THE BRAVO MYSTERY.

Evening Star, Issue 4243, 2 October 1876, Page 3

THE BRAVO MYSTERY.

This case, some particulars of which appeared in our columns, had created the greatest interest at Home during the month preceding the departure of the mail. In April last - an inqaest was held on the body of Mr Clsarles Uelauney Turner Bravo, of the Priory, Balham, who died nnder circumstances which raised the suspicion that the dece used had been poisoned. The jury retoimed an open verdict, but further inquiries having been made, the Government took steps which resulted in the Court of Queen’s Ben ch granting a rule calling upon the Coroner to re-open the inquiry. The second inquest i ras commenced on the 10th July, and dnrin,g- its progress some extraordinary revelatioi is, affecting the reputation of the deceased’s’ widow, were made. The facts shortly stated are these:—Mr Bravo, a clever but greedy young mm, had made up his mind, to marry for money. He kept a mistress in the couiatry, but he was too selfish to many her. Mrs Ricardo, an accomplished widow of damaged reputation, but with, a considerable fortune, was not adverse to take a husband who would restore her to, society. They met, and exchanged civilities. He confessed to his youthful pecand she returned the confidence by telling him that she had gone wrong with an old lover of sixty-five, are affair which had resulted in a miscarriage. This did not diminish his fondness for her money. He imrposed silence on her, as he was afraid that bis mother, or stepfather, from whom he hari. expectations, might interpose to break off the match. The wedding came off, and within a few weeks after there was another miscarriage. He found that his wife occasionally got the worse of drink, and that although she had money, she liked to have the sp« nding of it herself, and was moreover in del*!. Other petty annoyances, such as an anonymous letter, telling him that he had married a cast-off mistress for money, followed, and some quarrellin.| ensued. On one occasion, he struck her, ami on another he put on his hat and walked c ff, with a threat that he would not return. She had yet another miscarriage, and art angement* had been made for her going to the seaside for the benefit of her health. On the day when the house was taken, he muttered something to the effect that he should never see it, and within two hours afterwards he was suffering from poison, andin three days he was dead. A cable telegram, dated August 12, announced that a verdiict of wilful murder had been returned, but that the jury had been unable to fix the guilt upon any particular person. We extract from the narrative published from day to day in the ‘ Hour,’ the following account of the proceedings up to August 3 !

On July 14, Sjlr William Gull minutely detaUed the particulars of his own connection with the case. On arrival at The Priory he found Mr Bravo in bed and pulseless, but mentality coherent. Sir William said to him after an. examination, “This is not disease; you are poisoned, or dying of poison. Pray tell us how you came by it,” to which Mr Bravo replied, “I took it myself,” Sir William th en urged him most solemnly to tell the doctors what it was, as if they knew the poison they might be able to suggest an antidote* But after Sir William Gull had made* this remark to him he checked himself, us ho did not consider it fair to press a dying man. At the close of Sir William GuSi’s examination. Professor Redwood was called. He said that he had been professor of chetkistry to the Pharmaceutical Society for 'of 30‘years- This gentleman’s evidence was of the most interesting nature,

A&d he detailed circumstantially the various bottles and jars he had received containing substances for analysis in the Bravo case. He produced a small quantity of the vomited matter preserved in spirits* also several porcelain saucers stained with _ the antimony, the result of his experiments, and these things were handed round for the inspection of |the jury and. court. In testing the other substances antimony was also discovered. Professor Redwood had subsequently received part of the liver of the dead man, and also the digestive organs, from Dr Payne. This was on the 23rd May. There were on analyses distinct evidence of antimony in the liver, but not in tbe other organs. The coroner asked the witness if the quantity of antimony found in the various articles he had analysed was sufficient to account for the death of Mr Bravo, to which the professor replied, “Certainly it was.” That found in the vomit itself represented ten grains of tartar emetic, and the whole amount traced could not have represented above a third part of that originally taken by the deceased. The witness next explained the effect of antimony on the human system, and said that it had frequently been used in murder eases as a slow poison on account of its depressing effects. On July 20 George Griffiths was called. He said he was a private coachmau, at present in the service of Lady Prescott, of Stroud Park, Heme Bay. He was living as coachman with Mrs Ricardo before she married Mr Bravo. He left her service on the 3rd of Jauuary of the present year, having entered it in May of the preceding year. She then kept three horses, viz., a brougham horse and two cobs. He had been in the habit of giving the horses tartar emetic. He bought it sometimes at Streatham and sometimes at Balham. He coaid get it at any chemist’s if he said it was to be used for horses. He had bought some of Mr Smith, of Balham, near the station. He had used tartar emetic last year, when in Mrs Ricardo’s service. He got a quarter of an ounce from Mr Smith, and dissolved it himself in about a pint and a-half of water, to be used as a lotion for sores on the animals’ shoulders. He paid 4d or ud for it. He did not sign the book, but had been in the habit of getting whatever things he wanted from this chemist. The pint and a-half of lotion would serve for forty or fifty applications. He kept it in the

