348 KINGSCLERE 



Brighton, and was tried at the Cambridge Assizes in the 

 month of July, 1812. The prisoner was arraigned on an 

 indictment with numerous counts — viz., for poisoning a 

 horse belonging to Mr. Adams, of Royston, Herts, and a 

 blood mare belonging to Mr. Northey, at Newmarket, in 

 1 809 ; and also for poisoning a horse belonging to Sir 

 F. Standish, and another belonging to Lord Foley, in 

 181 1, at the same place. He was tried and convicted on 

 the first case only. The principal witness was Cecil Bishop, 

 an accomplice with the prisoner. He had been for some 

 time acquainted with Dawson, and on application had 

 furnished him with corrosive sublimate to sicken horses. 

 On the prisoner complaining that the stuff was not strong 

 enough, he prepared him a solution of arsenic. Witness 

 described this as not offensive in smell — the prisoner 

 having informed 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 said, 

 in reply to the assurance that if the stuff was made strong 

 it would kill the horses, he did not mind. The Newmarket 

 frequenters were all rogues, and if he, meaning witness, 

 had a fortune to lose, they would plunder him of it. The 

 prisoner afterwards informed witness he used the stuff, 

 which 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 previous to 

 that event, which took place on the Monday. After Dawson 

 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 anyone should have the curiosity 

 to taste it. Other witnesses proved a chain of circum- 

 stances 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 indict- 

 ment must fall, as it was necessary to prove that the 

 prisoner had malice against the owner of the horse, to 

 impoverish him, and not against the animal. He also con- 



