THE BRAVO CASE.

Globe, Volume VII, Issue 722, 12 October 1876, Page 3

THE BRAVO CASE.

The Auckland correspondent of the Daily Times furnishes that journal with the following summary of the evidence in this cape : This remarkable case was resumed on the fith August, being the 19th day of the sitting of the Court of Enquiry relative to the death of the late Mr Chas Bravo, barrister, and held before Mr Wm Carter, the Surrey Coroner, with Mr Barleigh Muir as legal assessor. Mr Garst, Q.C, and Mr Pollard appeared on behalf of the Crown. Sir Henry James, Q.C, and Mr Barton appeared for Mrs Chas Bravo, the widow of the deceased: Mr Murphy, Q C, and Mr Bray, for Mrs Cox ; Sergnt. Parry and Mr Archibald L. Smith, 'for Dr Gully; and Mr Geo Lewis, junr, watched the case for Mr Joseph Bravo, the stepfather of the deceased, and for the relations of the deceased. Mrs Chas Bravo, on being again placed before the Court, said, in assent to the question of her counsel (>Sir IT. James) —Since I gave my evidence yesterday my attention has been called to the reports in the newspapers of my statement that my first (and only) intimacy with Dr Gully occurred at Kissingen on the visit in August, 1873, I was when I gave evidence most anxious that I should not appear to have been the mistress of Dr Gully through all the years of my acquaintance with him. Sir Henry James—ln begging you now to tell the whole truth, " yes or no," I ask you whether you were not improperly acquainted with Dr Gully before that visit to Kissingen ? Witness—Yes (weeping) ; upon my oath there was no improper intimacy after that time. I informed him (Ohas. Bravo) of the intimacy on the Kissengen visit. I was anxious to appear to him not to have been the mistress of Dr Gully for any length of time. As far as I can judge, Mrs Cox had no idea of the character of this intimacy with Dr Gully during the lifetime of my first husband. I do not know whether Mr Bravo received the anonymous letter at the Temple. I saw the letter, and was spoken of disparagingly in regard to my intimacy with Dr Gully. Mr Bravo said that he should have been upon the sea if I had not told him before my marriage about my intimacy with Dr Gully, and that the letter spoke of an "improper intimacy." Mr Bravo was very angry, not with me, but that such comments should be made on him and me. Mr Bravo attended assiduously to his profession. With the exception of absence from attending to professional duties, he was with me from the marriage until the day of his death. My income is about £3OOO a year. He had £2OO a year, so he told me, but he did not pay any of the household expenses, except the stable bill. He did attach considerable importance to economy in our way of living. Reductions were made at the instigation of his mother. He struck me once, but was sorry for it immediately afterwards. He was usually a kind husband, I was occasionally annoyed by the expression of his views on money matters, but these annoyances were all due to his mother. During the last six weeks of our married life, we were as happy as the day was long. On Monday, August 9th, Mrs Ellen G. Harrold deposed that Mrs Cox had spoken to her about the intimacy between Dr Gully and Mrs Bravo, and that Mr Bravo was angry about it. Charles Madox, assistant to Mr South, chemist, deposed that on the Bth April, Dr Gully came to his shop and was supplied with a half-ounce bottle of laurel water. The bottle was labelled " Poison." There was no antimony in the stuff. Dr Moore was then examined as to what took place when he was called in to the deceased after he had taken poison. Mr Brooks, Mr Bravo's solicitor, produced the draft of the marriage settlement. Mrs Charles Bravo was again placed before the Court, and said—l was not aware that my husband was in the habit of drinking water before going to bed. He generally drank coffee after dinner—nothing else. He had no coffee after dinner on the day he was seized with his fatal illness. As I said, my husband waa in the constant habit, morning, noon, and night, of mentioning the name of Dv Gully. I can't name anyone iu the house, who, besides Mrs Cox, beard that. Mr Lewis then read an extract from a letter in the handwriting of the deceased, dated from his father's house, Palace Green, on the 15th of February of the present year. Deceased said—"My darling wife—Looking back on the ten weeks of our marriage, I feel that many of my words to you, although kindly meant, were unnecessarily harsh. In future my rebukes, if it be necessary to say anything, which God forbid, shall be given with the utmost gentleness. I hold you to be the best of wives. We have had bitter troubles, but