ACCIDENTAL POISONING. 
131 
•counter. There were five rows of bottles in an upright position, forming part of the 
dispensing counter, and in front of the dispenser. These bottles were in constant use, 
and they had no other bottles containing strychnine in the whole shop. The bottles 
were alphabetically arranged. The bottle between the strychnine bottle and the 
James’s powder bottle contained Savine powder. When the lotion and the powder 
had been made up, it was placed by the dispenser on a till. Witness then took out the 
•cork, examined the lotion, and found it correct. Tie next took the powder out of the 
wrapper, smelled at it, and being satisfied with it, he gave them both to Miss Witter. 
He could detect the Dover’s powder by the smell; he did not look at the powder ; the 
James’s powder had no smell; neither had strychnine any smell. 
Cross-examined by Mr. Liddell.—The bottles on this shelf had been rearranged 
since the 11th of April. That had been done in consequence of the presentment 
made by the coroner’s jury. He was Messrs. Clay and Abraham’s senior assistant. 
It was Mr. Knowles’s duty to arrange the bottles in that part of the shop, and also to 
put the drugs into the bottles. James’s powder was very frequently used. James’s 
powder and strychnine were so alike in colour that had he opened the powder he 
would not have known the difference, but he could have detected it by the taste. 
His Lordship.—But I suppose you are not in the habit of tasting the strychnine? 
(Laughter.) 
Witness.—Ho, my Lord. (Renewed laughter.) 
Cross-examination continued.—Prisoner had been two years in the employment 
of Messrs. Clay and Abraham. For some years previously he had been with a che¬ 
mist at Southport. Witness had always found him very careful and attentive to his 
duties. 
Richard Knowles, late assistant at Messrs. Clay and Abraham’s shop, said the 
strychnine was kept at that establishment in a pulverized state. He had not examined 
the shelves on the 11th of April; but he did so the day previously, when he found 
they were in their right places. He was of opinion they were arranged in their proper 
order on the 11th of April. 
Mr. Wliitton was here recalled, and, in answer to Mr. Liddell, said that when he 
asked the prisoner what bottles he had made up the powder from, he pointed to the 
James’s powder bottle and the Dover’s powder bottle. 
This was the case for the prosecution. 
The Hon. Mr. Liddell, Q.C., then proceeded to address the jury on the prisoner’s 
behalf. He said he was not going to deny that the deceased died from strychnine, for 
that would be utterly useless in the face of the evidence adduced. But there were two 
points to which he intended to address himself: one was, w T hether the strychnine was 
contained in the powder which the prisoner dispensed ; and the second was, whether 
that powder, if so dispensed, was issued by him, and whether that issue was the result 
of gross and culpable negligence on his part. As to the point whether that powder 
was the powder which the prisoner dispensed, it was not for him to disprove, but for 
the prosecution to prove. Therefore, he had not any remarks to make upon that. 
There was one very curious thing in the case, that though the attention of the medical 
men were called to the deceased in a quarter of an hour after the powder was taken, 
no search ever appeared to have been made for that paper in which the powder was 
contained, and not one tittle of evidence had been given to show what had become of 
it. The only scientific evidence that the prosecutors could bring before the jury to 
show them that strychnine was taken from the powder dispensed by the prisoner was, 
that they found traces of an acid called meconic acid. He did not say it was impossi¬ 
ble to discover even a minute portion of such an acid as that, but he did say this, and 
he thought the jury would agree with him, that supposing this was a question of 
poisoning by opium, and that the evidence had been that a small discoloration took 
place, caused by so small a quantity that figures would not represent it, they would 
have to pause well before they arrived at their verdict. It was remarkable that the 
deceased had taken strychnine before that date, and it had not been shown them when 
he discontinued taking it. He would now pass on to deal with what he considered 
was the real and substantial evidence on behalf of his client. His learned friend, in 
his opening remarks, said that in order to bring the evidence home against the pri¬ 
soner, they must make out a case against him of gross and culpable negligence. He 
