POISONING BY STRYCHNINE. 
133 
Dr. Nicholl said lie had always found him an unusually careful dispenser, in com¬ 
parison with many others he knew. 
Mr. Abraham said the prisoner had been two years in his employment, and during 
that time he had been one of the most careful, able, and attentive young men he had 
ever had in his shop. 
His Lordship, in summing up, said that if the jury were of opinion that the death 
of the deceased was caused by an accident that might have happened to any careful 
and attentive man, it would be their duty to acquit the prisoner. According to the 
analysis of the very scientific gentleman (Dr. Edwards) who has been called before 
you, and who gave his evidence with a clearness and scientific precision which ap¬ 
peared to me extremely deserving of praise—if James’s powder had been present, it 
would have been inevitable that antimony would have been discovered, and there was 
none. Dover’s powder was to a certain extent traceable, because there was that which 
indicated the presence of opium. Therefore it is suggested that strychnine was sub¬ 
stituted by mistake for James’s powder, the strychnine bottle being in most dangei’ous 
proximity to the James’s powder. It was to be regretted that the arrangement since 
made by the firm of Clay and Abraham with respect to their drugs and poisons had 
not been made before the death of the deceased, as in that case the accident would 
never have occurred. 
The jury, after consulting together about five minutes, returned a verdict of “ Hot 
guilty,” and the prisoner was immediately discharged. 
CASE OF POISONING BY STRYCHNINE.—ACTION AGAINST THE 
CHEMISTS FOR DAMAGES. 
LIVERPOOL ASSIZES.—NISI PRIUS COURT, AUGUST 17.— (PEEORE MR. BARON PIGOTT.) 
Lingard, Administratrix, v . Clay and Abraham. 
This was a special jury cause, brought under Lord Campbell’s Act, for the recovery 
of damages. The circumstances which were the cause of action have excited consi¬ 
derable attention, and gave rise to a trial for manslaughter during the present assizes. 
—Mr. Attorney-General James, Q.C., Mr. Aspinall, Q.C., and Mr. Samuell, were re¬ 
tained for the plaintiff; Mr. Temple, Q.C., and Mr. Quain, were counsels lor the de¬ 
fence. 
When the cause was called on, 
Mr. Attorney-General James, addressing his Lordship, said—We are going to take a 
verdict, my Lord, for £1500. 
His Lordship.—A verdict by consent, is it ? 
The Attorney-General.—If your Lordship will wait for one moment, it is necessary 
to say a few words. The action is brought under Lord Campbell’s Act, and as there 
must be an apportionment, no doubt the jury will take what we suggest. The verdict 
will be for £1500; £500 to the widow, and £500 each to the two younger children. 
The eldest child comes in for some property by the death of the father. 
His Lordship.—You must give the eldest child something. 
The Attorney-General.—Yes, my Lord, we will give him, say, £1 ; though I don’t 
know that it is necessary. 
His Lordship.—Well, I thought that he had sustained some injury. 
The Attorney-General.—Well, say a shilling to the other ; then the verdict will be 
for £1500. Is. 
Mr. Temple.—Now, my Lord, this was an action brought by the administratrix of 
a person who met with his death in consequence of a person in the employ of the de¬ 
fendants, who are eminent chemists in this town, having unfortunately mixed strych¬ 
nine, instead of James’s Powder, with the medicine that had to be administered. 
Now, I was prepared with a large body of evidence, comprising nearly all the most 
eminent physicians and surgeons in this town, and also a great number of chemists 
from different parts of the country—amongst the rest, from the chemists of Her Ma¬ 
jesty, who have dispensed the medicines of the Royal lamily for the last thirty years 
—for the purpose of making out that, although this sad mischance had taken place, 