•table locked up, and the bottle was marked “Poison.” A day or two before he left the Pyjofy be broke the bottles and let the poison SO down the drain. He bad also given antimony as a medicine to horses.suffering from worms. It was then administered in a bran jaash, and the quantity of the drug would be about as much as would cover a “ threepenny bit.” He had been in Mrs Rieardo’s service some years ago. She was then living at a house called the Priory, at Malvern. Previous to this, however, be was in the service of Dr. Gully, with whom he had been for nearly eight years. The doctor was then the proprietor of a hydropathic establishment, and practised as a homoEopathist. The reason that be left this gentleman’s employ was owing the breaking-up of the establishment, and tke doctor retiring from business. Dr Gully always kept two horses on an average. When Mrs Ricardo lived in Malvern her bense was close to Dr. Gully’s. Witness bae w Captain Ricardo, though the captain was dead when he entered her service. The rsaseii of bis leaving Mrs Ricardo was that be was going to be married, and the lady ebjee tea to a married coachman. He married Hra Ricardo’ lady’s maid, Mias Fanny Pbtaoot. Whin he took service with Mrs Ricardo a second time he lived with his wife ia the lower lodge at the Priory, Balham. He found Dr. Gully living in the same road. Mr Qorst again carried the witness's memory book to Malvern, and he stated that when in Malvern he used tartar emetic for the horses.

He could buy it at any chemist’s. He was bere asked if he knew a chemist in Malvern aaraed Clark. He did. Had he ever bought tartar emetic from him ? He believed he had Et a quarter of an ounce. Was he sure he d not got more ? Quite sure. The question was pressed amidst breathless attention on the part of all present. Still the witness adhered to his statement. “ Did you ever sign a book at Mr Clark’s ?” asked Mr Gorst. The witness did not believe that he bad, and ultimately the learned gentleman produced Mr Clark’s “poisons register,” which contained an entry to the effect that •a the 11th of June, 1869, 2oz. of tartar emetic were sold, the purchaser being Dr. Gully, the purposes for which it was required being “ horse medicine,” the person buying it “George Griffiths,” and the “introducer” “E. Bridges.” The reading of this document caused immense sensation, and it was some moments before the confusion subsided. Tho witness was then asked if he had not taken a note from Dr. Gully to the chemist for the poison. He at first said no, but on being pressed admitted that he was not sore. The tartar emetic that remained unused he supposed be threw away. Ho explained that Bridges was manager of an omnibus yard in Malvern. On the assembling of the Court, on July 21, it was evident that public interest in this remarkable case had greatly increased, as, long before half-past 10, the room was crowded almost to suffocation, a large number of tadies being present. As soon as the jury bad answered to their names, Mr Archibald maith arose, and announced that he and Mr Serjeant Parry had been ii structed to appear I br Dr Gully. The examination of George Griffiths was continued. Mr Lewis somewhat startled the Court by asking, “When you heard that Mr Bravo was about to be

