ceased. During his illness I had a conversation with the prisoner, and she told me that Dixon had been in the habit of taking colchicum for rheumatism, and I told her that it was a very dangerous medicine, and that it should not be administered, except under medical supervision, and the prisoner replied that she knew this, and was well acquainted with it. An overdose of colchicum would produce all the symptoms that were exhibited by the deceasednamely, vomiting, purging, sickness, and pain in the chest and bowels."

Dr. Alfred Swayne Taylor, Professor of Medical Jurisprudence at Guy's Hospital, said: "From the evidence in this case I cannot attribute the death of the deceased to natural causes. I never knew of a death from natural disease taking place that was accompanied by such circumstances as have been deposed to in this case. Colchicum, if given either in repeated doses or in one large dose, would produce a burning sensation in the throat, severe griping pain in the stomach, nausea, with violent retching and vomiting, thirst, and purging. Nothing would relieve the symptoms I have mentioned, but they would progress until death occurred. The only effectual relief would be to eliminate the poison from the stomach; but after the poison was once absorbed into the system, it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to remove

it."

In cross-examination Dr. Taylor said: "Vomiting, purging, retching, and pain in the bowels, are all symptoms accompanying English cholera. In my experience I have frequently discovered that cases of death which have been

registered as having been occasioned by cholera, were, in reality, deaths from poison. I have known this to be so in eight cases where the bodies have been exhumed."

As will be readily imagined, such a statement as this, coming from the lips of such an authority as Dr. Taylor, produced a profound sensation in the court. It was subsequently referred to by the Judge in the final stage of the trial.

Evidence was given to show that the prisoner was in distressed circumstances about the time the offence was committed, and that the motive for the commission of the crime was to obtain possession of the 97. that had been received by the deceased on the day she was first taken ill.

For the defence it was urged that no positive proof had been given that the deceased had died from other than natural causes— that if she had died from poison there was no evidence to show that the poison had been administered by the prisoner, and that there was a failure of all proof as to the existence of any adequate motive to induce the prisoner to commit the crime.

After a lengthened and most elaborate summing-up on the part of the Judge (Mr. Justice Byles), and after a two hours' consultation amongst themselves, the jury pronounced the prisoner Guilty.

The prisoner heard the verdict without exhibiting the slightest appearance of emotion the blood not even rising to her cheeks. When asked in the usual form whether she had anything to say why judgment of death should not be passed upon her according to law, she made no reply, but merely gave a gentle shake of the head.

Mr. Justice Byles, in passing

sentence, made a further disclosure of the enormity of the prisoner's guilt, and left her without a hope of mercy. As the facts then divulged by his lordship were of a very remarkable character, it will be best that they should be recorded in his own words. Having put on the black cap, he said :

66

Catherine Wilson, after a long trial, and a most patient and anxious consideration of every circumstance in your case, the jury have come to the conclusion that you were guilty of this most atrocious crime. It is very seldom that I think it any part of my duty, in a case of this or any other description, to express either concurrence with or dissent from the verdict of a jury; but, upon the present occasion, I am bound to say that, in my opinion, the jury could not have arrived at any other conclusion than they have done, consistently with the facts that were laid before them. I never heard a case where it was SO clearly proved that a murder was committed, and where the excruciating pain and agony of the victim were watched with so much deliberation by the murderer. The greatest care was taken during the progress of the trial that nothing should be improperly introduced into the inquiry, and that you should not be prejudiced by anything that had happened before; but now that the jury have delivered their verdict, and there can be no longer any fear that their decision should be in any way improperly influenced, I think it right that the jury should know, and that the public should also know, what sort of person it is that the avenging arm of the law has at length overtaken. I find, then, that about the year

1853-4, you were employed in the capacity of a servant or housekeeper to a person named Mawer, who lived at Boston, in Lincolnshire, and that this person was in the habit of taking colchicum. He made his will in the month of April, and by that will he left to you the whole of the little property he possessed. He died in the month of October following. I will say no more about this case except that it is quite clear that, at this time, you were perfectly well acquainted with the nature and effects of colchicum. In the year 1856, I find that you were living with a young man named Dixon, and that you came to London, and went to lodge with him at the house of the deceased. Dr. Whidburn was called in to attend him. He was not allowed upon the present trial to state any of the circumstances connected with the illness of this person; but I may now state that it appears, by his deposition, that Dixon was suddenly taken ill with violent vomiting and purging; that his symptoms were exactly the same as those exhibited by the unfortunate woman, Mrs. Soames; and that he died very speedily afterwards-you yourself representing that he had died of galloping consumption, but, upon his body being opened, his lungs were found perfectly healthy. About the year 1859, I find that you were in the habit of visiting a Mrs. Jackson, who also resided at Boston, and that you were aware that she drew from a bank in that town the sum of 1201., and that this sum was in her possession. She was taken ill with the same symptoms, and died in four days, and after her death the money was nowhere to be found. It appeared that upon this

occasion you produced a promis sory note, apparently signed by two persons residing at Boston, for the amount that was missing, but it was proved that both those signatures were forged. In the month of October, 1860, I find that you were connected with a Mrs. Atkinson, who resided in Kirkby Lonsdale, and that she came to live with you at your residence at Kennington, and it appears that you were aware that she was in possession of a considerable sum of money. On the 19th of that month Mrs. Atkinson was taken ill again the same symptoms-retching, violent purging, vomiting, and great agony-and in four days she was dead, If the jury had acquitted you upon the present charge, you would have been immediately put upon your trial for this murder. I have read the depositions in the case most carefully and anxiously, and the result upon my mind is, that I have no more doubt that you committed that crime than if I had seen it committed with my own eyes.

