1857. - By virtue of a warrant from the Sheriff of Lanarkshire, we, the undersigned, proceeded to the post-mortem examination of the body of Pierre Emile L'Angelier, within the vault of the Ramshorn Church, on the 31st March ult., in presence of two friends of the deceased.  The body being removed from the coffin, two of our number, Drs. Thomson and Steven, who examined the body on the 24th ult., remarked that the features had lost their former pinched appearance, and that the general surface of the skin, instead of the tawny or dingy hue observed by them on that occasion, had become rather florid.  Dr. Thomson and Steven likewise remarked that, with the exception of the upper surface of the liver, which had assumed a purplish colour, all the internal parts were little changed in appearance; and we all agreed that the evidences of putrefaction were much less marked than they usually are at such a date, - the ninth day after death and the fifth after burial.  The duodenum, along with the upper part of the small intestine, after both ends of the gut had been secured by ligatures, was removed and placed in a clean jar.  A portion of the large intestine, consisting of part of the descending colon and sigmoid flexure, along with a portion of the rectum, after using the like precaution of placing ligatures on both ends of the bowel, was removed and placed in the same jar with the duodenum and portion of small intestine.  A portion of the liver, being about a sixth part of that organ, was cut off and placed in another clean jar.  We then proceeded to open the head in the usual manner, and observed nothing calling for remark beyond a greater degree of vascularity of the membranes of the brain than ordinary.  A portion of the brain was removed and placed in a fourth clean vessel.  We then adjourned to Dr. Penny's rooms in the Andersonian Institution, taking with us the vessels containing the parts of the viscera before mentioned.  The duodenum and portion of small intestine were found to measure together 36 inches in length.  Their contents, poured into a clean glass measure, were found to amount to four fluid ounces, and consisted of a turbid, sanguinolent fluid, having suspended in it much flocculent matter, which settled towards the bottom, whilst a few mucous-like masses floated on the surface.  The mucous membrane of this part of the bowels was then examined.  Its colour was decidedly redder than natural, and this redness was more marked over several patches, portions of which, when carefully examined, were found to be eroded.  Several small whitish and somewhat gritty particles were removed from its surface, and, being placed on a clean piece of glass, were delivered to Dr. Penny.  A few small ulcers, about the sixteenth of an inch in diameter, and having elevated edges, were observed on it at the upper part of the duodenum.  On account of the failing light, it was determined to adjourn till a quarter-past eleven o'clock forenoon of the following day - all the jars, with their contents, and the glass measure, with its contents, being left in the custody of Dr. Penny.  Having again met at the time appointed, and having received the various vessels;, with their contents, at Dr. Penny’s hands, in the condition in which we had given them to him, we proceeded to complete our examination.  The portion of the largest intestine, along with the portion of the rectum measuring twenty-six inches in length, on being laid out was found empty.  The mucous membrane, coated with an abundant, pale, slimy mucus, presented nothing abnormal, except in that part lining the rectum, on which were observed two vascular patches, about the size of a shilling.  On decanting the contents of the glass measure, we observed a number of crystals adhering to its interior, and at the bottom a notable quantity of whitish sedimentary matter.  Having now completed our examination of the various parts, we finally handed them all over to Dr. Penny.
The above we attest on soul and conscience.
Signed by Dr. Thomson, Dr. Steven, and Dr. Corbet.
Examination resumed - The appearance of the mucous membrane of the duodenum denoted the action of an irritant poison.  The patches of vascularity in the rectum might he also considered the effects of an irritant poison.  But they were not very characteristic of that.  There were ulcers there.  We could not form any opinion as to their duration.  All these substances removed from the body were left in charge of Dr. Penny.  The ulcers might have resulted from an irritant poison but I am not aware that they are characteristic of that,.  They might have been produced by any cause which would have produced inflammation.

Cross-examined by the Dean of Faculty - On 24th March the contents of the stomach were poured into a clean bottle which Dr. Steven got.  The meaning of the statement that the stomach was tied at both extremities, is that that was done before the contents were taken out.  I am sure that the entire contents were poured into this bottle.  The stomach itself was put into the same bottle.  We took none of the intestines out of the body.  When we put the stomach and contents into this bottle, we secured it well with oil-silk and a cork.  We did that in the lodgings.  The oil-silk was put under the cork to make it fit the bottle, and partly to make it more secure, and over the whole a double piece of oil-silk.  We could not seal it there.  We went to Dr. Steven’s house, where Dr. Steven affixed his seal, and I took it with me, and it remained in my possession, locked into my consulting table.  On the Monday of the deceased's death I was shown, by Mrs. Jenkins, the matter which had been vomited or purged.  It was not observed, so far as I know.  We made a short report on the 24th to Mr. Huggins.  It was delivered to one of the partners of the firm, I am not sure to which.  At the time I attended M. L'Angelier in February, there were no symptoms that I could definitely say were not due to a bilious attack.  They were the symptoms of a bilious attack, all of them.  There was an appearance of jaundice.  I have heard of that as a symptom of irritant poison.  It is in Dr. Taylor's work on poisons.

By the Lord Justice-Clerk - Was the appearance of jaundice in the eyes?

Witness - It was in the skin.

The Dean of Faculty - Show me the passage in Dr. Taylor's work (handing it to witness).

Witness - I can't find the particular passage.  It is in the case of Marshall.

The Dean of Faculty - What was the poison in the case of Marshall?

Witness - Arsenic.

The Dean of Faculty - Well, see if you can find it.

Lord Handyside - Perhaps he has made a mistake on the subject, and refers to Marshall as a writer on the subject.  He is referred to in Taylor's "Medical Jurisprudence."

Witness - Yes (shown "Taylor on Poisons"); at page 62 Marshall is quoted  - "Strangury and jaundice have been noticed among the secondary symptoms"; that is, under chronic poisoning.

The Dean of Faculty - Do you know any case in which jaundice has been observed as a symptom of arsenical poisoning, except that single line in Taylor's book?

Witness - That is the only case.

The Dean of Faculty - That is not a case. Are you acquainted with Marshall’s work?

Witness - No.

The Dean of Faculty - You never saw it?

Witness - No, I never saw it.

The Dean of Faculty - You were under the impression that Marshall was the name of a case?

Witness - Yes; from the manner in which I had noted it down, I made that mistake.

By the Dean of Faculty - The jaundice I saw in L'Angelier's case was quite consistent with the idea that he was labouring under a bilious attack, and it could easily be accounted for in that way.

By the Lord Advocate - The jar now shown me was the jar in which the stomach and its contents were placed.

[End of testimony]

[Back to Index of Witnesses] 


Dr. Frederick Penny (by The Lord Advocate) - I am Professor of Chemistry in the Andersonian University, Glasgow. On 27th March Dr. Hugh Thomson came to the institution and delivered a bottle. It was securely closed and sealed. I broke the seal, and made an examination of the contents. They were a stomach and a reddish-coloured fluid. I was requested to make the examination for the purpose of ascertaining if those matters contained poison. I commenced the analysis on the following day, the 28th. My report of this analysis is as follows : -

Contents of the Stomach. "This liquid measured eight and a half ounces. On being allowed to repose it deposited a white powder, which was found on examination to possess the external characters and all the chemical properties peculiar to arsenious acid; that is, the common white arsenic of the shops. It consisted of hard, gritty, transparent, colourless, crystalline particles; it was soluble in boiling water, and readily dissolved in a solution of caustic potash; it was unchanged by sulphide of ammonium, and volatilised when heated on platina foil. Heated in a tube it gave a sparkling white sublimate which, under the microscope, was found to consist of octahedral crystals. Its aqueous solution afforded, with ammonio-nitrate of silver, ammonio-sulphate of copper, sulphuretted hydrogen, and bichromate of potash, the highly characteristic results that are produced by arsenious acid. On heating a portion of it in a small tube with black-flux, a brilliant ring of metallic arsenic was obtained with all its distinctive properties. Heated, with dilute hydrochloric acid and a slip of copper-foil, a steel-grey coating was deposited on the copper, and this coating by further examination was proved to be metallic arsenic. Another portion of the powder, on being treated with nitric acid, yielded a substance having the peculiar characters of arsenic acid. A small portion of the powder was also subjected to what is commonly known as ‘Marsh’s process,’ and metallic arsenic was thus obtained, with all its peculiar physical and chemical properties.

These results show unequivocally that the said white powder was arsenious acid; that is, the preparation of arsenic which is usually sold in commerce, and administered or taken as a poison under the name of arsenic or oxide of arsenic.

I then examined the fluid contents of the stomach. After the usual preparatory operations the fluid was subjected to the following processes: -

First. To a portion of the fluid, Reinech’s process was applied, and an abundant steel-like coating was obtained on copper-foil. On heating the coated copper in a glass tube, the peculiar odour of arsenic was distinctly perceptible, and a white crystalline sublimate was produced, possessing the properties peculiar to arsenious acid.

Secondly. Another portion of the prepared fluid was distilled, and the distillate subjected to Marsh’s process. The gas produced by this process had an arsenical odour, burned with a bluish-white flame, and gave, with nitrate of silver, the characteristic reaction of arseniuretted hydrogen. On holding above the flame a slip of bibulous paper, moistened with a solution of ammonio-nitrate of silver, a yellow colour was communicated to the paper. A white porcelain capsule depressed upon the flame was quickly covered with brilliant stains, which, on being tested with the appropriate reagents, were found to be metallic arsenic. By a modification of Marsh’s apparatus the gas was conducted through a heated tube, when a lustrous mirror-like deposit of arsenic in the metallic state was collected, and this deposit was afterwards converted into arsenious acid.

Thirdly. Through another portion of the fluid a stream of sulphuretted hydrogen gas was transmitted, when a bright yellow precipitate separated, having the chemical peculiarities of the tri-sulphide of arsenic. It dissolved readily in ammonia and in carbonate of ammonia, it remained unchanged in hydrochloric acid, and it gave, on being heated with black flux, a brilliant ring of metallic arsenic.

Fourthly. A fourth portion of the prepared fluid, being properly acidified with hydrochloric acid, was distilled, and the distillate subjected to Fleitmann’s process. For this purpose it was boiled with zinc and a strong solution of caustic potash. Arseniuretted hydrogen was disengaged, and was recognised by its odour, and by its characteristic action upon nitrate of silver.

The Stomach - I examined, in the next place, the stomach itself. It was cut into small pieces, and boiled for some time in water containing hydrochloric acid, and the solution, after being filtered, was subjected to the same processes as those applied to the contents of the stomach. The results in every case were precisely similar, and the presence of a considerable quantity of arsenic wan unequivocally detected.

Quantity of arsenic in stomach and its contents - I made, in the last place, a careful determination of the quantity of arsenic contained in the said stomach and its contents. A stream of sulphuretted hydrogen gas was transmitted through a known quantity of the prepared fluids from the said matters, until the whole of the arsenic was precipitated in the form of tri-sulphide of arsenic. This sulphide, after being carefully purified was collected, dried, and weighed. Its weight corresponded to a quantity of arsenious acid (common white arsenic), in the entire stomach and its contents, equal to eighty two grains and seven-tenths of a grain, or to very nearly one fifth of an ounce. The accuracy of this result was confirmed by converting the sulphide of arsenic into arseniate of ammonia and magnesia, and weighing the product. The quantity then stated is exclusive of the white powder first examined. The purity of the various materials and reagents employed in this investigation was most scrupulously ascertained

Conclusions - Having carefully considered the results of this investigation, I am clearly of opinion that they are conclusive in showing:

first :- That the matters subjected to examination and analysis contained arsenic; and,
secondly
:- That the quantity, of arsenic found was considerably more than sufficient to destroy life.

Examination resumed -

On 31st March I attended at the exhumation of M. L’Angelier’s body. I saw the coffin opened, and portions of the body removed. These portions were carefully preserved and submitted to a chemical analysis by myself. They were placed in jar, which I never lost sight of until they reached my laboratory. I made an analysis of the contents, and prepared the following report (No. 158 of inventory):-

"On Tuesday, the 31st March last, I was present at a post-mortem examination of the body of Pierre Emile L’Angelier, made by Drs. Corbet, Thomson, and Steven, in a vault of the Ramshorn Church, Glasgow.

" At my request portions of the following organs were removed from the body and properly preserved for chemical analysis and examination: -

1. Small intestine and contents
2. Large intestine.
3. Liver.
4. Heart,
5. Lung.
6. Brain.

"These articles were taken direct to the laboratory in the Andersonian Institution, and were there delivered to me by the parties before named. I have since made a careful analysis and examination of all the said matters, with the following results : -

Small intestine and its contents - The portion of small intestine contained a turbid and reddish-coloured liquid, which measured four ounces. On standing for several hours in a glass vessel this liquid deposited numerous and well-defined octahedral crystals, which, on being subjected to the usual chemical processes for the detection of arsenic, were found to be arsenious acid. Arsenic was also detected in the small intestine.

Large intestine - This organ yielded arsenic but in less proportion than in the small intestine.

Liver, brain and heart - Arsenic was separated from the liver, heart, and brain, but in much less proportion than from the small and large intestine.

Lung - The lung gave only a slight indication of the presence of arsenic.

Conclusions:

  1. That the body of the deceased Pierre Emile L’Angelier contained arsenic.
  2. That the arsenic must have been taken by or administered to him while living.

Examination continued - The actual quantity on the second occasion was not ascertained. It was not necessary to determine this quantity. The presence of arsenic in the brain does not enable me to say when the arsenic was taken. I can see no physiological reason why the arsenic should not make its appearance at the same time in the various textures of the body.