•married, did you ever express an opinion that the gentleman would not live long ?” Well, he might have said, “Poor fellow,” ke won’t live long.” There was s me sensation caused by this statement, and Mr Lewis continued his examination by next asking, “Did you not say that Mr Bravo would not live four months ?” But the witness was nice as to the exact measurement of time on such a matter, and denied the *soft impeachment” of four months, but believed he said six or eight months. The witness confessed that he was rather surprised when he saw the announcement of Mr Bravo’s death, but not surprised that ho had died from tartar emetic. Charles Janes -Stringer was called and sworn. He was manager at the Bedford Hotel, and knew Griffiths. He remembered having a conversation with Griffiths on the wedding morning of Mrs Ricardo with Mr Bravo. It took place in front of the hotel bar, and, speaking of the wedding, Griffiths said, “Ah, Mrs Ricardo is sure to have lots of brandy before going to the wedding,” - Then, referring to her husband, “I should hot like to be in his shoes. He won’t be alite four months.” On July 25 Mrs Campbell was called. This lady stated that she was the wife of Mr Robert Campbell, of Buscot Park, Berkshire. Her daughter was her eldest daughter, and was married in 1864 to Alexander Louis Ricardo, captain in the Grenadier Guards, and the son of Louis Ricardo, who was well known in the political world. The bride at this time would be little more than eighteen. For some years they lived very happily together. In 1870 witness knew that Captain Ricardo was then drinking, and was sometimes violent to hia wife. For a time he separated from her, and Florence went to Malvern. This was in April, 1870. Witness next saw the Captain at St, James’s Hotel, Picadilly. Mrs Campbell knew Dr Gully at this period, and her daughter had been acquainted with him from the time she was

twelve years of age, when she was a patient •f his. But from that time to the time of her going to Malvern there had been no communication between the n so far as witness knew. Captain Ricardo died in April, 1871, in Cologne. The young widow continued to live at Tooting for nine months or a year, and then took the house known as Stokefield, Leigham-court-road, and subsequently removed to the Priory, That was three years ago last March. During those three years Florence Ricardo was estranged from her family owing to her intimacy with Dr. Gully. This intimacy met with witness’s entire disapproval, and she decided never to see her daughter again. In addition to this intimacy, Mrs Campbell knew that her daughter drank a good deal of wine. She first ohserved this habit in Malvern. Such was the state of things dewn to the autumn of last year. Then Mrs Ricardo apprised her mother of her probable marriage, and begged for a reconciliation, which subsequently took place. Witness was of opinion that Mr Bravo was not a man at all likely to commit suicide. On Jnly 27 Mr Joseph Jcphson Atkinson was examined. He said he was a barrister-at-law, residing at Swinton in Yorkshire, but haring chambers in tho Temple. He knew Mr Charles Bravo as for hack as 1863. From that time np to bis death was on the most intimate terms with deceased. They had lived together for upwards of two years. In reply to Mr Lewis, whether be thought deceased was a likely man to commit suicide, witnes i said very firmly, “The last man in the world. Ho was better acquainted with medicine and'medical jurisprudence than any other barrister he (witness) knew. He was a very clear headed man, with a great deal of common sense and very little senti- I ment. No feeling for any woman would make him take a painful aud uncertain poison, the effects of which be was thoroughly acquainted with.” Un the same day the examination of "Mrs C*x, who had been with Mrs Bravo at the time of her bus hand’s death, was commenced, and the taking of her evidence occupied several flttysf.} ,In the'course of |ter ciogg-examina-fcion • 'on. July 31 she stated that Vheu Mrs Ricardo wa£ living in Leigham eofirt road I Pr. Gully went to see her frequently—at ad ■'

times of the day, in fact. Witness did not think that Dr. dully treated Mrs Ricardo with familiarity. “ But did you not know,” asked the Attorney-General, “that Dr. Gully was Mrs Ricardo’s lover ?” ; After a long silence witness replied that she did not think that. The question was again put very pointedly, and after another pause witness admitted that she thought he was. She also knew that the doctor was a married man, and that his wife was in Brighton. She had seen him kiss Mrs Ricardo frequently. One night when she was ill the doctor stayed very late, but it was purely in his professional capacity. Witness also admitted that Dr. Gully and Mrs Ricardo went to Italy. The witness did not know, however, that on that occasion Mrs Ricardo passed as the doctor’s wife. She thought that the connection was perfectly innocent. Before she went to live with Mrs Ricardo she had heard that the lady had been on the Continent with the doctor, but she did not think this strange, or worth while to make any inquiries with respect thereto. Sir John Holker asked Mrs Cox if she knew that Mrs Ricardo had promised to marry Dr Gully when his wife was dead. The witness