I trust that every day to come the sweet peace of our lives will not so much as be distubad by memories like those. I wish I could sleep away my life till your return. Come back as well as you can to your devoted husband—Chaei.es." Mr Lewis— Your husband found fault with you about taking too much wine? Witness—He did not find fault with me; he only said I should be better if I drank Burgundy instead of sherry, and urged me to drink less. Mr Lewis then read extracts from a letter dated the next day, February 16th, also extracts from letters of February 17th and 21st following these by other extracts down to the last day the witness was away from her husband. In short, all the letters expressed the warmest love for his wife, sorrow for her absence, and a desire in every way to make her life happy. Witness (who appeared to be affected when some of the letters were read)—l have no recollection of telling any one else (besides Mrs Ccx and my mother) in his lifetime of his mentioning Dr Gully's name. As to how soon after his death I mentioned this, well we all (my family) discussed it together, but not as a reason for his committing suicide. My brother spoke of it. He spoke of it to them. He had spoken of it to my brother William who is here, aud | to the one who has gone to New Zealand. I At that time I had not told anybody that 1 i had told Mr Bravo I had had a criminal I intimacy with Dr Gully. You heard that I had told Mrs Cox, but I had not spoken of it to anyone but Mrs Cox. I had always represented to every one except Mrs Cox, even at the Treasury, that that intimacy was at all times innocent. I did so repreent it. I had done that. I have pledged my oath that no criminal intimacy occurred with Dr Gully in the life time of my first husband. At the time I wasat Malverntherewasnothingoccurred between myself and Dr Gully which I wished to keep, and tobekept, asecret. Nothing occurred which I was ashamed of my servants speaking of, or that I desired anyone to keep secret. Mr Lewis then asked : Now, Mrs Bravo, you assert these statements to be as true as that you told the late Mr Chas Bravo, of thin criminal intimacy between yourself and Dr ■ Gully, previously to your marriage with that

gentleman 1 Witness (unhesitatingly) : Yes, I do. He was always harping—the witness added—upon wishing he had had my "first love." Other letters were read from witness to her mother, and so late as the 16th April, the witness spoke of her late husband, "Charlie is walking about with his books under his arm as happy as a king." The witness continued : It is my impression that two days before the seizure with the illness he was " as happy as a king," and he was thoroughly happy. That letter is in his own handwriting, but they were my suggestions. It was our intention to entertain my parents soon after that. He had been "good and kind to me," as I said in my letter to my mother. I don't remember whether I wrote to my mother to say that I was thoroughly happy. I do say he was thoroughly happy, and that he was very much attached to me. In answer to Mr Garst, who commenced by reminding the witness she had spoken of an interview, at which she had told the deceased " all" in regard to herself and Dr Gully. Witness said—That interview, in which I left him alone for twenty minutes, was, I think, in the Priory. Yes, it was the Priory, from that time Mr Bravo paid me his attentions. I lived at the Priory until his mother gave her consent to the marriage. That interview was after his mother gave her consent. The reason which caused me to " break " with Dr Gully, was that I wished to be reconci'.ed with my family. That was my only motive for " breaking" with Dr Gully. My connection with Dr Gully was a very old one. Dr Gully had been very kind to me. I liked Dr Gully when I was a girl of fourteen, and had known him from the time when I first went to Grey Malvern. He was very kind to us when we there—my sister and myself, as girls. He took notice of us girls by having us down to tea. In the interval cf my seeing him between the time when I was fourteen, and my going there with Captain Ricardo, I do not recollect seeing him at all. May, 1870, was the first time that I, as a woman, knew Dr Gully. Prom that time till Sept, 1875, there had been the" closest intimacy." He was only a very kind friend to me in Captain Ricardo's life. As to Dr Gully being so kind to me as to make my husband jealous, Captain Ricardo was jealous of any one who looked at me, but he was perfectly cmfait as to my acquaintance with Dr Gully, and asked him to take me out. As to there being a time when I was willing to give up my friends and relations, father