To the Lord Justice-Clerk - Purging would account for a smaller portion of arsenic being found in the large intestine.

By the Lord Advocate - When my analysis was completed, on the 11th April, I removed the portions of the body to Edinburgh. [Shown No. 209 of inventory.] These articles were delivered to Dr. Christison. They were - powder from contents of stomach, fluid from contents of stomach, fluid from stomach, portions of small and large intestines, liver, heart, lung, &C. They were in my custody till delivered to Dr. Christison. They were portions of L’Angelier’s body. I was asked to make an investigation as to arsenic purchased at the shops of Mr. Currie and Mr. Murdoch, to ascertain if the substance sold by them as arsenic really contained arsenic and in what proportion. The following is the report on this matter (No. 159):-

On the 18th inst., I purchased from James Dickie, at Mr. Murdoch’s drug shop in Sauchiehall Street, Glasgow, one ounce and a half of arsenic, said to be mixed with soot, and in the state in which it is usually sold retail at that establishment " On the same day I purchased also from George Carruthers Halliburton, at Mr. Currie’s drug shop, Sauchiehall Street, Glasgow, one ounce of arsenic, said to be mixed with indigo.

I have since made a careful analysis and chemical examination of each of these quantity of arsenic, and I find that they contain respectively the following proportions per cent of arsenious acid; that is, of pure white arsenic:-

Arsenious Acid.

"Mr. Murdoch’s arsenic, - - - 95.1 per cent.
"Mr. Currie’s arsenic, - - - 94.4 per cent.

Examination resumed - The other substances, besides pure arsenic, were inorganic matter, and in Mr. Murdoch’s carbonaceous matter, and in Currie’s particles of indigo and carbonaceous matter, with ash or inorganic matter. The arsenic bought at Mr. Currie’s contained an extremely small portion of the blue colouring matter of indigo. The greater part of that colouring matter, by peculiar and dextrous manipulation, could be removed, and the arsenic would afterwards appear white to the unassisted eye. If a sufficient portion of that arsenic was administered to cause death, and prior to death great vomiting had taken place, I would not have expected to find any portion of the indigo. Indigo would show a blue colour in solution.

To the Lord justice Clerk - The quantity of indigo was so small that it would not colour wine of any sort - certainly not port wine.

By the Lord Advocate - In regard to the arsenic purchased from Mr. Murdoch, that was mixed with carbonaceous particles. If that had been administered, and if the arsenic had settled down from the contents of the stomach, as in this case, I should have expected to find carbonaceous particles. Suppose there had been prior administration of arsenic a month before, similar to what was purchased from Murdoch’s, I would not have expected to have found traces of that carbonaceous matter.

Cross-examined by the Dean of Faculty - In the entire stomach and its contents there was arsenious acid equal to 82.7 grains. That was exclusive of the white powder which I first examined. The white powder that I examined, after being collected and dried, weighed 5.2 grains, and that was arsenious acid. I did not determine the quantity of arsenic in the lungs, liver, brain, or heart; I can give no notion of the quantity that might be in these organs; in the small intestine it must have been considerable, because, when its contents were allowed to repose, arsenious acid crystallised out of that liquid, and deposited abundantly on the sides of the vessel. That indicated the liquid had as much arsenic as it could hold in solution at the temperature. I can’t give any idea of the quantity in the small intestine. It was decidedly appreciable. It would be a mere matter of guess how much, and I should not like to guess in so serious a matter.

If the deceased, when attacked by the symptoms of arsenical poisoning,. vomited a great deal and in large quantities, it would depend on the mode of administration whether a large quantity would be carried off. If given with solid food, and in a solid state, a large portion of the arsenic would be ejected from the stomach if all that food were vomited; but if the arsenic were stirred up with a liquid, and thereby thrown into a state of mechanical suspension, I should not expect that so considerable a portion should be ejected by vomiting. I could not say what proportion. By solid food I mean bread and the like. In the case of the arsenic being taken in a fluid I could not say what proportion might be ejected. I should not be surprised to find that as much had been ejected as remained. Judging from what I found on the examination of the body, the dose of arsenic must have been of very unusual size.

There are cases on record in which very large quantities of arsenic have been found in the stomach and intestines. I know them as a matter of reading. There are examples of larger quantities being found than in the present. I think there is a case in which two drachms were found - that is, 120 grains. That is the largest quantity which occurs to my mind at this moment as having been found. The cases in which a very large quantity of arsenic was found did not turn out to be cases of intentional murder by a third party. In the cases to which I refer the arsenic was taken by the party voluntarily with the intention to commit suicide.

It would be very difficult to give a large dose of arsenic in a liquid; by a large dose of arsenic you exclude many vehicles in which arsenic might be administered. Nothing which I found in my investigation indicated the time when the arsenic might have been taken. The period that elapsed between the administration of this poison and the symptoms being manifested may be eight or ten hours; that is the extreme time; there are some cases in which the symptoms show themselves in less than half an hour; we have cases in which death has resulted in a few hours, and cases in which death has been delayed for two or three days.

As to the arsenic obtained from Currie’s shop, the greater part of the colouring matter might be removed by dextrous manipulation; if you were to throw water on the arsenic and agitate the two together, and after the arsenic had subsided you decant the liquid, a portion of colouring matter is thrown off, but if you keep the vessel shaken in a particular way you may coax the greater part of the colouring matter away. This would require skilful agitation. I think none but a chemist would be likely to know about it, or try it. Murdoch’s arsenic was coloured with carbonaceous matter; it was coal soot.

To the Lord Justice Clerk - There are cases in which inflammation of the intestines has been produced by external application of arsenic.

Cross-examined by the Dean of Faculty - Arsenic is an irritant poison. It is absorbed into the blood, I presume, with great rapidity, and, through the blood, it reaches all the organs in which we find it.

Re-examined by the Lord Advocate - Cocoa or coffee is a vehicle in which a large dose might be given. There is a great difference between giving rise to suspicion and actual detection. I have found by actual experiment that when thirty or forty grains of arsenic are put into a cup of warm chocolate, a large portion of the arsenic settles down in the bottom of the cup, and I think a person drinking such poisonous chocolate would detect something when the gritty particles came into his mouth. But if the same quantity, and even a larger quantity, was boiled with the chocolate, instead of merely being stirred or mixed, none of it settles down, and so might be gulped over. I could not wholly separate the soot by washing from Murdoch’s arsenic, but a very large quantity of it might be separated. Suppose a person the subject of repeated doses of arsenic, I have no evidence on which to form an opinion whether the last dose would be fatal more rapidly. I delivered to Dr. Christison some of the arsenic I got at Currie’s and Murdoch’s.

By the Dean of Faculty - In case of chocolate being boiled with arsenic in it a larger proportion dissolves and does not subside. That is what I find to be the case from actual experiment. Coffee or tea could not be made the vehicle of a large dose of arsenic.

To the Lord Justice-Clerk - The period in which the arsenic produces its effect varies in different individuals, and according to the mode of administration. Pain in the stomach is one of the first symptoms when a large dose is administered, and vomiting usually accompanies the pain; but it may be very severe before vomiting actually begins. Ten, fifteen, or twenty grains might be given in coffee.

[Dr Penny was later recalled after his having performed an experiment to determine the ease with which coloured arsenic might have been detected in the stomach]

[End of testimony] [Back to Index of Witnesses] 


Dr Robert Christison (examined by the Lord Advocate) - [evidence omitted here is effectively duplicated in Dr Penny’s testimony, above, and goes to presence of arsenic in stomach, intestines etc. ) On 6th May, Dr Penny put into my hands two small paper packets duly sealed, one supposed to be arsenic mixed with soot, the other arsenic mixed with indigo, according to the directions of the Act for the sale of arsenic.

"The one marked ‘Murdoch’s arsenic’ I found to contain soot. Judging from the depth of colour I infer that it contains the due proportion of soot.

"The other, marked ‘Currie’s arsenic,’ and supposed to contain indigo, does not contain the indigo directed to be used in the Act for the sale of arsenic. It may contain a little of the colouring matter of indigo. But when the colouring matter is detached, it does not give the peculiar reactions of indigo, neither does it impart a blue colour to the arsenic as good indigo does characteristically, for the colour is a pale greyish black. The colouring matter in this article is also imperfectly mixed. It may be easily removed in a great measure by washing the powder with cold water, which is not to be accomplished easily or so perfectly when good indigo is used. The proportion of the admixture amounts to a 36th part. This is a little less than the proportion which the Act directs, viz., a 32nd , when indigo is used.

Cross-examined by the Dean of Faculty - I did not detect colouring matter in the dead body; my attention was not directed to it. I got only one article in which it might have been found if my attention had been directed to it, viz., the contents of the small intestine; the others had been subjected to previous preparation. I was not asked to attend to colouring matter. I did not see it, and I did not search for it. Supposing soot or indigo to have been administered with the arsenic, I think it might have been found in the stomach. I can’t say it would have been found even by careful examination; many circumstances go to the possibility of its being found. Many of the component parts of soot are insoluble, and it might have been partially removed by frequent vomiting, but not entirely. It is very difficult to remove soot from arsenic entirely. Indigo would have been found more easily from the peculiarity of the colour and the chemical properties being so precise.

Currie’s arsenic is not coloured with true indigo; it appears to be waste indigo, or what has been used for the purposes of the dyer. I don’t know how it is prepared. I did not analyse the colouring matter of Currie’s arsenic. I ascertained that it was not the indigo directed by the Act to be used, and I ascertained the quantity. I separated the colouring matter from the arsenic, and subjected it to the action of sulphuric acid. Charcoal is one of the chief constituents of good indigo, and necessarily of waste indigo. The chief constituent of soot is charcoal also.

I was informed by Dr. Penny of the quantity he found in the stomach - more than eighty grains. There was also a white powder found in addition. If there was great vomiting and purging the quantity of arsenic administered must have been much greater than was found in the stomach and intestines. But much would depend on whether means were taken to facilitate vomiting. If hot and cold water were freely given, that would facilitate the discharge of the poison. It is impossible to say the proportion ejected; I think it would be reasonable to suppose that as much would be vomited as remained; it might, without any extravagant supposition, be taken at four or five times as much.

There was nothing in the symptoms mentioned in the last illness in this case inconsistent with death being produced by a single dose of arsenic. The ordinary symptoms in a case of this kind are not unlike the symptoms of malignant cholera. I think all the symptoms in this case described to me might have occurred from malignant cholera. If there were a sense of choking and soreness of the throat I think these are more symptoms of arsenic; I don’t think they have occurred in cholera. I think the ulcers in the duodenum might indicate the previous existence of inflammation of the duodenum, called duodenitis. It in a disease which might present the outward symptoms of bowel complaint or of cholera.

The ordinary time that elapses between the administration of arsenic and death is from eighteen hours to two and a half days. The exceptions to this are numerous; some of them are very anomalous as to the shortness of the interval. The shortest are two or two and a half hours; these have been ascertained; but it is not always possible to ascertain when it is administered. The time between which the poison is administered and the manifestation of the symptoms is from half an hour to about two hours. I had a case in which it was five hours. There are also cases in which it was said to be seven, and even ten hours. It does not appear that the size of the dose affects this; it does not depend on the amount taken, within certain bounds, of course; but I speak of the case as arsenic is usually administered. There are a good many cases of large doses. I think the dose in this case must have been double, probably more than double, the quantity found in the stomach. A dose of 220 grains may he considered a large dose. I can’t say if, in cases of as large a dose as this, it was intentionally administered; in the greater proportion of cases of suicide, the dose is generally found to be large. That is easily accounted for by the desire of the unfortunate person to make certain of death.

The Dean of Faculty - In a case of murder no such large quantity would be used? It is in cases of suicide that double shotted pistols are used and large doses given?

Witness - But murder, even by injuries, and also by poison, in very often detected by the excessive violence or dose. In all cases of poisoning by arsenic there is more used than is necessary to cause death. If any be found in the stomach it is in excess. I cannot recollect how much has been used; but I know very well that what is found in the stomach in undoubted cases of poisoning by others has been considerably larger than what was necessary to occasion death, because the very fact of poison being found in the stomach at all, in the case of arsenic, shows that more has been administered than is necessary, as it is not what in found in the stomach that causes death, but what disappears from the stomach.

The Dean of Faculty - But do you know any case in which so great a dose as the present was administered?

Witness - I cannot recollect at the present moment. In cases of charges of murder by arsenic it is scarcely possible to get information as to the actual quantity used.

The Dean of Faculty -You have information here in this charge of murder?

Witness - I have information as to what was in the stomach.

The Dean of Faculty - And you are enabled to draw an inference?

Witness - Of course, my inference is drawn by a sort of probability; but that is not an inference on which I am entitled to found any positive statement.

The Dean of Faculty - Well, let me put this question - Did you ever know of any person murdered by arsenic having eighty-eight grains of it found in his stomach and intestines?

Witness - I don’t recollect at the present moment.

The Dean of Faculty - Or anything approaching to it?

Witness - I don’t recollect but I would not rely on my recollection as to a negative fact.

The Dean of Faculty -You are not, at all events, able to give me an example the other way?

Witness - Not at present. As far an my own observation goes, I can say that I never met with eighty grains in the stomach of a person who had been poisoned by arsenic. I can’t say what is the largest quantity I have found.

The Dean of Faculty -If a person designs to poison another, the use of a very large quantity of arsenic, greatly exceeding: what is necessary, is a thing to be avoided?

Witness - It is a great error.

Examination continued - In some articles of food it is easy to administer a large quantity of arsenic, and in others it is difficult to do so. It is not difficult in solid or, still better, in pulpy articles of food - porridge, for example - but much more difficult in liquids. A large quantity could not be administered in fluid without a large quantity of the fluid.

