THE GLASGOW POISONING CASE.

Lyttelton Times, Volume VIII, Issue 517, 17 October 1857, Page 4

THE GLASGOW POISONING CASE.

[continued peom oue last.]

She recommends him to travel in the South of England. He is full of doubt and jealousy; cannot believe there is no foundation for the report of her coming marriage -with Mr. Minnoch; asks why he is recommended to go ' so much South.' Hiss Smith's letters to L'Angelier in March are as full of amatory expressions as ever—' sweet love, pet, tender embraces, fond kisses.' &c, prevail. At the same time, she wrote this to Mr. Minnoch—

'Stirling, 16th March, 1857. 'My dearest William—lt is but fair after your kindness to me that I should write a note. The day I part from friends I always feel sad; but to part from one I love, as I do you, makes me feel -truly sad and dull. My only consolation is that •we meet soon again. Tomorrow we shall be home. Ido so wish you were here to-day. We might take a long walk. Our walk to Dunblane I shall ever remember with pleasure. That walk fixed a day on which we are to begin anew life— a life which I hope may be of happiness and long duration to both of us. My aim through life shall be to please and study you. Dear William, I must conclude, as mamma is ready to go to Stirling. Ido not go with the same pleasure as I did the last time. I hope you got to town safe, and found your sisters well. Accept my warmest, kindest love; and ever believe me to be yours with affection, Madeleine.'

One letter only from M. L'Angelier to Miss Smith was put in. It is dated sth March 1857; and complains of her ' really cold, indifferent, •and reserved notes'; he is ' sure there is foundation.' in the report of her marriage with another. | 1 know you cannot write me from Stirlingshire, as the time you have to write me a letter is occupied in doing so to others. There was a time you would have found plenty of time. Answer me this, Mini—who gave you the trinket you showed mer, is it true it was Mr. Minnoch? And is it true that you are directly or indirectly -engaged to Mr. Minnoch, or to any one else but me? These questions I must know. The doctor says I must go to the Bridge of Allan, I cannot travel five hundred miles to the Isle of Wight and five hundred back. What is your ■object in wishing me so very much to go South?' The last letter is from Miss Smith to L'Angelier. She had written to him on the 19th, making an appointment for the 20th March He was at Bridge of Allan, and of course could not keep it. She wrote another on the 20th making an appointment for the 21st He received that letter, at Bridge of Allan on the-22d and at once returned to Glasgow. 'Why, my beloved, did you not come to me? Oh, my beloved, are you. ill? Come to me. Sweet one, I waited and waited for you, but you came not. I shall wait again 'tomorrow [Saturday] night—same hour and arrangement. Oh, come, sweet love, my own dear love of a sweetheart! Come, beloved, and clasp me to your heart;, come and we shall be happy. A kiss, fond love .Adieu, with tender embraces. Ever believe me .to be your own ever dear fond . Mini.' : Such is the picture of their "intercourse, derived from Miss Smith's letters, up to the mo-

