80 
TRIAL OF DR. PRITCHARD. 
necl. He had no suspicion of antimony in Mrs. Taylor’s case, but he now believed her 
eatn had been caused by opium and antimony. A less dose of opium would have a 
greater effect, seeing the patient was previously under the influence of antimony. The 
effect would be much more rapid if aconite were also combined. 
Evidence was then taken to show that the prisoner’s banking account was overdrawn, 
and that he had obtained advances on his life policy to the amount of £225. Also, that 
£3000 was held by trustees for the sole behoof of Mrs. Taylor, who had recently desired 
to give £500 to assist Dr. Pritchard in the purchase of a house, to which the trustees 
had assented. 
John M'Millan, assistant to Murdoch, Brothers, deposed to having filled a bottle with 
Battley s solution, for Mary M‘Leod, on the 28th of February. The purchase of the 
solution by Murdoch, Brothers, was proved by Mr. Barron, of Barron, Harveys, and Co., 
wholesale druggists, London, and by Mr. Watts, of Battley and Watts, proprietors of the 
recipe. 1 he last-mentioned witness declined to state the exact composition of the solu¬ 
tion, but said it was a watery solution of opium, and contained neither antimony nor 
aconite, nor any other poisonous ingredient, except opium. The prisoner’s declarations 
were then read, in which he affirmed that he never administered antimony either to his 
whe or to Mrs. Taylor, nor any other substance calculated to injure or destroy life. This 
conciucted the case for the prosecution. The evidence for the defence lasted only an hour 
ana a halt, and there was no attempt to rebut the medical evidence for the Crown. 
John bunpson, druggist, of Duncan, Flockhart, and Co., of Edinburgh, spoke to fre¬ 
quent purchases of Battley’s solution having been made from them in Dr. Pritchard’s 
name by a person in Mr. Taylor’s employment. In their retail trade they dispensed not 
less than eighty ounces of Fleming’s tincture of aconite in one year. Witness had fre¬ 
quently made up mixtures containing half an ounce. He would not consider it unusual 
toi a medical man to purchase an ounce at a time. In cross-examination witness said 
there was neither antimony nor aconite in the Battley’s solution they sold, and that it 
was quite impossible they could get into it, even by accident. In reply to the Court, he 
said the mixture with aconite he spoke of was principally used for heart disease, and 
tnat one or two drops of aconite were a dose. 
. Thomas Fairgrieve, dispensing chemist, Edinburgh, also deponed to Mr. Tavlor hav¬ 
ing made frequent purchases of Battley’s solution from him. Sold not less than fifty 
ounces or tincture or aconite in one year. It was generally made up as a liniment, and 
in that form he had made up prescriptions containing two fluid ounces of it. In cross- 
examination, witness said it was not common to sell it unmixed to medical mem 
though he had done so. He did not think he had ever sold it for experiments in the 
laboiatory. Less antimony was sold now since croton oil came into use, but there was 
scarcely a day tnat antimony was not ordered in some shape or other,—sometimes in the 
s lape of tarmr emetic dissolved in wine. He might sell one or two ounces in the course 
of a year in addition to large quantities mixed with lard sold to veterinary surgeons 
lhe quantity in a prescription for internal use was generally small. 
James Thomson formerly in Mr. Taylor’s employment, deponed to having purchased 
die le?t foTGlasgo^ qUent J ^ Tayl ° r ‘ The last occasion was the night before 
The Solicitor-General said it was his duty, on the evidence they had heard, to press 
gainst toe prisoner two acts of wilful murder, committed deliberately aud with much 
ciueityou two defenceless women,—the mother being sacrificed while tenderly watchina 
over her child on whom he was practising his nefarious and subtle arts, urging her slowly 
in sure y 0 £ rav ®- E- e pointed out, in careful detail, the circumstances which he 
held showed tnat the deaths were not attributable to accident or suicide, but were directly 
o°uilt^ raCed t0 thC gUllty tand of the P ris oner. He concluded by asking a verdict of 
Mr. Clark addressed the jury for the prisoner, pointing out the horrible and incredible 
nature ot the crime imputed to a member of an honourable profession, and contended 
lat t iere was an absence or all reasonable motive for the crime,- he also commented on 
tne omission of the Crown to ask Mary M‘Leod whether or not her hand had adminis- 
eie t e poison He a*so remarked that Dr. Pritchard had not prevented, but encour¬ 
aged his wife getting a nurse and medical advice, and showed that the prisoner had 
taken no steps to keep people away who might have the means of watching him. He 
concluded by a pathetic appeal for a verdict of acquittal. 
