July 20, 1872.] 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
55 
rates. He was in favour of an intermediate central au¬ 
thority to control the local boards, and to act as a 
** buffer” between them and the State. 
Colonel Barttelot having protested vigorously against 
the country being handed over to an army of doctors, 
Mr. Stansfeld defended generally the course. he had 
taken with regard to the Bill, and particularly his selec¬ 
tion of the local authorities. He repudiated any desire 
to override the local authorities, and assured Colonel 
Barttelot that there was no intention of creating a great 
medical hierarchy, though he pointed out to him that 
the assistance of the medical profession was indispensable. 
Mr. Disraeli remarked that the question now was, 
not whether the Government could have passed a more 
complete and comprehensive measure if they had given 
their minds to it at the beginning of the session, but 
whether this Bill would make the sanitary legislation of 
the country more efficient. No candid mind could doubt 
this, and as Mr. Stansfeld’s reasonable concession had 
removed the financial objections to the measure, he ad¬ 
vised the House to pass it at once as a preparatory step. 
Mr. Newdegate and Mr. Read spoke against the Bill, 
and Mr. Henley expressed a decided opinion that the 
ratepayers would not thank the House for what it was 
about, and that the Bill would hang up and stop all 
sanitary improvements until next year.. The House 
then went into Committee, but the Committee immedia¬ 
tely adjourned until Thursday. 
Alleged Poisoning by Arsenic. 
At the Chelmsford Assizes, on Monday, July loth 
Ellen Day Kittel was put on her trial before. Baron 
Martin for the wilful murder of Elizabeth Kittel by 
poisoning her in October last. 
The case for the prosecution was, that on the oth of 
October last year the prisoner gave the deceased some 
beer in a bottle, and immediately after taking it she be¬ 
came very sick, and died on the Tuesday following. The 
pi'isoner was represented to have uttered threats against 
the deceased, and to have told several persons that she 
intended to be married to her husband before the follow¬ 
ing Christmas ; and this was actually carried out, for in 
less than two months after the death of the unfortunate 
woman the prisoner was actually married to him, and 
they were living together at the time the present charge 
of wilful murder was preferred against her. When the 
death took place a coroner’s inquest was held., the father 
of the prisoner being the foreman of the jury, and a 
verdict of “ Natural Death” was returned. A good deal 
of talk, however, appeared to be going on in the neigh¬ 
bourhood in reference to the affair, and the marriage of 
the prisoner with the husband of the deceased so speedily 
after her death, and other circumstances, led to the 
matter being taken up by the authorities, and the result 
was that the body of the deceased was exhumed, and the 
contents of the stomach were sent to Mr. Stephenson, 
Professor of Chemistry at Guy’s Hospital. It was then 
ascertained that a very large quantity of arsenic was 
present in the body, and this poison was no doubt the 
cause of death; and, after a long inquiry by the local 
magistrates, the prisoner was committed to take her trial 
upon the present charge. There did not appear to be 
any doubt that poison was the cause of the death of the 
deceased, and evidence was given that a relative of the 
prisoner’s father was a vermin killer and sheep dresser, 
and that he was constantly in possession of arsenic for 
the purposes of his occupation, and the case for the pro¬ 
secution was that the prisoner had visited him shortly 
before the death of the deceased, and that she could 
have easily obtained possession of poison if she had 
wished to do so. 
The following is the evidence more particularly refer¬ 
ring to the obtaining and detection of the poison: — 
Mr. Cook, a surgeon at Manningtree, proved that he 
was called in to attend the deceased on Sunday, the 9th 
of October, and she complained of vomiting and purging. 
He prescribed for her. She died on the 10th October, 
and witness was examined at the coroner’s inquest. No 
post-mortem examination was made at this time. After 
the body had been exhumed witness made a post-mortem 
examination in conjunction with Dr. Nunn, and he sub¬ 
sequently delivered the stomach, a portion of the bowel, 
and the spleen, liver, and kidneys to Professor Stephen¬ 
son, of Guy’s Hospital. 
Cross-examined—Witness only saw the deceased once. 
She told him that she had been suffering from her liver 
for several years. Witness gave a certificate that she 
died from liver disease, and at the time he certainly, con¬ 
cluded that this was the cause of death. He also believed 
that syncope, occasioned by loss of blood from an accident 
she had sustained in her bedroom, had accelerated her 
death. The deceased made no complaint of having taken 
beer or anything else that had disagreed with her ; but 
she did say that she had been gathering sloes in a field 
and had eaten them. Sloes would very often occasion 
vomiting and purging. Supposing she had not taken 
any poison at all, in the condition of debility in which 
she was on Sunday, the syncope would fully account for 
the death. There was nothing whatever on the Sunday 
to indicate that the deceased had taken poison. He only 
knew by report that the prisoner, at the present time, 
was far advanced in pregnancy. 
Re-examined—The symptoms he observed on the 
Sunday were symptoms of arsenical poisoning, but they 
might' have been produced by other causes. If he had 
been aware that there were as much as five grains of 
arsenic found in the body of the deceased after her death, 
he should have certainly come to a very different opinion 
with regard to the cause of death, and he should not 
have given the certificate he did. 
Mr. Frederick Norman, a farmer, residing at Somers- 
ham, in Suffolk, proved that the prisoner was distantly 
related to him, and she was in the habit of visiting him 
occasionally. She had been at his house to take charge 
of the place during his wife’s confinement, and when.she 
was going away she asked him to give her some, poison 
that he had promised her mother. He had promised her 
mother some poison to kill vermin. He went home with 
the prisoner, and took some arsenic in a bottle. The 
arsenic was mixed with grease, and it was of a brown 
colour. He had got the poison from a person named 
Vincent. It was not mixed at that time, and witness 
mixed it with grease. It was not the same colour as the 
ingredient that was in the bottle now produced. Wit¬ 
ness subsequently gave Fuller, a police-constable, some 
arsenic that he had purchased of a person named Wiggins, 
and he also gave him some grease. 
Cross-examined — He used ttie poison for washing 
sheep. The prisoner usually came to visit him with her 
mother in the spring of every year, and upon one occa¬ 
sion the mother said they were very much troubled with 
mice, and she should like to have some poison. He 
volunteered to make her up some, and did.so, but she 
went away without it. The prisoner told him that hei 
mother wished particularly to have the poison for the 
mice, but he did not give it to her, but took it to the 
house of the prisoner’s father. There was arsemc in the 
stuff he took to them. It was mixed with rough drip¬ 
ping or ham fat, and the jar was labelled 44 1 oison by 
himself. He took no arsenic in powder to the prisoner s 
house: it was all mixed with grease. It was a very 
nasty, offensive mixture. He should not like to have 
used it for cart wheels. 
Vincent was then called, and he proved that he 
had supplied some arsenic to the last witness ; but when 
he did so it was mixed with verdigris. The arsenic was 
supplied by him in the spring of 1871. 
Dr. Nunn, surgeon, of Colchester, proved that when 
the body was exhumed he made a post-mortem examina¬ 
tion, and he discovered traces of arsenical poisoning. 