Examined by the Lord Advocate - Opinion as to amount vomited is hypothetical. The amount of matter vomited is sometimes very little, and sometimes very large doses have been thrown off by vomiting, without occasioning death. Half an ounce of arsenic might be administered if a proper vehicle were used. There is one case in which half an ounce was taken and no vomiting ensued. I think chocolate or cocoa would be a vehicle in which a considerable dose might be given.

The colouring matter of the arsenic might have been in the articles I examined without my observing it. My attention was not directed to the point. The powder of arsenic I found was greyish - not quite white; perhaps mixed with something in the intestine. The administration of previous doses predisposes the system to the effects of poison, and makes the action of the poison more rapid and violent. If the individual had recovered entirely no great effect would follow from doses a month before; but if he still laboured under derangement of the stomach I should look for violent effects.

[End of testimony] [Back to Index of Witnesses] 


Auguste Vauvert de Mean (by the Lord Advocate) - I am chancellor to the French Consul at Glasgow. I was acquainted with L'Angelier for about three years. I know Miss Smith, and was acquainted with her family. I knew that in 1856 there was a correspondence going on between L'Angelier and Miss Smith. L'Angelier confided to me, against my wish, his relations with Miss Smith. Mr Smith had a house at Row, and I lived at Helensburgh.

L'Angelier stayed a night or two with me before I was married. When I was asked by him for my advice, I told him that he ought to go to Miss Smith's family and tell them of their attachment, and ask Mr Smith's consent. I told him that was the most gentlemanly way. He said Mr Smith was opposed to it; that Miss Smith had spoken to her father, and that he had been excessively angry, and that it would be useless. This was before my marriage, which was a year ago. I had no intercourse with him after that. I was aware from what L'Angelier said, that there was a correspondence going on between them.

I remember that L'Angelier came to my office a few weeks before his death, and he spoke about Miss Smith. I said that Miss Smith was to be married to some gentleman - Mr Minnoch; and when I mentioned the public rumours, he said it was not true, but that if it was to come to this, he had documents in his possession that would be sufficient to forbid the banns. I don't recollect whether he said that Mr Smith had written to him on the subject of the reported marriage.

I did not see L'Angelier again before his death, but I thought that, having been received by Mr Smith in his house after L'Angelier's death, it was my duty to mention to him the fact of the correspondence having been carried on between L'Angelier and his daughter, in order that he should take steps to exonerate his daughter in case of anything coming out. I knew that the deceased had letters from Miss Smith in his possession. I called on Mr. Smith on the evening of L'Angelier's death, and told him that L'Angelier had in his possession a great number of letters from his daughter, and that it was high time to let him know this, that they might not fall into the hands of strangers; I said numbers of people might go to his lodgings and read them, as his repositories were not sealed. I went to Mr. Huggins; he was not in, but I saw two gentlemen, and told them what I had been told to ask. They said they were not at liberty to give the letters without Mr. Huggins's consent. I then asked them to keep them sealed up till they were disposed of. I think that was on the day of L'Angelier's death.

Having heard some rumours meanwhile, one day, I am not sure which, I saw Miss Smith in presence of her mother. I apprised her of the death of L'Angelier. She asked me if it was of my own will that I came to tell her; and I told her it was not so, but that I came at the special request of her father. I asked if she had seen L'Angelier on Sunday night; she told me that she did not see him. I asked her to put me in a position to contradict the statements which were being made as to her relations with L'Angelier. I asked her if she had seen L'Angelier on Sunday night, and she told me she had not. I observed to her that M. L'Angelier had come from Bridge of Allan to Glasgow on a special invitation by her, by a letter written to him. Miss Smith told me that she was not aware that L'Angelier was at Bridge of Allan before he came to Glasgow, and that she did not give him an appointment for Sunday, as she wrote to him on Friday evening, giving him the appointment for the following day - Saturday. She said to me that she expected him on Saturday, but that he did not come, and that she had not seen him on Sunday. I put the question to her perhaps five or six different times, and in different ways. I told her that my conviction at the moment was that she must have seen him on Sunday, that he had come on purpose from Bridge of Allan on a special invitation by her to see her, and I did not think it likely, admitting that he had committed suicide, that he had committed suicide without knowing why she asked him to come to Glasgow.

The Lord Justice-Clerk - Did you know of this letter yourself?

Witness - I heard that there had been such a letter. I said to Miss Smith that the best advice that a friend could give to her in the circumstances was to tell the truth about it, because the case was a very grave one, and would lead to an inquiry on the part of the authorities; and that, if she did not say the truth in these circumstances, perhaps it would be ascertained by a servant, or a policeman, or somebody passing the house, who had seen L'Angelier, that it would be ascertained that he had been in the house, and that this would cause a very strong suspicion as to the motive that could have led her to conceal the truth. Miss Smith then got up from her chair and told me, " I swear to you, M. Mean, that I have not seen L'Angelier, not on that Sunday only, but not for three weeks " - or for six weeks, I am not sure which.

The Lord Justice-Clerk - And the mother was present?

Witness - Yes. This question I repeated to Miss Smith five or six times, as I thought it of great importance; and her answer was always the same. I asked her, in regard to the letter by which L'Angelier was invited to come to see her, how it was that, being engaged to be married to another gentleman. she could have carried on a clandestine correspondence with a former sweetheart. I referred to Friday's letter. She told me that she did it in order to try to get back her letters.

The Lord Advocate - Did you ask her whether she was in the habit of meeting L'Angelier?

Witness - Yes. I asked if it was true that L'Angelier was in the habit of having appointments with her in her home, and she told me that L'Angelier had never entered into that house, meaning the Blythswood Square house, as I understood. I asked her how, then, she made her appointments to meet with him. She told me that L'Angelier used to come to a street at the corner of the house (Mains Street), and that he had a signal by knocking at the window with his stick, and that she opened the window and used to talk with him.

The Lord Advocate - Did she speak about the former correspondence with him at all?

Witness - I asked her if it was true that she had signed letters in L'Angelier's name, and she told me that she had. She did not say why.

The Lord Justice-Clerk - Do you mean that she added his aame to here?

Witness - I meant whether she signed her letters with L'Angelier's name, and she said, " Yes."

The Lord Advocate - Did she say why she did so?

Witness - I did not ask her.

(Auguste Vauvert de Mean) - Cross-examined by Mr. Young - In the summer of 1856, before I was married, I went to live in Helensburgh. M. L'Angelier visited me there, and once he came on a Saturday to my lodgings there, and on Sunday we went on the Luss Road. I went up to my room, and L'Angelier not following, I called, and he replied in a feeble voice that he would be immediately. I saw him very pale. He had been frightfully sick, and had been vomiting all the time he was away. He once complained to me of being bilious. This was a year ago. He complained of once having had cholera. Last year he came to my office and told me that he had had a violent attack of cholera; but I don't know whether that was a year or two years ago. I don't recollect whether he was unwell when he complained to me. I thought he complained sometimes without great cause. I did not pay much attention to it. I know that when L'Angelier came to my house he always had a bottle of laudanum in his bag; but I don't know if he used it.

I once heard him speak of arsenic; it must have been in the winter of 1853-4. It was on a Sunday, but I don't recollect how the conversation arose; it lasted about half an hour. Its purport was how much arsenic a person could take without being injured by it. He maintained that it was possible to do it by taking small quantities; but I don't know what led to the conversation. I would be afraid to make any statement as to the purpose for which he said it was to be taken. I have seen something about it in a French dictionary on chemistry and other subjects. I am afraid of making a mistake - confounding this book with others I have read.

L'Angelier stated to me that he had once been jilted by an English lady, a rich person; and he said that, on account of that deception, he was almost mad for a fortnight, and ran about, getting food from a farmer in the country. He was easily excited. When he -had any cause of grief he was affected very much.

To the Lord Justice-Clerk - After my marriage I had little intercourse with L'Angelier. I thought that he might be led to take some harsh steps in regard to Miss Smith; and, as I had some young ladies in my house, I did not think it was proper to have the same intercourse with him as when I was a bachelor.

The Lord Advocate - What do you mean by " harsh steps?"

Witness - I was afraid of an elopement with Miss Smith. By "harsh" I mean "rash." This was after L'Angelier had given me his full confidence as to what he would do in the event of Miss Smith's father not consenting to the marriage with his daughter.

The Lord Justice-Clerk - Did you understand that Miss Smith had engaged herself to him?

Witness - I understood so from what he said.

The Lord Justice-Clerk - When you used the expression "You thought it right to go to Miss Smith's father about the letters, in order that he might take steps to vindicate his daughter's honour, or prevent it from being disparaged," did you relate to him her engagement and apparent breach of engagement? Had you in view that the letters might contain an engagement which she was breaking, or that she had made a clandestine engagement

Witness - I thought that these letters were love-letters, and that it would be much better that they should be in Mr. Smith's hands than in the hands of strangers.

The Lord Advocate - What were L'Angelier's usual character and habits?

The Lord Justice-Clerk -Was he a steady fellow?

Witness - My Opinion of L'Angelier's character at the moment of his death was that he was a most regular young man in his conduct - religious, and, in fact, that he was most exemplary in all his conduct. The only objection which I heard made to him was that he was vain and a boaster, boasting of grand persons whom he knew. For example, when he spoke of Miss Smith he would say, "I shall forbid Madeleine to do such a thing, or such another thing. She shall not dance with such a one, or such another."

The Lord Justice-Clerk - Did he boast of any success with females?

Witness - Never.

The Lord Justice-Clerk - Did he seem jealous of Miss Smith paying attention to others?

Witness - No, of others paying attention to Miss Smith.

The Lord Justice-Clerk - It was not on account of any levity in his character that you discouraged his visiting you after marriage?

Witness - No; I thought that his society might be fit for a bachelor, but not for a married man.

The Dean of Faculty - Do you understand the word " levity?"

Witness - Yes; lightness, irregularity.

The Lord Justice-Clerk - How long was it since you had seen him when he came to you a short time before his death? Had there been a long cessation of intercourse?

Witness - Yes; there had been a long cessation.

The Lord Advocate [showing witness photograph] - Is that like L'Angelier?

Witness - Yes it is a good likeness.

The Lord Justice-Clerk - About what age was he?

Witness - Between twenty-eight and thirty, I think.

The Lord Justice-Clerk - Did he bring recommendations to you, or did you get acquainted with him accidentally?

Witness - I think I got accidentally acquainted with him in house in Glasgow, but I do not recollect.

[End of testimony] [Back to the Madeleine Smith Story]  [Back to Index of Witnesses] 


[Charles O'Neill is credited as one of the principal co-founders of the St Vincent de Paul Society in Australia and New Zealand. On 8th November 1900, after a lifetime devoted to the poorest in society, he himself died in abject poverty].

Thanks to Tom O'Neill, Dumbarton, Scotland, for the image (below) and for bringing this to my attention

Charles O'Neill, (by the Solicitor-General) - I am a civil engineer and architect in Glasgow, and I was employed by the public authorities to make a plan of the house, No. 7 Blythswood Square, which was occupied by Mr James Smith, the father of the panel. The plan, No.189, now shown me is the one I made, and it is an accurate one.

The house is at the corner of Blythswood Square and Mains Street, entering from Blythswood Square. It consists of two floors - a street floor and a sunk floor. The lobby, as you go in, runs along the side wall of the house, to the left-hand side. There are no rooms to that side. On the right-hand side there is, first, the drawing-room, then the dining-room, then a space occupied by the stairs entering from Mains Street to the houses above, but which are no portion of Mr. Smith's house. The passage takes a turn a little to the right there, and becomes narrower than the lobby. After it turns, there is a small pantry facing the lobby, and beyond that there are three bedrooms.

Downstairs there is an area door to Blythswood Square, and a door at the back of the house, leading into an inner area which opens into a lane. Going in at the front area door, on the left-hand there is a small bedroom, and to the right is the kitchen. Beyond the bedroom, to the left, there is a closet and wine-cellar Beyond the kitchen, to the right, there is another bedroom, with two windows looking to Mains Street. That is marked "No. 5, Madeleine's bedroom." The lower sill of these windows is about eighteen inches below the pavement of Mains Street, and there are iron gratings and stanchions over them. The glass of the windows is about six inches from the street, so that a person standing in the street, and putting the arm through the railings, can quite easily touch the windows; and anything let fall inside the railings would fall on a level with the sill of the window. Anything so let fall could be picked up by a person opening the window. Where the passage passes that room there are stairs, then a pantry, and beyond that a bedroom, marked on the plan "C.H. 7." That is the room nearest the back door. On the right-hand side of the passage there, there are no other rooms in Mr. Smith's house. The height of the room, No. 5, from the floor to the sill of the window, is about three or four feet. It is just an ordinary window.

The lane at the back of the house leads from and C. O'Neill opens into Mains Street, so that a person has no difficulty in getting from Mains Street to the door of the back area. The house next to the lane in Mains Street is occupied by Mr. Minnoch and Mr. Douglas. That is a common stair.

By Mr. Young - The door in Mains Street, next to No.14 of plan, is the door of the common stair leading to the houses above; that is, the door leading to Mr. Minnoch's house. The plan shows six windows altogether in the sunk floor; three look into the area in front, in Blythswood Square, two to Mains Street, and one into the area behind. I can't say whether all of these windows are stanchioned outside with iron bars; those in Mains Street are. I took no note as to the other windows. The sill of the windows in the bedroom, No. 5, is three or four feet above the floor. I did not measure. There are eight steps leading up to the front door of the house. I can't say how many lead down to the area. It is an area of about six feet deep. I did not measure the distance between the sill of the window and Mains Street. Mains Street inclines towards the lane; it is lower towards the lane. I did not try the gradient. There is a fall of about six feet. between Blythswood Square and the lane. That is in a distance of about ninety eight feet. There is a wall between the back area and the lane. I did not measure its height.