ment of its abrupt termination. The aim on the part of the prosecution was to prove that L'Angelier met his death at the hands of Miss Smith. Three charges were preferred against her, —namely, that on the 19th February, the 22nd February, and the 22nd March, she administered poison to her lover. It was proved that on the 11th February she openly tried but failed to procure prussic acid. It was clearly shown that L'Angelier had been seriously ill twice before the illness that ended with his death; and medical testimony showed that the i symptoms manifested on all those occasions were consistent with death from arsenic. It was proved, Miss Smith herself admitted it, that she had purchased arsenic mixed with colouring matter, telling the druggists she wanted it to kill rats, but to others professing that she used it as a cosmetic to improve her complexion. Miss Perry, the confidante of his interviews with Miss Smith, deposed that L'Angelier told her he was ill after taking coffee at one time and cocoa or chocolate at another from Miss Smith; and she fixed the date of the illness at the 19th and the 22nd or 23rd of February. But the Lord Advocate admitted that, although it was proved that Miss Smith had bought arsenic on the 21st February, the day before L'Angelier was seized with illness, it was not proved, and'he could not prove, that she had arsenic in her possession prior to the 19th. It was shown that she bought arsenic on the 6th and also on the 19th March; it was on the 23rd that L'Angelier died of that poison. It was important to show that there was a motive— that was abundantly found in the letters; it was important to show that there were opportunities —but although they had met more than once in the house in India-street, only one interview within the house in Blythswood-square was proved to have taken place; that other interviews did take place the prosecution relied on the letters to establish. The Lord Advocate said the letters spoke of things that could only have taken place in the house. But it was most important to prove that an interview took place on Sunday the 22nd March. It was proved that L'Angelier, after receiving the letter making the appointment for the 22nd, hastened from Bridge of Allan to Glasgow; that he arrived at his lodgings in good health and spirits, staid to take tea, and walked out about nine o'clock. He was seen sauntering in the direction of Blythswood-square about twenty minutes past nine; he called upon a friend, but did not find him at home. Here all trace of him is lost, until he was found by his landlady, at his own door, without strength to open the latch, at two o'clock in the morning—doubled up with agony, speechless, parched with thirst; he was admitted, and died of arsenic hi eleven hours. The Lord Advocate argued, that although he could not trace L'Angelier's movements from half-jast nine at night to two the next morning, yet it was impossible to believe that he would give up his purpose within a hundred yards of the house in Blythswood-sguare; that, although the prisoner said the appointment was for Saturday and not Sunday, yet it was impossible to believe she did not wait for him on Sunday, or that she went to sleep and did not wake until the following morning. He told the Jury that he was sure they would come to the conclusion that every link in the chain of evidence is so firmly fastened, every loop-hole is so completely stopped, that there does not remain the possibility of. escape for the ; unhappy prisoner from the net that she has woven around herself.

The defence lay mainly in the earnest, able, and argumentative speech of Mr. Inglis, the Dean of Faculty. With consummate skill he reviewed the whole case, massed the facts of each phase of the intercourse, and brought out his points with extraordinary distinctness. His very opening rivetted attention. ' Gentlemen of the Jury,' he said, 'the charge against the prisoner is murder, and the punishment of murder is death; and that simple statement is sufficient to suggest to us the awful solemnity of the occasion which brings you and me face to face.' He said he should not condescend to beg, he should loudly, importunately demand, justice. Reviewing the character and'career of L'Angelier—an unknown adventurer, vain, conceited, pretentious—he pointed out the innocent character of the first months of the correspondence; showed that it was broken off towards the end of 1855; that it was renewed, as he inferred, in consequence of the importunate entreaty of L'Angelier; and, picturing him as a corrupting seducer, he showed how the prisoner fell—how, through his evil influences, she lost not her virtue merely, but'her sense of decency. Then, passing over the progress of the intercourse, he minutely examined the three charges of the indictment. In dealing with the evidence respecting the opportunities of meeting, he showed that between the 18th November 1856, when the Smith family first went to reside at the house in Blythswood Square, and the 11th January 1857, the parties could only have met once within the house, namely on that occasion when Christina Haggart, the servant, at Miss Smith's request let L'Angelier in at the back-door, and, while the lovers were in her bedroom, remained herself with the cook in the kitchen. The only opportunity of meeting in the house was when both both the father and mother were out, and that opportunity only occurred once "during that period. It was admitted that they might have met at the window. The theory for the prosecution was that the moment she had accepted Mr. Minnoch, on the 28th January, her whole character changed, and she began to prepare for the perpetration of a foul murder. Such a thing was impossible. Now, the first charge was that she attempted to poison L'Angelier on the 19th February. The Dean showed that L'Angelier was not even ill at that date. Mrs. Jenkins said his first illness was eight or ten days before the second. The second was fixed on the 22d February by the prosecution. Eight or ten days before that would be the 13th February. Miss Perry indeed said it was on the 19th, but she had no recollection of the day either at her first, second, or third examination; and she only took up the notion on a suggestion by one of the clerks of the Fiscal. Besides, the prisoner was not in possession of arsenic before the 19th of Febuary. If, therefore, he was ill from arsenic on the 18th, he must have recieved it from other hands than the prisoner's. That disposed of one charge. With regard to the other charge, he