was pressed strongly on the question, and after a deal of hesitation she said she was aware of it. This answer caused quite a sensation in court. Witness was again pressed as to whether she did not think the doctor and Mrs Ricardo were l ivers at this time. She seemed to have a decided objection to the word “lovers,” but went so far as to admit that they were very fond of each other, and frequently kissed. On the 3rd 4 ugust the curiosity of the public was gratified by Mrs Bravo being called. She entered the room leaning on the arm of her solicitor, Mr Brooks. She was very pale, and sighed two or three times, Bhe was dressed in deep black, and wore a long, heavy black crape veil, which she was requested by the officer of the Court to lift up. In her youth she must have been an exceed - ingly handsome girl, and though still prepossessing, she may bo said to be slightly passie. Her hair, naturally dark, is golden brown in some parts, evidently from the effects of dye, In stature she is rather below the middle height. Her eyes are large and prominent,

and in color dark grej'. She has a long thin nose, with finely-cut nostrils, and the lips are thin, but well-shaped, and the expression of the mouth indicates a strong will. Her forehead is an unusual one for a woman. It is prominent, almost massive, but singularly flat in the region ideality. The general expression of the face is characteristic of firm ness ; but over all there is a shadow of deepseated sorrow, as if life had ceased to charm. Sir Henry James conducted the examination, and dealt with the commencement of her married life with Captain Ricardo. Alter his death she went to Malvern again with Mr Brooks’s two daughters, and after a short sojourn there she went to Italy, where she remained six months. When she returned from Italy she took up her residence in Leigham court road, and Mrs Cox joined her there in August of 1872, In March, 1874, witness removed to the I'riory, because she wished te have a house with more grounds attached. During tho -time witness was at Mr Brooks’s house Dr Gully u e ed to visit her there,

and stay a night occasionally When she went to Leigham Court road, he took a house opposite her, in the same road, and about the same lime that she went to The Priory, he took a house close by, in the Bedlord Hill road, and she and the Doctor were constantly in each other’s society. As already known through the evidence of Mrs Campbell and Mrs Cox, witness was at this time estranged from her family. She had filed a bill in Chancery against a member of her family, having relation to her marriage settlement, and this had likewise caused a good deal of unpleasantness. In September of 1875 witness and Mrs Cox went to Brighton, and about ten days after arrival there Mrs Ricardo met Mr Charles Bravo on the Parade, and he accompanied -her to some athletic sports. From that day to the time of their leaving Brighton witness saw a good deal of Mr Bravo, and she observed that he paid her marked attention. h>he was not engaged to him, however, until the beginning of November—Dr Gully had returned from Italy in October——she thought a ; out the 21st—but in answer to Sir Henry James she said her memory was not good as to dates. She had lost all count of dates. It was after the doctor’s return that she wrote the letters to him*, saying that their connection must cease, but before this she had determined upon a reconciliation with her family. All letters that had passed between witness and Dr. Gully had either been destroyed or returned before the marriage. After Mr Bravo had proposed, Dr, Gully wrote an angry letter to her on the subject of her intended marriage. At the time of her last interview with Dr. Gully at Brighton she saw him immediately on the arrival of the train, and they went to a little hotel near the station. On returning from Brighton she went to the Priory for a day or so, and then went to stay at Palace-gre n, returning to the Priory again, and going back to Palace-green on the eve of her marriage. Speaking again of the reconciliation, she first wrote to°her father, and when they met all was forgiven, if not forgotten. The witness was present at Surbiton on the occasion of Mr Bravo’s visit there, and while Mrs Campbell was urging him to tell his mother all about his future wife, and witness gathered from this conversation that they had talked before on that day on the subject. He said, in answer to Mrs Campbell’s request, that he was perfectly satisfied with what Florence had told him, and that sooner than let his mother know about the Gully connection he would leave the country. He seemed most determined and firm on the point Witness herself urged him, but with a like result. Her letter to him dated Octorer 21—in which it will be remembered she told him she thought they ought to know each other better, and that he had behaved “in the noblest manner”—was next referred to, and she was asked what she meant by saying he had behaved in the noblest manner. The witness hesitated, and asked if she was obliged to answer. “As your counsel, I advise you to do so,” said Sir Henry, and so, after a pause, she replied that he had had an establishment at Maidenhead for four years. He told her of this in the most perfect and frank manner. At the time she was at Mr Brooks’s house she suffered from an illness, and was attended by aDr Frodsham. But in reply to a direct question shemost emphatically stated that that illness was in no way due to a miscarriage. She had a similar illness in 1874, but neither of them was due to an improper intimacy with any one. “I am afraid you will have to tell us,” said Mr Henry, “ that at one time there was an improper intimacy between you and Dr Gully ?” ‘ There was,” the witness answered firmly, but almost immediately sbe broke out into j painful sobbing, and bad to be led from the court. On returning in about five minutes she w T as asked when and where that intimacy occurred, and she replied at in the autmnn of 1873. There Mr is more than one intimacy at this time. When she resumed to Feigham-court-read in November she ruffered from illness, and was attended by Dr Dully, That illness was due to a midcarnage. She did her utmost to conceal the knowledge of the fact from every one about her, even from Mrs Cox. This person was A- ld -V, oas - attention to witness during amjl Mrs Bravo seated that she owed kef life to her. When she first became U1 she did not know the nature of the illness, !

