m 



ANNUAL REGISTER, 1812. 



1809 ; and also for poisoning a 

 horse belonging to sir F. Standish, 

 and another belonging to lord 

 Foley, in 1811, at the same place. 

 He was tried and convicted on the 

 first case only. 



The principal witness, as on the 

 former trial, was Cecil Bishop, an 

 accomplice with the prisoner. He 

 had been for some time acquainted 

 with Dawson, and on application 

 to him had furnished him with 

 corrosive sublimate to sicken 

 horses. He went on to prove that 

 Dawson and lie had become pro- 

 gressively acquainted, and that on 

 the prisoner complaining the stuff 

 was not strong euough,he prepared 

 him a solution of arsenic. Wit- 

 ness described this as not offensive 

 in smell ; the prisoner having in- 

 formed him that the horses had 

 thrown up their heads, and refused 

 to partake of the water into which 

 the corrosive sublimate had been 

 infused. The prisoner complained 

 the stuff was not strong enough; 

 and on being informed if it was 

 made strong it would kill the 

 horses, he replied he did not mind 

 that, the Newmarket frequenters 

 were rogues, and if he, meaning 

 witness, had a fortune to lose, 

 they Avould plunder him of it. 

 The prisoner afterwards informed 

 witness he used the stuff, whicli 

 was then strong enough, as it had 

 killed a hackney and two brood 

 mares. 



Mrs. Tillbrook, a housekeeper 

 at Newmarket, where the prisoner 

 lodged, proved having found a 

 bottle of liquid concealed under 

 Dawson's bed, previous to the 

 horses having been poisoned ; and 

 that Dawson was out late on the 

 Saturday and Sunday evenings pre- 



vious to that event, which look 

 place on the Monday. After Daw- 

 son had left the house, she found 

 the bottle, which she identified as 

 having contained the said liquid, 

 and which a chemist proved to have 

 contained poison. Witness also 

 proved that Dawson had cautioned 

 her that he had poison in the 

 house for some dogs, lest any one 

 should have the curiosit)' to taste 

 it. Other witnesses proved a chain 

 of circumstances which left no 

 doubt of the prisoner's guilt. 



Mr. King, for the prisoner, took 

 a legal objection, that no criminal 

 offence had been committed, and 

 that the subject was a matter of 

 trespass. He contended, that the in- 

 dictment must fall, as it was neces- 

 sary to prove that the prisoner had 

 malice against the owner of the 

 horse, to impoverish him, and not 

 against the animal. He also con- 

 tended that the object of the pri- 

 soner was to injure and not to kill. 

 The objections, however, were 

 over-ruled without reply, and the 

 prisoner was convicted. 



The judge pronounced sentence 

 of death on the prisoner, and in- 

 formed him, in strong language, he 

 could not expect mercy to be ex- 

 tended to him. 



^6. At York assizes, Elizabeth 

 Woodger and Susannah Lyall were 

 charged with the wilful murder of 

 a new-born male infant. The 

 following is a brief but correct 

 sketch of this extraordinary case: 

 — On the 12th of March, the wife 

 of G. Needham, of Blackburn, 

 near Rotherham, was delivered of 

 two children, a girl and a boy ; 

 the former was perfectly formed, 

 but in the boy there was a defi- 

 ciency in the superior part of 



the 