The Lord Justice-Clerk - You might as well have not made a plan at all, sir.

By the Solicitor-General - I was only asked to make a ground-plan of each floor.

[End of testimony]  [Back to Index of Witnesses] 


The Prisoner's Declaration - (given 31st March)
"My name is Madeleine Smith. I am a native of Glasgow; twenty-one years of age; and I reside with my father, James Smith, architect, at No. 7 Blythswood Square, Glasgow.  For about the last two years I have been acquainted with P. Emile L'Angelier, who was in the employment of W. B. Huggins; & Co., in Bothwell Street, and who lodged at 11 Franklin Place.  He recently paid his addresses to me, and I have met with him on a variety of occasions.  I learned about his death on the afternoon of Monday, the 23rd March current, from mamma, to whom it had been mentioned by a lady named Miss Perry, a friend of M. L'Angelier.

I had not seen M. L'Angelier for about three weeks before his death, and the last time I saw him was on a night about half-past ten o'clock.  On that occasion he tapped at my bedroom window, which is on the ground floor, and fronts Mains Street. I talked to him from the window, which is stanchioned outside, and I did not go out to him, nor did he come in to me.  This occasion, which, as already said, was about three weeks before his death, was the last time I saw him.  He was in the habit of writing notes to me, and I was in the habit of replying to him by notes.  The last note I wrote to him was on the Friday before his death, viz., Friday, the 20th March current.  I now see and identify that note, and the relative envelope, and they are each marked No. 1.  In consequence of that note, I expected him to visit me on Saturday night, the 21st current, at my bedroom window, in the same way as formerly mentioned, but he did not come, and sent no notice.  There was no tapping at my window on said Saturday night, or on the following night, being Sunday.  I went to bed on Sunday night about eleven o'clock, and remained in bed till the usual time of getting up next morning, being eight or nine o'clock.

In the course of my meetings with L'Angelier, he and I had arranged to get married, and we had, at one time, proposed September last as the time the marriage was to take place, and, subsequently, the present month of March was spoken of.  It was proposed that we should reside in furnished lodgings; but we had not made any definite arrangement as to time or otherwise.

He was very unwell for some time, and had gone to the Bridge of Allan for his health; and he complained of sickness, but I have no idea what was the cause of it.  I remember giving him some cocoa from my window one night some time ago, but I cannot specify the time particularly.  He took the cup in his hand, and barely tasted the contents; and I gave him no bread to it.  I was taking some cocoa myself at the time, and had prepared it myself.  It was between ten and eleven p.m. when I gave it to him.

I am now shown a note or letter, and envelope, which are marked respectively No. 2, and I recognise them as a note and envelope which I wrote to M. L'Angelier, and sent to the post.  As I had attributed his sickness to want of food, I proposed, as stated in the note, to give him a loaf of bread, but I said that merely in a joke, and, in point of fact, I never gave him any bread.

I have bought arsenic on various occasions.  The last I bought was a sixpence worth, which I bought in Currie, the apothecary's, in Sauchiehall Street, and, prior to that, I bought other two quantities of arsenic, for which I paid sixpence each - one of these in Currie's, and the other in Murdoch, the apothecary's, shop in Sauchiehall Street. I used it all as a cosmetic, and applied it to my face, neck, and arms, diluted with water.  The arsenic I got in Currie's shop I got there on Wednesday, the 18th March, and I used it all on one occasion, having put it all in the basin where I was to wash myself.

I had been advised to the use of the arsenic in the way I have mentioned by a young lady, the daughter of an actress, and I had also seen the use of it recommended in the newspapers.  The young lady's name was Guibilei, and I had met her at school at Clapton, near London.  I did not wish any of my father's family to be aware that I was using the arsenic, and, therefore, never mentioned it to any of them; and I don't suppose they or any of the servants ever noticed any of it in the basin.

When I bought the arsenic in Murdoch's I am not sure whether I was asked or not what it was for, but I think I said it was for a gardener to kill rats or destroy vermin about flowers, and I only said this because I did not wish them to know that I was going to use it as a cosmetic. I don't remember whether I was asked as to the use I was going to make of the arsenic on the other two occasions, but I likely made the same statement about it as I had done in Murdoch's; and on all the three occasions, as required in the shops, I signed my name to a book in which the sales were entered.  On the first occasion I was accompanied by Mary, a daughter of Dr. Buchanan, of Dumbarton.

For several years past Mr. Minnoch, of the firm of William Houldsworth & Co., has been coming a good deal about my father's house, and about a month ago Mr. Minnoch made a proposal of marriage to me, and I gave him my hand in token of acceptance, but no time for the marriage has yet been fixed, and my object in writing the note No. 1, before mentioned, was to have a meeting with M. L'Angelier to tell him that I was engaged to Mr. Minnoch.  I am now shown two notes and an envelope bearing the Glasgow postmark of 23rd January, which are respectively marked No. 3, and I recognise these as in my handwriting, and they were written and sent by me to M. L'Angelier.

On the occasion that I gave M. L'Angelier the cocoa, as formerly mentioned, I think that I used it must have been known to the servants and members of my father's family, as the package containing the cocoa was lying on the mantelpiece in my room, but no one of the family used it except myself, as they did not seem to like it.  The water which I used, I got hot from the servants.  On the night of the 18th, when I used the arsenic last, I was going to a dinner party at Mr. Minnoch's house.

I never administered or caused to be administered, to M. L'Angelier arsenic or anything injurious.  And this I declare to be truth.

(Signed) Madeleine Smith

 [Back to Index of Witnesses] 
Mary Jane Buchanan, - (by the solicitor-general) - Dr. Buchanan, of Dumbarton, is my father.  I am acquainted with Miss Smith.  One day last spring I went into a chemist's shop in Sauchiehall Street with her. It was Currie's shop.  I don't remember if she told me beforehand what she was going in for, but I heard her ask for arsenic.  She was told by the shopman that she must sign her name to a book.  He did not ask her what she wanted with it.  I asked her that in the hearing of the shopman, and she said it was to kill rats.  She got the arsenic.  I am not sure, but I  think she got sixpence worth.  She brought it away, with her.  When I asked what she was going to do with it, and when she said to kill rats, the shopman suggested phosphorus, but she said she had tried that before and was unsuccessful, and she would therefore prefer arsenic; but she said that the family was going to Bridge of Allan, and there was no danger in leaving it lying about in the town, house, as it would be put down in the cellars. I think I had no, further conversation with her about it.  I think she asked the shopman something about what was a dose, and he said such a quantity as she named would kill a great many people.  She turned to me and said she only wanted it for rats.  I said nothing more.  On leaving the shop I laughed at the idea of a young lady buying arsenic.  She said nothing, but laughed too.  That was on 6th March.  I knew she was going that day to Bridge of Allan.

I was at school with Miss Smith at Clapton, near London.  She came after I was there two years, and I think she was there a year along with me.  I have been acquainted with her ever since. I have often seen her write and am well acquainted with her handwriting. I have been shown by the Procurator-Fiscal a number of letters, and I examined them carefully with the view of ascertaining if they were in her handwriting, and I came to the conclusion that they were hers.  I marked the letters with my initial.

I think it was in the autumn of 1852 or 1853 that Miss Smith left school at Clapton ; it must have been, I think, 1853.  Her full name is Madeleine Hamilton Smith.  In the course of last spring she wrote to me, telling me she was engaged to he married.  That was in the very end of February.  She said she was engaged to Mr. Minnoch.  She afterwards spoke to me on the subject on the 6th and 31st March.  On both these occasions she spoke of herself to engaged to he married to Mr. Minnoch, and of the marriage as likely to take place in June.  She spoke of no doubt or difficulty about it at all.

Cross-examined by Mr. Young - I stay at Dumbarton, but I had come up to Glasgow on the 6th. I visited Mr. Smith's house at Row, and when I came to Glasgow I called at Blythswood Square. I called there on 6th March.  Miss Madeleine was not in when I called, but she came in before I left.  We went out together.  She said she wished to talk to me of her marriage. I had no time to wait, and she then said she would walk with me so far on the way home.  We went out together, and went along the street.  There had been an old promise at school that whichever of us was engaged to be married first should ask the other to be bridesmaid.  We went to Sauchiehall Street, and along that street, which was on my way home.  Currie's shop is in that street.  When we came to it she said, "Oh, just stop a minute, I want to go into this shop ; will you go with me?" I consented, and we went in together.  I think there were two young men behind the counter.  Miss Smith asked for arsenic and the shopman said, "You must sign your name." She said, "Oh, I'll sign anything you like." She signed "M. Smith," and asked if that would do.  Before this I remember Miss Smith asking the shopman how arsenic was sold; and I think she asked, "Would sixpence worth be a large quantity?"  I did not sign the book.  Everything was done very openly.  She paid for it

When we were at school at Clapton, I remember, whether in a lesson or when reading in the evening - I forget which - that an account was given of Styrian peasants taking arsenic to give them breath to climb steep hills, and about their having a peculiar plumpness and rosiness of complexion. I think it was in the course of reading in the evening.  I cannot remember who the governess was.  I remember a Miss Guibilei.  She was a pupil-teacher.  She gave her services as a teacher in exchange for being taught other things herself.  She was there, I think, at the time of the reading. I suppose Miss Smith was there; I don't remember; but we were always obliged to be present at these readings, and so I should think Miss Smith was there.  The rest of Miss Smith's family went to Bridge of Allan on 6th March, the day I called.

To the Lord Justice-Clerk - I met Miss Smith by appointment on that day at half-past one; she had written to me at Dumbarton, knowing I was to be up.  On the 31st, I was with her from about three to half-past four in her own house.  I had been visiting in Glasgow at that time for a week or two.  I was staying with Mr. Dickson, Woodside Terrace.  Nothing particular led me to call on Miss Smith on the 31st.  She talked of her marriage, but she did not begin about it-I asked her.  This was on a Monday, so that it was on the 30th and not the 31st that I saw her.

[End of testimony]  [Back to Who's Who]   [Back to Index of Witnesses]  
Augusta Guibilei (by Mr. MacKenzie) - I was a pupil-teacher at a school at Clapton (Mrs Gorton's), at which Miss Smith was, in the year 1852.  I never advised her to use arsenic as a cosmetic, or to apply it to her face, neck, or arms, mixed with water, nor to use it in any way.  I had no conversation with her, that I recollect of, about the use of arsenic.  I believe I had no conversation with her about the use of cosmetics in their external application to the skin.

I recollect one evening, in the course of reading, it was mentioned that Swiss mountaineers took arsenic to improve their breathing in ascending hills, and that those who took it were remarkable for plumpness and a general appearance of good health.  I believe I had no conversation with Miss Smith about this passage.

[End of testimony] [Back to Index of Witnesses] 
William Murray, house-boy (by the Lord Advocate) - I was servant to Mr. Smith in Blythswood Square.  I entered his service at November term. I slept in the room on the right-hand side going in at the area door, looking into Blythswood Square.  Miss Smith slept in the room next the kitchen, on the right-hand side.  That room has two windows to Mains Street.  There were in the house, besides me, a cook and housemaid, Christina Haggart and Charlotte McLean; they slept in the room at the other end of the passage from the kitchen, close by the back door.

Miss Madeleine sent me to an apothecary about four months ago.  I never heard of M. L'Angelier's death till I was examined by the Procurator-Fiscal.  I recollect Miss Madeleine being missed from home one morning; it would be six weeks or two months before that that she asked me to go to the apothecary's.  I was told to get prussic acid.  She gave me a line with "a small phial of prussic acid" written on it.  I took it to the apothecary's.  He did not give it.  I went back and told Miss Smith.  She said, "very well, never mind." She said she wanted it for her hands.  I can't recollect whether I gave her back the line.  I think I got it back from the man in the shop.

I did not know M. L'Angelier by sight.  I have posted letters for Miss Smith.  I have observed some letters with an address like L'Angelier, but I never could make out what it was.  It was my duty to lock the area gate at night; sometimes I forgot to do it.  I remember Sunday, 22nd March.  I went to bed at ten or thereabouts.  I sleep very soundly.  I heard no noise before the morning.  Miss Smith had not gone to her room before I went to bed.  The day that she was missing was on the Thursday after 22nd March. I heard about ten o'clock that she had gone away.  Mrs. Smith told me.  Miss Smith came back that night.  On Sunday, 22nd March, Christina Haggart was ill.  She kept her bed till about six that evening.  I parted from her on the stair, after coming down from worship, and went into the kitchen.  Miss Smith did not tell me where to get the prussic acid.  I went into Dr. Yeaman's surgery in Sauchiehall Street,

Cross-examined by the Dean of Faculty - It was the nearest shop and at the corner of Cambridge Street.  She gave me the line at her bedroom door.  She called to me.  I was in the kitchen.  She spoke quite loud.  I don't know that anybody heard her.  The other servants were in the kitchen.  They could hear her if they were listening.  She told me to take care of the prussic acid, for it was poison.  The shopman asked who it was for, and I told him.  He said to tell her that she could not get it without a physician's line, and that it, was rank poison.   I had been once or twice in the shop; but the boy in the shop knew where I came from.