but attributed it to the hot mud baths she had taken at Kissengen. When she in- ■ formed Mr Charles Bravo of her criminal connection he made her take a solemn oath before God not to divulge it. Of course she was very desirous to keep the guilty knowledge from every one, and her own mother only knew it a few days ago. The exact commun cation she made to Mr Bravo was that she hed erred in 1873, and had had a miscarriage in November of the same year. When she told him this she said she would leave the room in order that he might consider it quietly, and when she returned, if ho had in fact determined that she should not be his wife, she would not hold him bound by any proposal or promise he bad made. She was away twenty minute.", and on her return he said she had behaved nobly in telling him, and he was still more certain from her having told him that she was less likely to err in the same way again. He further said he was quite satisfied to make her his wife. Touching again on the question of her acquaintanceship with Dr Gully, she confessed that from 1873 to September, 1875, she saw the doctor a great deal, and liked his society much. He was a person of great information, and of agreeable conversation, and in her isolated position she found a refuge in his society. She bad never during any journey, either abroad or in England, passed as his wife. She had never assumed his name, nor he hers, and on all occasions when travelling they occupied separate bedrooms. This answer included the visit to Kissingen. They never concealed their identity in any way, but always passed as Dr. Gully and Mrs Ricardo. In November, 1875, when the marriage settlement was being arranged, Mr Bravo desired to have the whole of the

furniture, horses, carriages, &c., settled upon himself, and she considered from this that he was marrying her for her money, and not for herself. He subsequently told her that if this was not done he would not marry her. On the morning following this conversation she sent for Dr. Gully, the messenger being Mrs Griffiths, the wife of the coachman. She saw Dr. Gully at the Lower Lodge. “Did any improper intimacy take place between you then ? ’ Sir Henry Asked. “ It—did—not,” the witness answered very slowly and emphatically. The result of that interview was that everything she possessed was settled on Mr Bravo. From that time to the present Mrs Bravo declared she had never exchanged a word with the doctor, but had seen him twice a long way off, when she was at her own window and he was on the common. The papers to hand by the last mail do not carry the proceedings further, but we know that they lasted seveial days.longer, and resulted in an open verdict of “wilful murder.” Upon that verdict, the police arrested Mrs Bravo ; and it is assumed that it is in regard to her trial for murder that, as the telegrams via Singapore state “ fearful disclosures have been made.” The family of Mrs Bravo are well known in Sydney, her father being Mr Tertius Campbell, late of that place.