529 
ACCIDENTAL POISONING EY ACONITE. 
of henbane. It was suggested that the mistake had arisen in this wayTwo bottles 
had been sent by the deceased to be refilled, one with a liniment, the other with hen¬ 
bane. Now, on fonner occasions aconite had been sent for as a liniment, and it was 
suggested that on this occasion, supposing that the liniment wanted was aconite, he had 
sent aconite, and had, moreover, put it into the bottle which ought to have contained 
the henbane, putting the henbane into the bottle which was meant for the liniment, and 
which was marked “ for outward application only,” in consequence of which the deceased 
took the aconite instead of the henbane, taking it out of the bottle which ought to have 
contained it, and which was marked with a label—“ Tincture of henbane, 30 drops at a 
time.” The two mixtures appeared to be somewhat of the same general kind of colour, 
especially at candle light, and so they could only be distinguished to the eye by the 
labels upon the bottles, although there are differences of colour, taste, and smell. On 
the other hand, the two bottles were of very different size and shape, the smaller one, 
which ought to have contained the aconite, being only about a quarter of the size of the 
other. This was the main circumstance relied upon by the prosecution as proof of cul¬ 
pable carelessness; but, on the other hand, it was stated by the assistant that the bottle 
marked for henbane was not one which had been originally sent out from the defen¬ 
dant’s shop, or would have been sent for such a purpose; and although it might have 
been backwards and forwards to the shop for henbane, it might or might not have been 
seen by the defendant before. It bore upon it, however, it will be observed, a label dis¬ 
tinctly indicating that it was intended to contain “ tincture of henbane. It came out 
that the deceased was also in the habit of sending for aconite, but in a smaller bottle 
marked “ Poison ; for outward application only,” and this, again, was quite a different 
form of bottle from that sent for the liniment on this occasion, being a round bottle, 
whereas the bottle sent for liniment on the present occasion was square. The main 
o-round of defence suggested on cross-examination was that the unfortunate deceased 
had sent bottles different in form and shape from those which the prisoner himself was ac¬ 
customed to use for the respective drugs supplied (both being white), and that this 
had misled him. It was stated that he was very careful in using a totally different sort 
of bottle for outward applications—a bottle made of glass, blue in colour, and fluted 
in structure, so as to be easily distinguishable either by the eye or the touch in any 
light, or in the dark in case it was used at night. Novv, it was urged that but for 
the strict orders of the deceased to send the tinctures in his own bottles, this blue 
fluted bottle would have been used on this occasion to contain the aconite, and would 
thus have been easily distinguishable in any light. The last time aconite was supplied 
to the deceased by the prisoner was in April; the particular occasion now in question 
was in August; and a bottle was produced in which it was probably supplied bearing 
the prisoner’s name, and labelled “aconite, for outward application ” and this was on 
the one hand, of white and smooth glass, and so quite different from the bottles used by 
the prisoner for such mixtures, and, on the other hand, being round instead of flat in 
form, and being much smaller than the large flat bottle sent for the liniment, was quite 
different and easily distinguishable therefrom. And upon this fact, as already men¬ 
tioned, the case for the prosecution mainly rested. 
Dr Phillips the medical man. who was called in and made the post 71101 tern examina- 
tion, stated that aconite paralysed the heart; that thirty drops would fatally paralyse 
it and cause death; and that the death here was owing to paralysis of the heart, or 
stoppage of its action. It was stated that the prisoner, when he was applied to and 
shown the bottles, appeared to perceive that he had made an unfortunate mistake, took 
all the blame upon himself, and showed great distress of mmd—indeed, he very nearly 
fainted. It was stated that for thirty years he had dispensed medicines, and that no com¬ 
plaint or accident had been heard of before ; and his general repute was that of a most 
able and careful practitioner. It was elicited from the medical witness that if he had 
not heard anything about aconite, the state of the heart itself was quite sufficient to ac¬ 
count for death, its disease being such that death might occur at any moment; and the 
examination having been directed chiefly to the heart alone as the seat of the actual 
cause of death actual traces of the presence of aconite in the system (which, it appears, 
it is difficult to discover) were not detected ; and the defence was partly grounded upon 
the doubt as to the actual cause of death being the aconite or the disease; and the medi¬ 
cal witness being pressed as to whether he could positively say that the aconite had any¬ 
thing to do with the death, he stated that he could not positively say that it had, though 