met it by showing from the evidence of Mrs. Jenkins, the landlady, that L' Angelier did not go out at all on that day; and further, that tins date for his illness could only be fixed by an unwarrantable inference from the letters—such as inferring the date of a letter from the date ot an envelope in which it was found. Then came the third charge. It was that Miss Smith poisoned L' Angelier on the 22nd March. L' Angelier went to Bridge of Allan on the 18th March. He was expecting a letter from Miss Smith. She, not knowing that he had left Glasgow, wrote on the 18th, and appointed a meeting for the 19th. It was not posted until the 19th; it followed L'Angelier to Stirling; he got it on the 20th; but finding that he was too late for the appointment, he did not return to Glasgow immediately, because he knew that he could not see the prisoner except by appointment. Miss Smith wrote again appointing a meeting on the 21st, Saturday; L'Angelier received it at Bridge of Allan on Sunday morning, and he returned to Glasgow in the evening .The Dean of Faculty here endeavoured to show from the evidence, that he might not have returned to meet the prisoner, as again he had received the letter too late. Miss Smith did not expect him on Sunday. She was at home with her father, brothers, and sisters. They were all at prayers together at nine o'clock. The servants gradually go to bed, the cook as late as eleven. Miss Smith .and her sister go to bed together about the same time; they go to sleep, and awake together in the morning. Could the prisoner and L'Angelier have met and there be no evidence of it? The Lord Advocate said, as a matter of inference and conjecture, he had no doubt that they met. 'Inference and conjecture! I never heard such an expression made use of in a capital charge before, as indicating or describing a link in the prosecutor's case.' After an elaborate argument to show the improbability of the whole charge, the Dean of Faculty closed with a deeply impressive appeal. For himself, he said, he had a personal interest in the verdict; for, if there was any failure of justice, he could only attribute it to his own inability to conduct the defence; and if it were so, the recollection of that day and that prisoner would haunt him as a dismal and blighting spectre to the end of his life.

The Lord Justice Clerk summed up with great care and solemnity; reading over and commenting upon all the evidence, dwelling on that which was unfavourable as well as that which was favourable to the prisoner. But on the whole his -summary told on behalf of the prisoner, because he over and over again, while admitting that there was strong suspicion, emphatically declared to the jury that they must not find their verdict on strong suspicion, but on strong conviction alone; and he pointed out with great force the weak parts of the testimony directed against the prisoner.

The jury were absent twenty-two minutes. When they returned to court, they delivered their verdict, finding, in each case 'by a majority,' that the prisoner was ' Not guilty' of the first charge, and that the second and third charges were ' Not proven.'

The announcement of the verdict was followed by cheering, which could hardly be suppressed by the efforts of the judges and the officers of the court. ■

The Lord Justice Clerk, in thanking the jury for their services, said they would have perceived from what he had said to them in his charge; that his opinions quite coincided with theirs. The prisoner was then dismissed from the bar.

During this extraordinary trial, the court presented a striking appearance. One writer says —' The whole of the Faculty of Advocates would seem to be there, filling more than their own gallery; a goodly array of writers to the signet appear in their gowns; upwards of a score of reporters for the press ply their busy pencils; the Western side-gallery abounds in moustachioed scions of the aristocracy; ministers of the gospel are there gathering "materials for discourses; and civic dignitaries are in abundance. A few women, who may expect to be called ladies, are mingled in the throng. Lords Cowan and Ardmillan, after they are relieved from their duties elsewhere, come and sit in undress on the bench; so does the venerable Lord Murray, and Lords Wood, Deas, and others.' ■

The behaviour of Miss Smith struck every one. Her ' coolness,' her dauntless bearing, her 'perfect repose,' of manner, her 'jaunty air,' her neat and elegant dress, her abstinence from food, her penetrating glance, are all noted. Only when her own letters were read did she wear her veil down and shade her face with her hand. She maintained her bold attitude throughout. When the jury were absent consulting, she showed no symptoms of agitation; when they returned she showed no emotion; but when the verdict had been read she breathed aheaw sigh and over her face 'broke a bright-but agitated smile.'

The proceedings terminated a little before 2 o clock. Great anxiety was shown to get a sight of the prisoner; but she did not leave the court till nearly three o'clock, and did so comparatively unobserved. She drove, it is understood, to a roadside railway station, but her place of asylum was not made known.