Last winter Mr. and Mrs. Smith, Mr. John Smith, Miss Bessie, Miss Janet, and Miss Madeleine Smith were members of the family living in Blythswood Square.  Miss Madeleine is the oldest, Bessie the second, and Janet the youngest.  Miss Janet looks like a girl of between twelve and thirteen.  Miss Janet always slept with Miss Madeleine in the same room and bed.

I had no charge of the back door. I had charge of the area gate and the upper front door, not of the area door.  I believe the cook, Charlotte McLean, generally locked the back door and the front area door.  On Sunday evening, 22nd March, all the family and servants were at prayers.  Miss Madeleine was there also.  Nine o'clock is the usual hour for prayers, and they were about the usual hour that night.  When I came downstairs I went into the kitchen and stopped about five minutes, and then went to bed.  I waited at breakfast next morning as usual.  Miss Smith was there just as usual.

At this time a young man named Mackenzie was visiting Christina Haggart; she is married to him now.  Miss Smith and Miss Janet sometimes got hot water before going to bed.  They got it from the kitchen in a jug, not in a kettle. I did not see Mackenzie that Sunday night.  There are several windows in the sunk storey:  two in the kitchen, one in my room, two in Miss Smith's room, and one in the housemaid's room-six in all; they are all secured with iron stanchions; I am not sure about the housemaid's, but all the others are.

Re-examined by the Lord Advocate - There are two windows in Miss Madeleine's room.  They, look to Mains Street.  The sill of one of the windows of her bedroom is a little below the street, nearly flush with the pavement.  I heard no noise in the house on the night of the 22nd. I heard nobody go out or come in.  The key of the area gate was sometimes kept in my room, and sometimes in the kitchen.  There were two keys, one of them hung on a nail in the kitchen; very seldom both were in the kitchen.  The key of the front area door was hanging new my room.  The key of the back gate was taken charge of by the housemaid; any person could have got it.  There is a gate and a door opening to the lane.  I spoke of the key of the gate.  The key of the door is generally left in the door, and also the key of the front door.

By the Dean of, Faculty - There is no gate at the back; it is a wooden door.  There is a wall about six feet high.  There is broken glass on the top of it.  There are two keys for the area gate.

[End of testimony] [Back to Index of Witnesses] 
George Yeaman (by the Lord Advocate) - I am a medical man in Glasgow, and have a laboratory in Sauchiehall Street.  I remember hearing of M. L'Angelier's death.  It was a day or two after his death.  The Glasgow election was on 31st March.  I heard of it before that.  On hearing of it, I recollected the circumstance of a paper containing writing having been presented to me by my assistant, on which were written the words, "Half an ounce of prussic acid."  I have no means of saying, with any degree of certainty, how long that would be before L'Angelier's death.  I should say it would be from four to eight weeks.  I went into the shop when the line was brought to me. I saw a boy, who said he came from Miss Smith, Blythswood Square.  I asked whether he knew what he wanted, and he said he thought it was poison.  I then said that if Miss Smith would call herself I would see whether or not she should have it. I did not give it to him.  Miss Smith did not come, so far as I saw or heard of.
[End of testimony] [Back to Index of Witnesses] 
James Stewart, Yeaman's employee - I heard of Miss Smith being apprehended.  I was then in Dr. Yeaman's service.  I recollect a boy coming to the shop for prussic acid.  To the best of my recollection, it was six or eight weeks before I heard of Miss Smith's apprehension.

Cross examined - I know the boy Murray.  He had often been at the laboratory before.

[End of testimony] [Back to Index of Witnesses] 
George Murdoch (by the Lord Advocate) - I am partner in the firm of Murdoch Brothers, druggists, Sauchiehall Street.  We keep a registry book of the poisons sold by us, which I now identify.  In it is entered all the arsenic we sell by retail.  Under date 21st February we have an entry "February 21 - Miss Smith, 7 Blythswood Square - 6d worth of arsenic for garden and country-house - M. H. Smith." This is also initialled by me.

I recollect that purchase being made.  It was made by Miss Smith herself.  As far as I remember, she was alone. I was engaged in one of the back rooms when our assistant (Dickie) called my attention to a lady who wished to purchase sixpence worth of arsenic. I went forward and saw Miss Smith.  She recognised me, and bowed.   I named the form that was required in the sale of it, and requested to know for what purpose it was needed, and she answered, "for the garden and country house." I was aware Mr. Smith had a country house on the Gareloch, and I directed my assistant to put up the arsenic; while he did so I made the entry in the book, which Miss Smith signed, and I signed it as a witness. I don't remember seeing the parcel made up; but the usual mode is to put it in a double parcel.  It was common white arsenic, mixed with soot in the proportion required by the Act.  I think nothing else passed.

I saw her again some three days after; she called and inquired if arsenic should not be white. I said it required to be sold mixed with something else.  She did not purchase any more on that occasion.  Some time afterwards my assistant (Dickie) delivered to Dr. Penny some arsenic from the same bottle.  I was there when Dickie gave it.

Cross-examined by Mr. Young - My shop is about three or four minutes' walk from Blythswood Square.  Miss Smith and her family were in the habit of dealing with my shop.  Miss Smith got 1 oz. of arsenic for the 6d. I don't remember if she paid it.  I have an entry, in Dickie's handwriting, of sales on that day to Mr. Smith - "Two dozen soda water, 6d worth of arsenic, send and charge," with a mark that the arsenic was sent.  The entry is in the daily jotter and posted into the daybook and ledger in Mr. Smith's account - all in the regular course of our bookkeeping.  I understood the quantity of soot used in the arsenic was an ounce to the pound.  That is more soot than the statute requires, but that was the proportion we used.  I don't recollect the date that Dr. Penny got arsenic from the same jar.

Re-examined by the Lord Advocate - I can't say with certainty if Miss Smith paid for the arsenic.  My impression, when first called on to speak in reference to this matter, was that it had been paid, but on seeing this entry I felt certain in my own mind that it had not been paid.

By Mr. Young .- As soon as I saw this entry in the book I communicated the fact to the Fiscal.

[End of testimony] [Back to Index of Witnesses] 
James Dickie (by the Lord Advocate) - I was Mr. Murdoch’s assistant last February.  I knew Miss Smith by sight.  I recollect her coming to purchase arsenic.  She said she wanted to send it to the gardener at the country house.  I can't recollect if she mentioned the purpose.  She got it; and the phial shown me contains arsenic from our shop, prepared in the same manner as that furnished to Miss Smith.  The arsenic sold to her was registered in the registry book, and signed by her. I can't recollect if it was paid for at the time; it was entered in the account book as unpaid; the account has not been rendered; she took the arsenic with her.  I delivered some arsenic to Professor Penny on 18th April; it was from the same bottle as that from which the arsenic Miss Smith got was taken.

Cross-examined by Mr. Young - I have been six years in Mr. Murdoch's.  The Smiths dealt with the shop, and on 21st February Mr. Smith had an account standing in our books. I made the entry about the arsenic at the time.  I entered it first in the scroll book at the counter, as unpaid and, though I have no recollection on the subject, that satisfies me it was not paid.  The entry was entered up in the other books.  There is some soda water entered on the same day for Mr. Smith.  I have no recollection of Miss Smith giving the order for it.

[End of testimony] [Back to Index of Witnesses]

George Carruthers Haliburton, examined by the Lord Advocate - I am assistant to Mr. Currie, chemist, Sauchiehall Street.  I identify our register book for the sale of poisons.  Under date 6th March, 1857, I see an entry - March 6, Miss Smith, 7 Blythswood Square - "arsenic, one ounce, kill rats."  I signed it, and it is also signed "M. H. Smith." I knew her by sight before that.  A lady was with her on that occasion.  She asked for 6d worth of arsenic. I asked her what for, and she said it was to kill rats.  I told her we wore not fond of selling arsenic for that purpose, because it was so dangerous; I recommended phosphorus paste, which I said would answer very well.  She told me she had used it, but it had failed.  She said the rats were in the house in Blythswood Square.  She told me the family were going from home next day, and that she would be careful to see it put down herself.  She got the arsenic.  It was mixed with indigo.  The phial, No. 212, was given by me to Dr. Penny in April, and it contains arsenic from the same bottle as that sold to Miss Smith.  Miss Smith paid for the arsenic she got, and took it away.  In the registry-book (No. 186) there is also an entry under date 18th March.  There are no other entries this year excepting these two.  That entry is - "Miss Smith, 7 Blythswood Square-arsenic, one ounce, to kill rats"; and it in signed like the other. I recollect her coming for that.  She asked for other 6d worth and said the first was so effectual - she having found eight or nine large rats lying dead - that she had come back to get the dose renewed.  Mr. Currie was in at that time.  He made some objections; he said he never sold it except to parties we knew, and to parties of respectability; and he was about to refuse it when I told him that I had given her it on a former occasion, from the same bottle.  A young lady - I suppose her sister - was with her.  I never heard of arsenic such as I gave Miss Smith being used as a cosmetic.  A preparation of arsenic is used as a depilatory for taking hairs off the face, that is the yellow sulphuret of arsenic.  She paid for the arsenic.

Cross-examined by Mr. Young - Both purchases were made quite openly.  I don't know who accompanied Miss Smith on the first occasion.  They were speaking together while I was putting up the arsenic.  The young lady with Miss Smith remarked that she thought arsenic was white, and I said we had to colour it according to the Act of Parliament. I had never before seen the young lady who was with her on the second occasion.  She was a grown-up young lady; not the lady who was first with her.  I mixed the arsenic myself with the colouring matter.  It was indigo. I put in the proper quantity ordered by the Act.

To the Lord Justice-Clerk - The yellow sulphuret is quite a different thing from the white arsenic.  It is used as a depilatory, because it so affects the skin as to bring out the roots of the hair.  That is the very opposite action from that of a cosmetic. I think any preparation of arsenic as a cosmetic would be extremely dangerous; it is not a thing we sell for that purpose.  Fowler's preparation is four grains of arsenic to an ounce of fluid.

By the Lord Advocate - Miss Smith said on the first occasion that rats were to be killed in the Blythswood Square house; and she spoke of these rats on the second occasion.

[End of testimony] [Back to Index of Witnesses]


John Currie, examined by the Lord Advocate - I am a chemist and druggist in Sauchiehall Street, Glasgow. I do not know the accused by sight.  I remember a lady who gave the name of Miss Smith being in my shop on 18th March last.  No. 186 is my registry-book; in it I see an entry of one ounce of arsenic, signed "M.  H. Smith," and also signed by my assistant.  He was dispensing at the counter; but seeing she was not being served I went forward and asked what she wanted.  He said "Poison to kill rats." I suggested phosphorus paste; he said she had got some arsenic before.  I said to Miss Smith we would much rather give her something else than arsenic.  She did not insist on having it, but she said she would prefer it. I then objected that we never sold arsenic to any one without entering it in a book, and that she must sign her name, and state the purpose to which it was to be applied.  She said she had no objection to this, and from her apparent respectability and frankness I had no suspicion, and told the young man to give it to her.  She got an ounce of coloured arsenic, the same kind that Dr. Penny got. I did not hear her say where the rats were.  I think she said the former supply of arsenic had answered very well, but I could not be positive.  She paid for the arsenic.  I think there was a young lady with her.
[End of testimony] [Back to Index of Witnesses]

William Campsie - I am in the service of Mr. Smith.  He has a country house at Rowaleyn, Row.  I have been in his service since 1855.  I never got any arsenic or poison from Miss Smith to kill rats.  I don't recollect of having any conversation with her on the subject. I never had any arsenic there for that purpose.

By Mr. Young - We were very much troubled with rats, and we had used phosphorus paste. or some such thing, for them.  We found it to be effectual, and we got quit of them partly, but not altogether.
 

[End of testimony] [Back to Index of Witnesses]

Bernard McLauchlin, examined by Mr. MacKenzie - I am an assistant to Murray, sheriff-officer. I remember going to Huggins's on 30th March and taking possession of a number of letters which were in a desk. They were put into a box, which was sealed. I was present when it was opened in the Fiscal's chambers. I did not see the contents then. I went with Murray the same evening to Mrs. Jenkins's house, and took possession of various letters, a travelling bag, and eight bottles. The letters were wrapped up in two separate parcels, and I took them to my own house, and next morning I took them to Murray's room, County Buildings, in the same state they were in the night before, and he locked them up. I saw them marked afterwards. I was particularly careful that the letters were put into their proper envelopes. The bottles were taken to my house that evening, and delivered up next day to Murray. They were afterwards given to Wilson in the same state. I took possession at Mrs. Jenkins's, on 13th April, of a topcoat, and, on the 14th, of a Balmoral bonnet - both of which I identify.

I went with M. Thuau to No. 7 Blythswood Square. He pointed out a window in Mains Street - No. 14 of plan - one of the windows of Miss Smith's bedroom. In that room we found two bottles and a photograph, and initialed them. I went with Mary Tweedle from Terrace Street, St. Vincent Street, to Blythswood Square. At No. 4 Terrace Street I showed Tweedle my watch; it wanted five minutes to four. We went to Blythswood Square, and when we arrived there it was exactly four. We walked at a leisurely pace. Terrace Street is on the south side of Blythswood Square.

Cross-examined by Mr. Young - The letters found in Mrs. Jenkins's I took to my own room; they were not put in a drawer; they were left open. My wife was in that room. My family were not in it, I could not say precisely when we marked them. We marked the bottles on lst April, and the letters found in the lodgings might be all marked a week after that; I daresay we began to mark them about 3rd April. I believe they were all marked within a fortnight, but I am not sure. I may have omitted to mark some, but not to my knowledge; I was asked afterwards to mark some I had omitted. They had Murray's initials. Murray brought them to me in his own office. I cannot speak to the time.