In 1861 I find you were living with a man named Taylor, and that he was attacked in the same manner as the others to whom I have alluded; but that, fortunately for him, remedies were immediately resorted to, and he recovered. Again, I find that only in the present year you were tried in this court for an attempt to murder, by the administration of sulphuric acid, a woman in whose house you were residing. You were acquitted upon that charge; but, although this was the case, there is too much reason to believe that you were guilty of this crime also; and I am informed that the learned Judge who tried you felt it to be his duty to sum up the case

most unfavourably to you. These facts, I regret to say, render it extremely probable that the startling statement made by Dr. Taylor in the course of his evidence is correct, and that, in the midst of apparent prosperity and obedience to the law, a dreadful crime is rife in this metropolis-the destruction of life by secret poisoning. Your life is in the hands of the Crown; and I think it right to inform you that, if I am consulted in reference to your case, I shall not feel myself justified in interfering, and that I cannot hold out to you the slightest hope of any commutation of your sentence.'

The prisoner, who throughout the whole of the trial had exhibited the utmost coolness and selfpossession, did not appear to be in the slightest degree affected by any portion of the learned Judge's address, and when the last dread utterances of the law had fallen from his lips, she walked away from the bar with a firm foot and an unruffled countenance.

The same air of callous indifference, or the same power of suppressing every external sign of inward emotion, was steadfastly maintained throughout the brief remainder of her days, and did not desert her even in that supreme hour, when, in the presence of more than 20,000 persons, she was brought forth, on the morning of the 20th of October. to undergo the last ignominious penalty of her multiplied crimes upon the scaffold in front of Newgate.

So strong and so universal was the conviction of her guilt, and so deep was the abhorrence of the diabolical means by which her murders had been committed, that no effort of any kind was made in any quarter to stay her sentence,

ant claimed the property under a deed of conveyance from William Roapell (the subject of this history), the eldest but illegitimate son of Richard Palmer Roupell, who had been supposed to hold the estate under a deed of conveyance from his father, dated in July, 1855.

The nature of the interest created by this action will be gathered from a brief description of the circumstances under which it was instituted. The late Richard Palmer Roupell, of Aspen House, in the county of Surrey, died on the 12th of September, 1856. He had cohabited with his wife many years before he married her, and William Roupell was the first fruit of their illicit intercourse. Richard (the plaintiff in the present action) was born subsequently to the marriage, which took place in 1838, and was, by consequence, the eldest legitimate son. The old man, well known in London as a "lead-melter," had acquired great wealth, and was the owner of many estates in the home counties. William, the illegitimate son, was brought up as an attorney, and when he had attained to manhood was much trusted by his father in the general management of his property. During old Roupell's life several of his estates-among others, the estate at Kingston, and another at Warleigh, in Essex, were sold and conveyed to different persons-the Kingston estate passing by purchase into the possession of the defendant in the action now brought. At the time of his death the value of the property left by the old man was estimated at upwards of 200,000l. This property, it was supposed, he had disposed of by a will, dated only a

few days before he died, in favour of his children. Another will, however, was set up by William Roupell, which gave the whole of the property to the widow, and constituted William sole executor. Probate of this will was obtained without difficulty, and Mrs. Roupell entered at once into the enjoyment of her splendid property, but remained under the direction and control of her son William. William, whose influence over his mother was almost unbounded, now entered upon a career of the utmost extravagance, and soon disposed, in his mother's name, of most of the landed property. At this time he became member for Lambeth, after a contest which cost him little short of 10,000l. His brother, the plaintiff in the present action, was still a minor, and had no power even if he had the disposition to stay William from doing exactly as he pleased with the property.

In brief time, however, this reckless spendthrift became hopelessly embarrassed; and in March, 1862, he fled the country. In the short period of five years and a half he had made off with property to the value of little less than 300,000l. Previous to his flight from England a suspicion had arisen that the will, dated September 2, 1856, under which he had obtained the complete control of the father's property, was a forgery, and that the deeds of conveyance by which he had passed several of the estates sold prior to the father's death, into the hands of their several purchasers, were forgeries also. Hence arose the action now tried at the Guildford Assizes. It was brought by the heir-at-law to recover the Kingston estate, worth about 15,000l., from the person