and mother, for Dr Gully, they told me I was not to see him again. This was after Captain Ricardo's death. I might have seen him secretly, but I could not stoop to that. There was a legal separation between myself and Captain Ricardo before his death, at my instigation, but he wrote repeatedly to me to live again with him. I gave Dr Gully the intimation that I was going to break off the intimacy by letter. I wrote that letter to him from Brighton, and after his return from abroad. To the best of my recollc ction that was the last letter I wrote to Dr Gully. One of the two interviews I had with Dr Gully last autumn at Brighton was before that letter I wrote to him, and one was after it. The first of those two interviews was at my lodging. I did not say a word to him then about " breaking off " the intimacy. I had not the courage. It was a step likely to be very painful to us both. I wrote immediately after that interview to do so, to break it off. I did give him a reason, the reason I have given you, that I desired to be reconciled to my mother. He answered that letter in writing—a friendly letter. He did not expostulate with me, but said if it would be for my happiness he was quite willing. I really forget when I answered that letter. I think it was two or three days afterwards, so far as I can recollect, that he paid his second visit, and then it wat I saw him at the little hotel near the railway station at Brighton. That was a very painful interview, because I was attached to him, and the parting was a very painful one. It was not painful to me from what he said, for he was perfectly kind. He thought he should not see me again, and I had made up my mind I should not sec him again. After the interview we went to my lodging and had luncheon. Mrs Cox was there, and, to the best of my recollection, he did not stop all night at Brighton and have breakfast with us the next morning. I think he went away that night. I do not know how he learned about my engagement with Mr Charles Bravo. I certainly did not | write to tell him. He did not know of the likelihood of that engagement at the " pain- i ful interview." He did not speak of it—he could not if he did not know of it. (Wit- j ness added this without a question.) Mr! Charles Bravo had not then proposed. It I is my impression that, at that " painful interview," Dr Gully did not speak about Mr S Bravo. When we were riding in the carriage ho asked me who it was took off his hat to me, and I said, " Mr Charles Bravo." Dr Gully wrote me an " angry letter" about the engagement with Mr Bravo. I don't know what was in the letter, for I put it into the fire when I had read it. He did not reproach me, nor did he reproach Mr Bravo. He never said a word against Mr Bravo in all his life. It was natural that the man who loved me should be angry at losing me, I don't know what he said now ; I do not remember, and I am glad I don't—the man had lost me, and naturally he would say angry things when he heard I was to be married. On August 9th, Dr Gully was examined. Mr Sergeant Parry—We have heard of your unfortunate intimacy with Mrs Ricardo, now Mrs Bravo. Witness—Too true, too true, sir. Witness then proceeded to say, in answer to Mr Sergeant Parry, who remarked he did not desire to go over details—l have read Mrs Bravo's statement as to that intimacy ; I am sorry to say that statement is true and correct. I feel my position mofit bitterly iu having to stand hero and say this. 1 have heard the rumors and suspicions which have been aroused iu this matter, and 1, ou my solemn oath, declare that I had nothing whatever to do, directly or indirectly, with Mr Bravo's death. Most certainly I never wrote an order to Mr Clark to supply two ounces of tartar emetio to Griffiths, I have no opinion as to whether antimony is or is not injurious to horses. Dr Gully deposed as to the drugs he had ordered for Mrs Bravo. He continued—On the Saturday night before I had received a letter from her, dismissing me, " on the grounds that she wanted to be reconciled to her mother," and on no other. I did not upbraid her when I saw her, nor did I when I wrote to her. I wrote her " a kind letter," telling her she was quite right to be reconciled to her family. I told her at first that I should go to Jamaica, my native place, but I told her in Brighton that that would not do—that I had said that in momentary irritation. I did not say she should not see me again, It was the other way, She said