Re-examined by Mr. MacKenzie - I was in the room with the letters all night, and I am satisfied nobody touched them till they were delivered to Murray. The letters I omitted to mark were found in the lodgings. Murray and I visited druggists' shops, and made inquiries about the sale of arsenic and as to the register only; also on the road to Coatbridge, and at Baillieston, Bridge of Allan, and Stirling; but we found no entries of sale of poison to any person of the name of L'Angelier. Every shop or house we entered is marked in the list. The houses are those of doctors who have shops elsewhere; we went to these shops too.

The Lord Justice-Clerk - You say you are an assistant to Murray?

Witness - Yes

The Lord Justice-Clerk - Are you appointed and paid by Murray?

Witness - Yes

The Lord Justice-Clerk - Then you go about and assist Murray without any legal authority or character at all. I don't imply that you are not a better officer than Murray, but in reality you are not appointed by the Sheriff?

Witness - No.

The Lord Justice-Clerk - Are you named in any warrant for search?

Witness - Not that I am aware of.

The Lord Justice-Clerk - Do you execute these warrants yourself without Murray?

Witness - I have always Murray or some other officer with me.

The Lord Justice-Clerk - This system is perfectly new to me.

[End of testimony] [Back to Index of Witnesses]

Robert Oliphant, examined by the Lord Advocate - I am a stationer at Helensburgh.  I know the prisoner.  She used to deal in our shop for envelopes and note-paper.  I have seen her handwriting. I was shown a number of letters by the Procurator-Fiscal; they were in Miss Smith's handwriting.  I recognised some of the envelopes as being bought at my shop. They were stamped with the initials "M. H. S."  They were stamped for her by me.  No. 67 is one of these envelopes.

[End of testimony] [Back to Index of Witnesses]


William Harper Minnoch, examined by the Solicitor General - I am a merchant in Glasgow, and a partner of the firm of John Houldsworth & Co. I live in Mains Street, above the house of Mr. James Smith.  I have been intimately acquainted with his family for upwards of four years.  In the course of last winter I paid my addresses to Miss Smith, and I made proposals of marriage to her on 12th March.  She accepted.  The time of our marriage was fixed between us.  Previously to that I had asked her generally, without reference to any time.  That was as far back as 28th January. I did so personally.  My attentions to her, I understood, had been such as to make her quite aware that I was paying my addresses to her.  She accepted me on the 28th of January, and we arranged it more particularly on 12th March.  From 28th January to the end of March there was nothing which suggested any doubt to my mind as to the engagement continuing.  I had no idea that she was engaged to any other person, and I was, aware of no attachment or peculiar intimacy between her and any other man.  The marriage was fixed for 18th June.  Last season I made Miss Smith a present of a necklace; it was some time in January , before the 28th.  She went along with her family to Bridge of Allan on 6th March, and she remained there till the 17th.  I visited the family while they were there.  After leaving I received a letter from Miss Smith.  I identify it (No. 133); it is dated Monday merely.  After she came home from Bridge of Allan she dined in my house with her father and mother; that was on 19th March. I met her at dinner again at Mr. Middleton’s on 25th March; I was not aware of anything wrong at that time.

I called on Thursday morning, the 26th, at her fathers house.  She was not in the house; I was informed she had left the house.  With her brother I went to Rowaleyn to look for her.  We went by train to Greenock, and then on board the steamer, and we found her on board; it was going to Helensburgh, and then to Row; it called at Roseneath, and then returned to Greenock.  We found her in the steamer a little after two o'clock.  She said she was going to Rowaleyn.  I went thither with her and her brother; and then we ordered a carriage, and drove her up to Glasgow to her father' 's house.  On reaching Glasgow I had no conversation with Miss Smith.

I saw her again on the Saturday following. I had by this time heard a rumour that something was wrong; she told me on the Saturday that she had written a letter to M. L’Angelier, the object of which was to get back some letters which she had written to him previously.  She made no further statement at that time. I saw her again on the Sunday; there was no conversation on the subject then.  I saw her on Monday and Tuesday. On Tuesday morning she alluded to the report that L'Angelier had been poisoned with arsenic, and she remarked that she had been in the habit of buying arsenic, as she had learned at Clapton School that it was good for the complexion.  I had heard a rumour that he had been poisoned.  She said nothing further, and that was the last time I saw her.  Before she made these statements to me I was not aware that she was acquainted with L’Angelier.  I was not acquainted with him myself.

Cross-examined by the Dean or Faculty - On the evening of 19th February I do not recollect where I was.  I remember being at the opera about. that time - (referring to book) - yes, I was at the opera on that night, and Miss Smith and my sister were with me.  We called for Miss Smith.  We went to the opera about half-past seven o'clock; we got home about eleven o'clock.  Miss Smith returned with us.  She had been with us all the evening.  The cab stopped at her door, and she went into her house.  I did not observe who received her on that occasion; somebody opened the door.

On 26th March I suggested the probability of Miss Smith having gone to Row.  Her father had a house there, in which a servant was living at the time, and I thought she might be there.  In consequence I and her brother went down.  When we met her on the steamer I asked her why she had left home, leaving her friends distressed about her; but I requested her not to reply then, as there were too many people present.  I renewed the inquiry at Rowaleyn, and she said she felt distressed that her papa and mamma should be so much annoyed at what she had done.  Mr. Smith told me that she had left the house that morning; and I asked him the reason, and he said it had been some old love affair. I understood her to refer to that in the answer she made to me.  She gave me no further explanation.  She said not to press her, and she would tell me all again.  We were only about three-quarters of an hour at Row.  We took her back to her father's house, and left her there.  On 31st March it was she who introduced the subject of L’Angelier's death, referring to the report of his having been poisoned; that was about half-past nine in the morning.  I called and inquired for Mrs. Smith; I had heard she was unwell.  My meeting with Miss Smith was accidental.  I have mentioned all that passed on the occasion.  On the 28th I reminded her of the promise she made to me at Row, that she would tell me all by and by.  I had not heard the name of L'Angelier then.  She did not mention his name.  I think She said she had written to a Frenchman to get back her letters.  I did not know who the Frenchman was.  On the 25th I called before going to Mr. Middleton's. I called for Mr. Smith, but I did not see him - he was unwell, and in bed.  I took Miss Smith to Mr. Middleton's.  He is the minister of the United Presbyterian Church which they attend.

[End of testimony] [Back to Index of Witnesses]


Mrs. Margaret Houston or Clark, examined by the Solicitor-General - I am the wife of Peter Clark, curator of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Glasgow.  The late M. L'Angelier lived with us for two years.  He went from my house to Mrs. Jenkins's, Franklin Place.  I was very intimately acquainted with him when he lived in my house.  I formed a very good impression of his character.  He seemed very steady and temperate; he never was late out while he lived in my house.  I was led to believe that he attended church regularly; he attended St. Jude's Episcopal Chapel (Mr.  Miles').  His general health was good.  He occasionally visited my house after he went to Mrs. Jenkins's.  I observed that, a month or two before his death, his health became affected.

He has spoken to me about a lady.  I don't exactly remember when he did so; it was while he lived in my house - I think in the first year that he lived with me.  He told me her name; it was Miss Smith.  He spoke of her by her first name, "Madeleine," and by "Mimi." He gave me to understand that there was a mutual attachment between him and this lady.  He said they corresponded by letter, and that they were in the way of meeting.  He told me of an interruption to the correspondence. I don't remember when that was; it was while he lived in my house.  He said the intimacy was afterwards resumed.  I understood that it was interrupted because of Miss Smith’s father's displeasure.  I understood from him that the correspondence subsisted while he was living at Mrs. Jenkins's.  He told me Miss Smith and he were to be married, but he did not say when.  I last saw him on 5th or 6th March.  He called at my house.  He did not speak of Miss Smith that day.  He left my house about the beginning of July, 1856, and went to Mrs. Jenkins's.  Shortly before his death he spoke of a second interruption to his intimacy with Miss Smith.  That was within two months of his death.  He told me that he was afraid they would not get their end accomplished, as Miss Smith's father was putting stronger obstacles than ever in the way.  He said nothing further at that time.  He afterwards spoke on the subject, and said something to the same effect.  He spoke of no coolness between Miss Smith and himself.  Last time he was at the Botanic Gardens he got some gold or silver fish.  That was about 5th or 6th March.

Cross examined by Mr. Young - He came to my house first in May, 1854.  He complained of the climate not agreeing with him.  He did not say particularly how it disagreed with him.  He said that he was occasionally troubled with diarrhoea or with symptoms approaching to that. I understood from himself that, on one occasion when he visited Helensburgh, he had been attacked with something like cholera.  He had gone to visit M. De Mean there.  He told me he was not in the practice of taking a cholera medicine; but he told me that he took it at that time. I saw the cholera medicine in his room.  It was labelled "Preparation used for cholera." I understood from him that he was not acquainted with Miss Smith’s family.  I understood his correspondence with her was clandestine.  When he said he was to he married to her, he said his intention was to have the banns secretly proclaimed - I mean by that, unknown to her parents; and that he intended, on the Monday following, to have a carriage ready, and to drive to chapel and be married.  He did not say that he arranged with any particular person to marry them, nor did he mention what chapel.

Re-examined by the Solicitor General - He had a very great horror of taking medicine.

[End of testimony] [Back to Index of Witnesses]


Thomas Fleming Kennedy, examined by the Lord Advocate - I am cashier to Huggins & Co., Glasgow.  I knew L’Angelier for about four years and a half, during which he was in Huggins & Co's employment.  I was intimately acquainted with him.  He was in the habit of coming frequently to my house. He was a well-behaved, well-principled, religious young man.  I had a great regard for him.  I had ample means of judging of his character and conduct.  He enjoyed general good health while in our warehouse. I never thought him very strong.  He was not much off duty from bad heath till latterly.

I think his health first became affected in February.  I am not sure if he was ill in January; but in February he was laid up for a week.  He got better, and came back again to the warehouse; then he got worse, and on 9th March he got leave of absence.  I think it was on the morning of 23rd February that he got ill - he came into my room and said, "I am ill, very ill, and have been ill the night before."  I asked what was the matter, and advised him to go home.  He said he had fallen down on his bedroom floor at night before going to bed, and felt so ill that he could not call for assistance.  He did not say what he had been doing, or where he had been the day before, I must have seen him on the 21st (Saturday), as he was at business that day.  He was confined to the house from 23rd February to Sunday, lst March.

I saw him on 1st March.  I think that was the first day he was out.  He spoke before his death of an attachment to Miss Smith, Blythswood Square.  He said very little; and I knew nothing further than that there was an intimacy till shortly before his death.  He came to me one morning in February and said, with tears in his eyes, that he had received a letter, demanding back all the correspondence. I advised him strongly to give back the letters, but he would not.  That would be about a fortnight before 23rd February.  He said that she wrote that a coolness had arisen, and asking back her letters; I understood she had written that there was a coolness on the part of both.  He said he would never allow her to marry another man as long as he lived.  I said it was very foolish; he said he knew it was, that it was infatuation.  He said, "Tom, she will be the death of me." That was about the last conversation I had with him.  The last time I saw him was on 9th March, when he left, to go to Edinburgh.  I knew his handwriting well.  No. 145 is, a letter written by him to me..

Bridge of Allan
Friday, 20th March.
Dear Tom, - I was sorry to hear from Thuau that you were laid up. I hope by this time you are better.  Are you well enough to come here to-morrow? - There is a train at 12.30. 4.15, and 6.15. I think it would do you good.  Plenty of lodgings to be had here.  If you come, it is of no use writing, as the latest post arriving is 10 a.m.: but as the walk to the train is short I shall be on the lookout.  I am two doors from the station in Union Street.
I am getting short of tin; bring with you, please, two or three ponds or, if not, send them.  I was in Stirling to-day, but it was very cold, so I came back again. I have, I fear, slept in damp sheets, for all my timbers are quite sore.  I weary by myself here and I long to be back again.  The place is worth seeing but as dull as a chimney can.

Yours very sincerely,   P. Emile   L'Angelier.

No. 127 is a letter from L'Angelier to myself:

Dear Tom, - I arrived safe, and feel a deal better. It is much warmer than Glasgow.  The wind is south; I never saw finer weather.
I enclose you a P.O. order, which please get cashed for me.  Pens and ink, also wafers, are very scarce, and not to be had at present.

In expectatation of seeing you on Saturday, George M'Call bought a bottle of pickles warranted free from copper.  I shall be at ihe :rrival of the train leaving Glasgow at 4.15 p.m. Drop a line if you are coming, or else you will have no dinner.
Yours, &c.,
Emile   L'Angelier.

There is a P.S. in another hand, by a gentleman named M'Call, a friend of mine and L'Angelier.  The postmark is "Edinburgh, March 13." There is another post-mark, "Glasgow."

 No. 129 is a letter also in L’Angelier's handwriting -

Edinburgh, Monday.
DearTom, - We received your note on Saturday, and were very sorry to hear you were unwell and unable to come. In one respect it was lucky, as it poured all Saturday afternoon.
I hear at Bridge of Allan it is very cold, and snow.  I think I will start for there to-morrow.  I don't feel so well as I did, but I think it is the want of sleep. I think the P.O. people beautifully ignorant not to know a man's name from a woman's. I shall write to Oxford about it.
I suppose I am not wanted yet; if I should be, let me know, please.  Don't send any more letters to P.O. here after 10 a.m. to-morrow.

Excuse haste, and believe me your sincere friend,
Emile   L'Angelier.
I received the letters you addressed to me, and another to-day.

