506 
ACCIDENTAL  POISONING. 
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  strych- 
nine were  so  alike  in  color  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. — No,  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  chemist  at  Southport. 
Witness  had  always  found  him  very  careful  and  attentive  to  his 
duties. 
Bichard  Knowles,  late  assistant  at  Messrs.  Clay  and  Abra- 
ham'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  wTas  of  opinion  they  were 
arranged  in  their  proper  order  on  the  11th  of  April. 
Mr.  Whitton  was  here  recalled,  and,  in  answer  to  Mr.  Lid- 
dell,  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,  whether  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 