she would not see me. I was at that time very much attached to her. I was under the impression that she was fondly attached to me, and that being the state of feeling between us, I do represent this as the way i> which the matter between us was termi nated. I did not in any way advise her ae to telling Mr Bravo about the intimacy which had occurred between us. She did subsequently ask me to advise her in November about the furniture. She did not speak to me earlier. It never troubled my mind ; the matter was past and gone. I knew Mr Bravo was a gentleman at the bar She told me that at Brighton. I met Mrs Cox at Sutton on the occasion of my second visit to Brighton last autumn, and we travelled together. On the receipt of the lttter of Saturday, I waited until Monday, and wrote her " a very kind letter." She telegraphed to me to come down with Mrs Cox. My meeting with Mrs Cox was not accidental—not at all. It was in accordance with the telegram. Mrs Cox, in going down in that train, did not tell me anything about Mr Bravo—the name was not mentioned to me then. I did not tell Mrs Ricardo that I should die if she separated from me—not even in a poetic flight—and I say that I told her I should be unhappy for a while. lamin my sixty-eighth year. I was not the medical attendant of Captain Ricardo, nor was my partner Captain Ricardo's medical attendant. I knew Captain Ricardo at Malvern. I was the medical attendant of Mrs Ricardo in the year 1870. She left there in November, 1870, and I gave notice to leave the partnership a month after. I may tell you, however, that the notice to quit was drawn out in 1868. I had not in 1868-9 or '7O, down to the end of last year, served any notice of dissolution of partnership. Mr Lewis—Let me ask you if it was during the period she was a patient of yours, during the year 1870, that the attachment between you commenced 1 Witness— Well, it commenced after a fashion. It was a friendly understanding. She was a great deal alone.and used to have ten with me at my house Mr Lewis : That is no answer to my question. Did the attachment commence then ? Witness : If you like to call it so, yes. On Friday, August 11th, Jthe verdict was returned. Tt affirmed that the late Mr Bravo did not commit suicide ; that he did not die of misadventure; but that he was wilfully murdered. The coroner went carefully over all the circumstances of the evidence, and the jury then retired, and were absent for nearly three hours. The verdict was as follows :—" That O. D. T. Bravo did not commit suicide ; that he did not meet his death by misadventure ; that he was wilfully murdered by the administration of tartar emetic ; but there is not sufficient evidence to fix the guilt upon any person or persons." The Police, acting on the above verdict, have issued a placard in the following terms : "Murder £250 reward. Whereas, on 21st April, 1876, Charles Delanney Turner Bravo, of the Priory, Balham, died from the effects of tartar emetic, and a Coroner's Jury having returned a verdict that the deceased was wilfully murdered, the above reward will be paid by her Majesty's Government to any person who shall give such information and evidence as shall lead to the discovery and conviction of the murderer or murderers in this case; and the Secretary of State for the Home Department will advise the grant of Her Majesty's gracious pardon to any accomplice, not being the person who actually committed the murder, who shall give such evidence as shall lead to a like result. Information to be given to Superintendent Williamson, Detective Department, Great Scotland Yard, London, N.C.—N. Y. Henderson, Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis." The following are a few statistics of this remarkable case :—The enquiry began on the 11th July, and Sir Henry James was personally present each day. The total of the expenditure ranges from £IO,OOO to £15,000. Sir H. James received a heavy fee with his brief, and a hundred guineas a day. Mr Murphy, who was called in on the 17th July, received, in addition to his retainer, fifty guineas a day ; and a like sum was paid to Mr Sergeant Parry, who came into the case on July 22nd. The three juniors received—one, thirty guineas ; and the two others, twenty-five guineas per diem. To Mr Geo. Lewis, it is understood, a fee of 1000 guineas was paid for his exertions in the case from beginuing to end. The Attorney-General, Mr Garst, and Mr Pollard, being Counsel for the Treasury, the fees were not marked on their briefs. The total of witnesses examined was forty-three, in. addition to which there was an enormous mass of documentary evidence introduced. The witnesses comprised men so eminent in their respective departments as Sir Wm. Gull, Professor Redwood, Dr Johnston, and Thos. Payne, while all the servants of the Priory appeared in their turn before the Coroner.