[Shown No. 177. a pocket-book or memorandum-book.]
I see some memoranda there, beginning llth February, 1857.  The entries are all in L'Angelier's handwriting, except the one on 14th March - the last in the book - of which I am not sure.  That entry is - "Saw the gallery of painting - dine with M'Call." I was asked in one of the letters to dine at M'Call’s on that Saturday.

Cross-examined by the Dean of Faculty - I never saw that book in L'Angelier's, possession, or before I saw it at the Fiscal's.

[The Lord Advocate here proposed to read the whole entries in the memorandum-book. The Dean of Faculty objected; and the argument on the point was postponed till later.]

Examination resumed by the Lord Advocate - I identify the three letters and envelope shown me as bearing L’Angelier's writing on them.  I have seen letters in a female hand coming for him, and I knew from him that they came from Miss Smith.  I don't know where L'Angelier put the letters he got from her.  After his death, Mr. Stevenson gave me a bunch of keys belonging to L’Angelier.  I knew there were documents in his deck.  We had gone through them on the Monday of his death to try to find his mother's address.  I think we read one or two of hia letters.  Stevenson locked them up and gave me the key.  I saw them locked up.  There was nothing in the letters that induced us to take any step as to his death.  On the Tuesday we again looked more closely over them.  I did not read them with attention.  They were again locked up, and I got the key.  On the day the Fiscal sent for the letters they were all put into a paper box, which was sealed.  I initiated it.  They were all given up.

Cross-examined by the Dean of Faculty - In February L’Angelier first told me of Miss Smith’s desire to break off her engagement with him; I can’t say the exact day. I think that was the only occasion he said so.  The conversation took place in my room in the warehouse.  L'Angelier came to me between 10 and 11 a.m. crying; he said he had received a letter from Miss Smith, that morning, asking back her letters and wishing the correspondence to cease, and he said that a coolness had arisen.  I said, "You ought to give up the letters and be done with it," and I remarked that the lady was not worthy of him.  He said he would not give up the letters.; he said so distinctly, determinedly; he said he was determined to keep them, and he threatened, at the same time, to show them to her father.  I told him he was very foolish, and that he had much better give them up.  He said "No, I won't; she shall never marry another man as long as I live." He also said, "Tom, it is an infatuation; she'll be the death of me." He was exceedingly excited during the whole time.

I heard him say on one occasion, I don't recollect when, "I wish I was six feet under the ground." This was before the time I am speaking of.  I took no, notice of that; I never supposed that anything was wrong with him.  I think  his first serious illness was in February; but I think he was slightly complaining some time in January. I don’t remember  what his illness then was.  I have heard him say on several occasions that he was subject to attacks of bowel complaint.  Two occasions I recollect of, but I cat say when - months before his death.  I don’t remember his saying that he had a bad attack of cholera in Belgium.  I know he visited a place called Badgemore Castle.  It was last summer or the summer before.  I don’t recollect his saying he had an illness there.  I cannot tell the day the letters were taken from the desk in the warehouse by the authorities.  They wore put in a large paper-box; all the letters in the desk were put in.  Stevenson wea present.  Our object in reading the letters was to discover his mother's address.  We did not find it; it was got otherwise.  There was no inventory of the letters made, I believe.

Re-examined by the Lord Advocate - No one else had access to the desk while I had the keys.  On Wednesday,  I think, I gave them to Stevenson.  He asked for them, but did not say for what.  When the letters went away they were, I think, in the same state as when I found them; I think we were careful to replace those read in their envelopes.  I can't recollect what letters we read.  I did not see any letters expressing a coolness on Miss Smith's part. Those we read were old, of date 1855. L'Angelier’s mother lives in Jersey.

[End of testimony] [Back to Index of Witnesses]  [Back to Analysis]


Robert Oliphant, (recalled), examined by the Lord Advocate - I have looked at the letters, and have made a note of the result of my inspection of them.

By the Dean of Faculty - I did not get a die made for Miss Smith.  The die might suit any person’s name with these initials.  I had the letters; they are moveable.  It is the same as if they had been printed.
 

[End of testimony] [Back to Index of Witnesses]

Dr. Penny, (recalled) and examined by The Lord Advocate - I have made some experiments as to the colouring matter of arsenic from the shops of Murdoch and Currie, chemists, Glasgow. I administered Murdoch's arsenic (coloured with soot) to a dog, and I found no difficulty in detecting the soot in the stomach of that dog after death. (2) I administered arsenic coloured by myself with indigo to another dog, and I had no difficulty in detecting the indigo in that case by chemical tests. (3) I administered to another dog a portion of the arsenic sold by Mr. Currie, and I detected black particles in the stomach of that dog, but I could not undertake to identify the arsenic found with the arsenic given. I found carbonaceous particles, but I could not undertake to say that these carbonaceous particles are of themselves sufficient to identify any particular description of arsenic. (4) I could not detect any arsenic in the brains of these dogs. (5) I found solid arsenic in the stomach as well as in the texture of the stomach. These are the results of my experiments.

By the Court - Is it the fact that there is less arsenic found in the brains of animals than in the brains of human being? - I am not aware. In the one case I detected blue colouring matter of indigo and in the other carbonaceous particles.

Cross-examined by the Dean of Faculty - I made myself acquainted with the colouring matter in Currie's arsenic before administering it. The black particles found in the stomach after death bear a close resemblance in their physical appearance and their chemical properties to the constituents of the arsenic given. Their physical appearance and chemical properties were identical with those of the arsenic given.

[End of testimony] [Back to Index of Witnesses]


Christina Haggert or MacKenzie, examined by the Solicitor-General - In the end of last March I was married to Duncan Mackenzie, joiner. I was servant to the family of Mr Smith, and was two years there. I left last Whitsunday. The family, consisted of Mr and Mrs Smith and five children. Miss Madeleine was the eldest about twenty-one years of age, and there were Miss Bessie and Miss Janet, about twelve or thirteen. The eldest son is John; he is, I should think, between sixteen and seventeen. He is in an office. The younger son is James. He is two years younger. Till the end of March he was at school in Edinburgh. Mr Smith has a house at Rowaleyn, near Row. They lived there during the summer. They went about May and came back about November.

During the first winter I was with them ('55-6), they lived in India Street, Glasgow. That was the winter before last. Last winter ('56-7) they stayed at 7 Blythswood Square. While they lived in India Street, Miss Smith pointed out a French gentleman to me. She did not speak of him by his name. I came to know his name when I was examined on precognition at the County Buildings. The name was L'Angelier. Miss Smith, when she pointed him out, told me he was a friend of hers; he was in the street when she pointed him out and we were in the drawing-room; he was passing. The photo shown me is a likeness of him. I have seen him in the house in India Street. I was asked by Miss Smith once to open the back gate to let him in, and I did so. This was during the day; I think they were all in church except the youngest sister; it was a Sunday. Miss Smith went in with him to the laundry. The door was shut when they went in. I don't remember how long he remained. I think about half an hour. He came back to the house at night oftener than once; I don't think more than three or four times; he came about ten o'clock before the family retired to their rooms. As far as I remember, they were all at home. On these occasions he stood at the back gate. He did not, to my knowledge, come into the house. I don't know if he came in. I opened the back gate to him by Miss Smith's directions. She asked me to open the gate for her friend. On some occasions when I went to open the gate he was there, and on others he was not. I did not see Miss Smith go out to him. I left open the back door of house leading to the gate. There was no person in the laundry at the time; the back door was a good piece away from the laundry. Miss Smith and this gentleman might have gone into the laundry without me seeing them.

During the season we lived in India Street I pointed this gentleman out to Duncan Mackenzie, my husband. I don't remember mentioning his name. I said he was a friend of Miss Smith's - I have spoken to that gentleman. During the season we were in India Street he made me a present of a dress. He did not say what he gave it for. When the family were at Rowaleyn, I don't recollect seeing him there, or in the neighbourhood. Letters came to me intended for Miss Smith while we lived in India Street. Miss Smith said they would be so addressed. She said they were from her friend. I thought she meant L'Angelier. I couldn't say how many letters came so addressed. A good many came to India Street, and I gave them all to Miss Smith. Letters also came to Rowaleyn addressed to me for Miss Smith, but they were very few. I called for letters addressed to Miss Bruce at the Post Office, Row; Miss Smith asked me to call for them, and I got them and gave them to Miss Smith. She has given me letters to post for her, addressed to a gentleman. I cannot pronounce the name. Was it L'Angelier? - It was. I posted letters for her with that address in India Street, in Blythswood Square, and during the two summers I was at Rowaleyn. I have delivered a letter with that address in Franklin Place; I only delivered one letter so addressed; I left it at the house.

In the Blythswood Square house there was a back door leading to an area and into a lane. She asked me once to open it for her. I don't know when that was. It was a good long time before Miss Smith was apprehended - weeks before, and maybe two months. It was at night - I think past ten - that she asked me to open the door. I was in her room when she aaked me. Her room was downstairs on the same floor as the kitchen. I slept in a back room next to the back door. The cook, Charlotte McLean, slept with me. At the time I speak of, Charlotte McLean was in the kitchen. I opened the back gate into the lane. I saw no person there. I left it open and returned to the house, leaving the back door open, and went into the kitchen. Miss Smith, met me in the passage; she was going towards the back door. I heard footsteps coming through the gate. I went into the kitchen. I did not hear where Miss Smith went to. I did not hear the door of my room shut. I don't remember how long I remained in the kitchen; I think more than half an hour. Charlotte McLean was there with me during that time. I think I remained longer than usual in the kitchen that night; Miss Smith had told me to stay in the kitchen. She asked if I would open the back door and stay in the kitchen a little, because she was to see her friend. She did not say where she was to see her friend. While I stayed in the kitchen I did not know where Miss Smith was. I did not know she was in my bedroom. I had no doubt she was there, but I did not know it. When we heard Miss Smith go to her room I left the kitchen. We heard the door of her room shut; I did not hear the door of our room open. I did not hear the back door of our house shut. I am not certain, but I think I found it shut when I went to my bedroom. My bedroom is next to the back door. There is a low door in the front area. The key was left sometimes in the kitchen, and sometimes in the boy's room.

Shortly before her apprehension, I heard that Miss Smith was to be married. Mrs. Smith told me of it. I don't remember the time; it was a good while before her apprehension. In consequence of that I asked Miss Smith what she was to do with her other friend, and she told me then, or some time after, that she had given him up. I asked if she had got back her letters. She said no, and that she did not care. I recollect refusing to receive letters for her in India Street; that was after I had received some. In Blythswood Square, also I refused. I don't remember her saying anything. She said she would receive letters in at the window; that was before I had refused to receive letters for her.

I have seen L'Angelier in Mains Street, close to the house, at night. He was walking slowly. That was in the beginning of the winter. At night when we were in bed Miss Smith could have passed from her bedroom to the kitchen, or upstairs, without being overheard by me. T'he stair leading up to the dining-room floor is very near her bedroom door. I never saw any rats in the house in Blythswood Square. We were not troubled with rats. I remember Sunday, 22nd March. I was not well that day, and kept my bed. I rose between five and six o'clock in the aftemom I saw my husband that evening. He came between seven and eight o'clock. There was family worship that evening at nine o'clock. I was present. Miss Smith was present, and the rest of the family. Mackenzie remained in the house when I went up to family worship, and he was there when I came down. I left Miss Smith in the dining-room when I came down, and I did not see her again that evening. I went to bed at ten o'clock. The cook slept with me as usual that night. Mackenzie left about ten. I was not aware of anything taking place in the house during the night. I heard nothing, and was unaware of any stranger being in.

I remember Miss Smith leaving home suddenly on the Thursday after that Sunday. One evening that week Miss Smith was out at an evening party. I could not say if she was at home at the usual time on the Wednesday evening. The key of the back door was kept in my bedroom. On Thursday morning it was discovered that Miss Smith was not at home. There was a key to the back gate. I had charge of that gate; it is a wooden gate in the wall; it is more than six feet high; it may be twelve feet. high. The key of the back door of the house always stood in the door, in the inside. The back gate was sometimes locked, but generally snibbed. A person could open the back door by the key in the door, and open the gate in the wall by unsnibbing it. The key of the low front door was always left in the lock. I had no charge of the key of the high front door, but I think it stood in the lock. I had charge of cleaning out Miss Smith's bedroom. During February or March I never observed that the water in her basin was coloured peculiarly black or peculiarly blue. I saw nothing unusual of that sort.

Cross-examined by the Dean of Faculty - It was in India Street I first became asware of the correspondence between Miss Smith and this gentleman. I think it was soon after she had pointed him out to me. When the family left India Street they went to Rowaleyn; that would be in April or May 1856. I became aware of this correspondence weeks before the family went to Row, but I can't say the precise time. After I had received some letters for Miss Smith, I declined to take more; the reason was that her mother had found fault with me for taking them and had forbidden me to take them. The family came back from Row in November. It was a good while after this that this gentleman came into the house; it might be some months. I remember the family going to Bridge of Allan. His visit would be a good long time before that. I don't remember when Mrs Smith mentioned to me her daughter's intended marriage. It was before they went to Bridge of Allain. When Charlotte McLean and I were in the kitchen the night LAngelier was in the house, the interview between Miss Smith and him might take place in the lobby. Her youngest sister slept with Miss Smith; she was in bed by that time. My husband was frequently in the house at that time - several times in the course of a week. I remember the circumstance of the night of 22nd March. When Mackenzie went away, I saw him to the back door and the outer gate. I snibbed the gate, and I have no reason to suppose I did not lock the inner back door as usual. I left Miss Smith in the dining-room with the rest of the family after prayers. I did not see her again that night. She gave me no reason to suppose she had any meeting that night. I don't know that Miss Smith and her youngest sister went to bed that night at the same time. The back door makes a noise in opening. The lock makes a considerable noise. It is close to my bedroom. I don't know a lady named Miss Perry. She might have been a visitor at Mr. Smiths house. The boy opened the door. The window of my room looks into the back area. It has iron stanchions like all the other low windows of the house.

