THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
[August »G, 1871. 
37G 
her carbonate of potash or salts of tartar. According 
to his evidence, he gave her only half an ounce, and 
there were no questions asked nor directions given as to 
the mode or quantity in which it should be taken. The 
woman said that she took a spoonful of it in water, and 
it caused her violent vomitiDg and great pain. There 
was no doubt that it did for the time cause great de¬ 
pression and prostration, but according to the medical 
evidence, it caused her no serious injury. A day or two 
after she went to Mr. Downes, the defendant, and de¬ 
clared she had suffered severely, and claimed compensa¬ 
tion. Mr. Downe3 said ho could see no symptoms of 
injury, and that, as she had thrown it off, it could do 
her no further harm, and that he would give her some 
medicine to counteract it. Soon afterwards, however, 
an attorney’s clerk, who lodged in her house, came to 
Mr. Downes to claim compensation. Mr. Downes said, 
if he found she had sustained any damage, he would com¬ 
pensate her; and subsequently, in order to avoid the vexa¬ 
tion of an action, offered to pay as much as £40 or £50, 
but in vain. A writ was issued and an action brought. 
It appeared that the attorney’s clerk entertained san¬ 
guine expectations of the fruits of the action, and 
even the sum of £200 was mentioned as the probable 
amount of damages. The woman gave evidence as a 
witness, and was supported by her daughter. According 
to her story she had been quite laid up; there were 
serious symptoms, and even paralysis spoken of as im¬ 
minent. For the defence medical witnesses who had 
examined the woman were called, and their evidence 
showed that there was no real injury. 
After a long trial the learned Baron in summing up 
said, if the assistant had understood the woman as asking 
for Rochelle salts, and had given her the carbonate of 
potash for it, or if he had not taken care to ascertain 
what it was she wanted, the defendant would be liable; 
but if he gave her what she asked for, then, as she did 
not ask for directions about its use (though it would 
have been better to have given them), the defendant 
was not liable. Even, however, though the jury found 
for the plaintiff, there would remain the question of 
damages, as to which the learned judge observed there 
were many circumstances which required consideration ; 
the case must be looked at as a whole; and there was 
strong evidence of undoubted witnesses that the woman 
had sustained no real injury at all. Moreover, there 
was great reason to suspect that it was the attorney’s 
clerk, rather than the woman, who was interested in the 
action. 
The jury, after a brief consultation, gave a verdict for 
the plaintiff for one farthing .—Clcrkemvcll News. 
Alleged Attempt to Poison by a Lady. 
At Brighton, on Friday, August 18, Christiana Ed¬ 
munds was charged before the magistrates, with at¬ 
tempting to administer poison to Emily Beard, with 
intent to commit murder. 
It was stated that recently parcels containing poisoned 
cakes had been sent to several private families in the 
town. In each case the parcel was forwarded anony¬ 
mously and was prepaid; the contents were gene¬ 
rally similar, and the handwriting appeared the same. 
Among the persons who said that they had received such 
parcels was the prisoner. A reward was offered for the 
detection of the offender, and eventually the prisoner 
was apprehended. The accused is the lady who, at the 
inquiry into the cause of death of a boy after eating 
some chocolate creams,* deposed that she had been 
made ill by eating creams purchased at the same shop, 
and had consequently had them analysed, when they 
were found to contain poison. 
Mrs. Emily Beard, wife of Dr. Beard, deposed that on 
Thursday in the previous week she had received a parcel 
* See ante, p. 17. 
by rail, which upon opening she foimd to contain some 
cakes, preserved fruits and gingerbread nuts, and a note 
saying that the cakes were for the children, but that 
some packed up separately were flavoured for herself. 
She believed that ono cake was wrapped up in the note 
itself. On cutting it through, she noticed something 
white in the middle which looked like unbaked flour. 
She sent it all away by the servant, and afterwards two 
of the servants, Emily Haggett and Margaret Knight, 
were taken ill. She had known the accused five or six 
years. About a year ago while visiting her, Miss Edmunds 
had taken some chocolate creams from her pocket, say¬ 
ing she had brought them for the children, and placed 
one in witness’s mouth. It had a very unpleasant, cold, 
metallic flavour, and witness went out of the room and 
spat the whole of it out, but notwithstanding saliva 
continued to run from her mouth the whole of the night, 
and she was unwell from diarrhoea the next day. 
Dr. Beard said that he had received several letters, 
from the prisoner, ono of which was afterwards read. 
It contained several allusions to the analysis she had 
obtained, and the evidence given by her at the inquest. 
Dr. Beard said the prisoner had been in the habit of 
writing to him for about a year. He had told the pri¬ 
soner that she must not continue to do so. In con¬ 
sequence of the prisoner expressing a wish that the in¬ 
timacy with his family, which had been broken off 
after the chocolate affair, should be renewed, he had ob- 
j ected, on the ground that he feared she had attempted to- 
poison his wife. This charge, however, under threat of 
an action, he had been obliged to withdraw, because he 
felt ho could prove nothing, and he knew his wife would 
be on her guard. 
Isaac G-arrett said: I am a chemist carrying on busi¬ 
ness in the Queen’s Road. On the Sth of June a boy 
brought to me the following note in a sealed envelope :— 
“ Messrs. Glaisyer and Kemp will be much obliged if' 
Mr. Garrett could supply them with a little strychnia. 
They are in immediate want of half an ounce, or if not 
able a smaller quantity will do. Will Mr. Garrett send 
it in a bottle and sealed up. The bearer can be safely 
trusted with it. 
“ Glaisyer and Kemp, 11, 12, North Street.” 
I questioned the boy, but refused to send the strych¬ 
nia without] an’ order from the firm. I also told him I 
could not supply them with the quantity they required, 
as I only had a drachm. The boy returned within am 
hour, with the following order sealed up in an envelope, 
in which 25. 6cl. was enclosed to pay for the strychnia :— 
“ Messrs. Glaisyer and Kemp will be quite satisfied 
with a drachm of strychnia till their own arrives, and 
thank Mr. Garrett for supplying them. Their signa¬ 
ture has always been sufficient before in their business, 
transactions. Should Mr. Garrett feel the least hesita¬ 
tion in supplying them, they must apply elsewhere. 
“Glaisyer and Kemp, 11 and 12, North Street.” 
Accompanying this was the following order:— 
“ One drachm strychnia, for Glaisyer and Kemp, Che¬ 
mists, 11 and 12, Forth Street, June 8th, 71.” 
I thereupon put the strychnia into a small bottle, 
sealed the cork down, labelled it “poison,” addressed it 
to Messrs. Glaisyer and Kemp, and gave it to the boy.. 
The Is. id. change I wrapped up with the bottle. 
Two or three days previous to the 19th of July I re¬ 
ceived the following letter, contained in a sealed enve¬ 
lope. It was not brought by the same boy who came 
with the note purporting to come from Messrs. Glaisyer 
and Kemp :— 
“ Ship Street , July , 1871. 
“ Sir,—I shall bo much obliged if you will allow me- 
the loan of the book wherein you register the poisonous 
drugs you sell. It is merely in furtherance of an inquiry 
I am making as to the sale of certain poisons, and bears 
no reference to anything you have sold or any irregu- 
j larity in the selling, but only to aid me in my investiga¬ 
tion. You will tie up your book and send it at once by 
