MISCELLANEA. 
137 
He found her livid in the countenance, breathing irregularly, with froth at her mouth, and 
in a profuse perspiration. He tried to rouse her, but she was perfectly insensible. The 
pupils of her eyes were contracted and her limbs drawn up, but without any twitching. 
He turned her, w r ith a view to alleviate the symptoms, and the lividity of the counte¬ 
nance disappeared to a considerable extent. He tried to administer a little brandy and 
water, but the deceased could not swallow it. He had a consultation with Mr. Stubbs 
and Mr. Long, -who were called in soon after him, and they did not think it advisable to 
apply the stomach-pump, because her breathing was so irregular,bthat the introduction of 
the tube might produce suffocation, and also because so long after taking a narcotic it 
•would be useless. 
Dr. J. B. Edwards deposed that he had made an analysis of the contents of the 
stomach of the deceased, and he had discovered, after purification from animal matter, 
the presence of meconic acid and of morphia—constituents of opium. The reactions 
indicated that a large dose of opium had been taken. He had also examined a bottle 
labelled “black-draught,” and now produced. From the odour of the phial he had no 
hesitation in stating that it had contained laudanum or tincture of opium, but it did 
not contain sufficient for a chemical analysis. The cork of the bottle was free from the 
odour of the essential and aromatic oils which are usually present in black-draughts, 
and from the odour he should be of opinion that the bottle had contained laudanum 
only. 
Mr. Pearson stated that he remembered the witness Iliffe coming to his shop and 
asking for a black-draught. He conscientiously believed at the time that he was giving 
a black-draught; but it was possible, owing to the confused state of the shop, that the 
bottle containing the black-draught might have been removed, and the bottle containing 
the laudanum put by accident in its place. He deeply regretted if, by an unfortunate 
accident, he had been the cause of the lady’s death. 
The Coroner, in summing up, stated that after the evidence of Mr. Hamilton and 
Dr. Edw r ards, there could be no doubt that death had been caused by poison, and if the 
jury believed that Mr. Pearson had negligently supplied a wrong draught, they must 
find a verdict of manslaughter against him ; but if they considered it was an accident, 
and there w r as no want of caution on his part, they would then return a verdict that the 
deceased was accidentally poisoned. 
The jury returned the following verdict:—“ That the deceased had died from the effects 
of a deadly poison called opium, carelessly dispensed by Edward Pearson, chemistand 
added, that they considered Mr. Pearson was deserving of censure for not having looked 
closely to the label on the bottle from which the draught was taken. 
Accidental Poisoning' by Burnett's XHsinfecting Fluid.—On Saturday 
morning, May 23rd, Mrs. Wood, aged twenty-one, the wife of Captain Thomas Pat- 
teson Wood, late of the 29th Regiment of Foot, requested her maid to give her some 
of Dinneford’s Fluid Magnesia, which she had been in the habit of taking. The bottle 
containing the magnesia stood on a shelf with several other bottles, and the maid unfortu¬ 
nately took one that resembled it, but containing “Burnett’s Disinfecting Fluid,” some 
of -which she poured out and gave to her mistress. Immediately on swallowing it, Mrs. 
Wood remarked that she experienced a hot burning sensation such as she had never felt 
before. This induced the maid to examine the bottle when she discovered the mistake. 
It was not at first thought seriously of, and some simple antidotes were resorted to. The 
unpleasant symptoms, however, increased, and two medical men were sent for, by whom 
the usual remedies were resorted to, but without success ; and after suffering great pain 
and sickness, Mrs. Wood expired about midnight on Sunday. An inquest was held on 
the following Tuesday, when the jury returned a verdict of “Accidental poisoning,” ac¬ 
companied -with a strong expression of disapprobation that a mixture of such a nature 
should be sold without being distinctly labelled as poison, and the coroner w r as requested 
to communicate the presentment to the agents for the sale of “ Burnett’s Disinfecting 
Fluid.” 
This sad case has been quickly followed by another death from the same poison. On 
Monday morning, June 29th, an inquest was held at the Bricklayers’ Arms Inn, Croydon, 
before Mr. Carter, coroner for East Surrey, and a jury, touching the death of Emily 
Evans, 17 years of age, the daughter of Mr. J. Evans, who died on Friday, June 26th, 
from the effects of “Sir William Burnett’s Patent Disinfecting Fluid,” which was given 
to her at her own request by her little brother, aged seven years. It appeared from the 