To the Lord Justice-Clerk - When the family went to Bridge of Allan the servants were all at home. On the morning of the Thursday, when it was found that Miss Smith had left the house, I don't know if it was found that she had taken any of her clothes with her. I saw her on her return; a small carpet bag, containing things of hers, was brought back with her. The bag was not very small. It was such as a lady might carry her night things in. (re: declining to take letters) This was in India Street. I was desired by Mrs. Smith not to receive letters but I did receive some afterwards.

The Lord Justice-Clerk - I suppose in reality, as Mackenzie was coming to visit you, you were anxious to oblige the young lady? (Witness smiled assent).

[End of testimony] [Back to Index of Witnesses]


Thomas Kavan, examined by the Lord Advocate - I am a night constable in Glasgow. My beat in March last included the north and east sides of Blythswood Square, and included Mr. Smith's house. [Shown photograph.] I have seen this person more than once. I first saw him about two months before I heard of his death. I did not know his name, but I heard of the death of L'Angelier. I saw him in Mains Street, aa well as I can recollect, about eleven o'clock, or between ten and eleven. He was standing near a lamp-post at the end of the back lane running from Mains Street. When I came along the point of the square, I turned along Mains Street, and he said, "Cold night, policeman; do you smoke?" I said, "Yes, sir"; and he put his hand in his breast-pocket, and gave me two cigars and passed on. He was then not more than the breadth of this court from the wall of Mr. Smith's house. I saw him again, ten or twelve days after the first time. He was passing along the garden side by the railings on the north side of Blythswood Square, going east towards Regent Street. He was passing opposite 5 and 6 Blythswood Square; he was on the side of the gardens. 5 and 6 Blythswood Square are west of No. 7, and he was going east. I saw him again about a fortnight, or between a fortnight and three weeks, before the time I was first examined before the Fiscal. He was then at the corner of Regent Street and Mains Street, coming towards Blythswood Square. It was early in the night, but I can't positively say when. I should say between nine and ten o'clock. I never saw him again. I cannot swear to the date, but it was about a fortnight or three weeks before I was examined by the Fiscal, which was on 2nd April.

Cross-examined by the Dean of Faculty - I was on my beat on Sunday evening, 22nd March. I did not see him that night. I am quite sure of that.

[End of testimony] [Back to Index of Witnesses]


Jane Scott Perry or Towers, examined by the Lord Advocate - I am a sister of Miss Perry, who lives in Glasgow. I know she was acquainted with L'Angelier. I now live in England, but in March last my husband and I were living at Portobello. I remember L'Angelier coming to pay us a visit. I had seen him a year before. He dined with us on Monday,16th March. He talked almost the whole time about his health. He said something about cocoa and coffee - that he had been getting them, that they disagreed with him, and he had been very ill. He said he was in the habit of taking coffee, but was not accustomed to cocoa. He spoke of more than two occasions on which he had been ill. He remarked that he thought he had been poisoned. This was after telling us of the cocoa and coffee. Nothing was said about who had poisoned him, and no questions were asked. My husband was present. To the Dean of Faculty - One of my daughters, Jemima, might also be in the room. I think Miss Murray had gone, away before that was said. Many circumstances make me sure that it was Monday, 16th March. It was after asking what was the matter with him that he talked of being poisoned.

[End of testimony] [Back to Index of Witnesses]


James Towers, examined by the Lord Advocate - I was living at Brighton Place, Portobello, last March. I knew L'Angelier slightly. I met him once or twice at my Sister-in-law's in Glasgow. I recollect his dining with me one day last March at Portobello. The conversation turned on his health. He said he had had a very violent bilious attack, or jaundice. He did not describe how it affected him. He said he had had two attacks after taking coffee or cocoa, and that on one occasion he fell down in his bedroom, and was unable to go to bed; and that on another attack he was able to creep to the door and knock through to his landlady. He spoke much of this. He said he thought he had been poisoned after taking the cocoa and coffee. I remarked who should poison him, or what object any one could have in poisoning him. I don't recollect if he said anything in reply. He told us he was going back to Glasgow, and thence to Bridge of Allan. He looked tolerably well. From what he said I understood he had taken the coffee on one occasion and cocoa on another, and that on both occasions he had been ill.

Cross-examined by the Dean of Faculty - The day he dined with me was the Monday before his death -the 16th. He appeared in good spirits, and ate heartily. He was of a talkative turn. He spoke of his complaints. and when we asked about Glasgow society he spoke of that; but he spoke a great deal of his own sickness. He was very fond of talking about himself. I thought him a vain person. There was not much vapouring or rash talking on that occasion. I can't say he was a person who spoke much without thinking.

By the Lord Advocate - He did not say from whom he got the cocoa or coffee.

Re-cross-examined by the Dean of Faculty - He said coffee agreed with him, and that he was in the habit of taking it, and that he was not surprised at cocoa not agreeing with him, as he was not accustomed to it.

[End of testimony] [Back to Index of Witnesses]



 Mary Arthur Perry, examined by the Lord Advocate -  I live at 144 Renfrew Street, Glasgow, and I was acquainted with the late M. L'Angelier.  I became acquainted with him about the end of 1853.  We attended the same chapel - St.  Jude's.  About the spring of 1855,  I came to know him intimately; the intimacy went on gradually.  At that time, he heard of his brother's death.  He was in very great distress.  In the early part of that summer he told me he was engaged to Miss Madeleine Smith; and I was aware from him, from that time forward, of the progress of his attachment and correspondence.

In August, 1855, I was introduced to Miss Smith; he brought her to call on me.  After that, I received several letters from her, and I identify the six shown me.  No. 141 is a letter from L'Angelier to me; it is dated "Bridge of Allan, 20th March."   The last paragraph is - "I should have come to see some one last night, but the letter came too late, so we are both disappointed."  I understood that paragraph referred to Miss Smith.

L'Angelier was frequently at my house, and dined with me occasionally.  Down to the beginning of February, 1857, he had generally good health, but during February he seemed not so well as formerly.  In the beginning of February he said he had heard a report of another gentleman paying attentions to Miss Smith.  He said Miss Smith had written him on the subject.  One time she had denied it, and another time she had evaded the question.  This would be some time during February.  He dined with me on 17th February, and told me that day when he next expected to see her - which was to be on the Thursday.  The 17th was a Tuesday.

I did not see him again till 2nd March.  He was looking very ill then.  When he came in he said, "Well, I never expected to have seen you again, I was so ill."   He said he had fallen on the floor, and been unable to ring the bell.  He did not say what day that was, but from circumstances I knew it was 18th February.  He did not tell me he had seen Miss Smith on the 19th.  He told me of having had a cup of chocolate which had made him ill.  He told me of that on 9th March.  He took tea with me on 9th March.  On the 2nd he said he could not attribute his illness to any cause.  On the 9th he said, "I can't think why I was so unwell after getting that coffee and chocolate from her."  I understood he referred to two different occasions; "her" meant Miss Smith.  He was talking about her at the time.  He did not say that the severe illness that came on after the coffee or chocolate was the illness he had referred to on 2nd March, but I understood so.

On 9th March he was talking of his extreme attachment to Miss Smith; he spoke of it as a fascination.  He said, "It is a perfect fascination my attachment to that girl; if she were to poison me I would forgive her."   I said, "you ought not to allow such thoughts to pass through your mind; what motive could she have for giving you anything to hurt you?"  He said, "I don't know that; perhaps she might not be sorry to be rid of me." All this was said in earnest; but I interpreted the expression "to be rid of me" to mean rid of her engagement.  From what he said there seemed to be some suspicion in his mind as to what Miss Smith had given him, but it was not a serious suspicion.  I never saw him again alive.  On the 9th, he spoke of her intended marriage.  He said he had heard she was to be married, but he said he had offered to her, some months before, to discontinue the engagement, but she would not then have it broken.  Some time afterwards she wished him return her letters, and she would return his.  He refused to do this, but offered to return the letters to her father.  That is what he told me.

On 23rd March I received a message -  "M. L'Angelier's compliments; he was very ill at Franklin Place, and he would be very glad if I would call."  That was about ten in the morning.  I went about mid-day, and found he was dead.  I called on Mrs. Smith and intimated his death to her.  I saw Miss Smith, but I did not mention it to her.  She recognised me and shook hands, asked me to go into the drawing room, and if I wished to see her mamma.  She also asked if anything was wrong.  I said I wanted to see her mamma and that I would acquaint her with the object of my visit.

I did not know Mrs. Smith before.  I know Mr. Philpot.  He met M. L'Angelier on 17th February at my house.  He met on another occasion about the same time.  I had a warm affection for M. L'Angelier, and corresponded with him frequently.  I thought him a strictly moral and religious man.  He was a regular attender at church. I was very much agitated by the sudden shock of hearing of his death.  I saw the body, and was very much shocked.

Cross-examined by the Dean of Faculty - I was not at all acquainted with Mr Smith's family.  When L'Angelier brought Miss Smith to see me, I knew the correspondence was clandestine; he told me that when the first engagement was formed he wished to tell her father, but she objected; he then asked her to tell her father herself, but she objected to that also, and he was very much distressed.  I knew that he was not acquainted with her father or mother; he knew her sister.  In August 1855, when she was introduced to me, I knew the engagement had existed for a few weeks, but I don't know how long they had been intimate with each other.  L'Angelier told me he was introduced to Miss Smith at a lady's house - at Mrs. Baird's.  He said he had met her there.  I was aware that their intimacy was disapproved of by the family, and that the engagement was broken off at one time.  In one of the notes she wrote me, she says her mother had become aware of it.

I never knew that her father or mother had abated their dislike of the intimacy.  I wrote, on one occasion, to Miss Smith advising her to mention it to her parents.  I advised M. L'Angelier not to renew the engagement after it was broken till her parents were aware of it.  He said he intended to do so, that he renewed the engagement provisionally, Miss Smith having promised on the first opportunity to make her parents aware of it.  I knew they met clandestinely.  I corresponded with both at the time.

[Shown No.11 of third inventory for the prisoner]  This in a letter which I wrote to L'Angelier, post-mark 7th February, 1857; it is as follows:-

[Shown No. 20] Friday night, no post-mark. The reception I there refer to has no reference to Miss Smith, it refers to a relative of mine who did not fancy him.

[Shown No. 15] This letter has no date, but it was written early last January.
 

Cross examination resumed - The interview refers to Miss Smith.  That I knew was a clandestine interview. . L'Angelier was in the habit of writing to me.  Our correspondence went on for perhaps two years.  Very often my note did not require an answer.  It might be asking him to come to tea or call; latterly we addressed each other by our Christian names. I addressed him by his surname, and he addressed me "Dear Mary" or "My dear Mary" never "Dearest Mary.'  I was first introduced to him by a lady now resident in England - Miss Philpot.  I knew nothing of his relations but what he would tell me.  I knew his mother lived in Jersey; I never inquired what her occupation was. He had two sisters, and a brother who died some time before. I don't know that I ever inquired what his occupation was. I don't think I was in the habit of meeting him in other houses in Glasgow than my own.

 I have said that circumstances enabled me to fix an illness of his on 19th February.  I remember that he said he did not go to the office on a certain day after that, but that he went on the Saturday; that fixed it for a Thursday, and I knew it was not the last Thursday of February.  His second illness was in the last week of February, therefore the first illness was on the 19th.  I did not recollect the 19th when I was first examined, but it was suggested to me by the Fiscal's amanuensis.  I recollect it now, but not from that.  The amanuensis said the 19th was the date, mentioned in his pocket book, of his first illness.  That was on 4th June.  Till he told me, I did not recollect the 19th as the day, but I recalled it some days afterwards.

When I saw L'Angelier on the 2nd March, he described the nature of his illness.  He said he was so ill that he fell on the floor and was unable to call for help till next morning; that it was unlike anything he had ever felt before; that he was conscious, but unable to move.  He spoke of his second illness as a bilious attack or jaundice.

It was before 9th March that he told me of the discontinuance of the engagement; it might have been in the latter part of January or some part of February.  He told me then that some months before, imagining Miss Smith rather cool, he offered to break off the engagement, but he was not anxious to do so.  He said this was some months previous.  She would not accept this.  He said that afterwards she proposed a return of the letters on both sides.  That might be about February.  He said he refused to do that, but that he offered to give the letters to her father.  I did not understand the meaning to be that he threatened to show the letters to her father.  I understood that to be a consent by him to give up the engagement, and he so represented it.   Miss Smith would not accede to that proposal, and the engagement remained unbroken at Miss Smith's desire.  That was on the last occasion that he referred to it.

By the Lord Justice-Clerk - The Sheriff was not present when the Fiscal's clerk suggested the date already mentioned to me.

The Lord Justice-Clerk - It turns out, then, that you were examined by the prosecutor privately, with no Sheriff present to restrain improper interference, and your recollection is corrected by the prosecutor's clerk - a pretty security for testimony brought out in this sort of way.

[End of testimony]   [Back to Who's Who] [Back to Datefile] [Back to Index of Witnesses]


 
S I T E     D I R E C T O R Y   
guestbook/comments/email

[since Sept '97]

     

Copyright © 1997 Jimmy Powdrell Campbell

googlesitemapwizard.com Sitemap Generator