told witness that Mrs. Pritchard had cramps. Dr. Pritchard had not told him that. Mrs. Taylor said she had been ill herself after taking some tapioca prepared for Mrs. Pritchard. On the Friday before Mrs. Taylor's death, she (Mrs. Taylor) appeared strong and healthy. She took tea with the doctor that evening. At half-past nine the doctor sent witness for Dr. Patterson, as Mrs. Taylor had been taken ill. Dr. Patterson came, and, after he left, Dr. Pritchard said Mrs. Taylor's illness was apoplexy. Next day witness heard that Mrs. Taylor had died at half-past-twelve o'clock, and that she had died very calmly. Witness then went again to his father's, and returned on the 6th of March. Mrs. Pritchard was then, Dr. Pritchard said, getting better. Witness saw her again a week before her death. He never saw her again alive. Witness had known the prisoner to take up his wife's meals.-Cross-examined: Witness was taken ill at dinner at the prisoner's house in November. He was ill for a fortnight. In February he was sick for a week for an hour after breakfast. One of the servants brought the tea from the dining-room. Richard Christian King, son of the Rev. R. King, Bridgetown, Wexford, medical student, also a boarder at Dr. Pritchard's, gave similar evidence as to the illnesses and deaths of Mrs. Pritchard and Mrs. Taylor. Dr. Gardner, professor of medicine in Glasgow University, said he visited Mrs. Pritchard on the 8th and 9th of March. He found her in a state of excitement, which he attributed to stimulants-a combination of champagne and chloroform. When he went from the bedside to the fireside, Mrs. Pritchard called to witness, "Oh, you cruel, cruel man! don't leave me." Witness thought they were the exclamations of an intoxicated woman, and ordered Dr. Pritchard to discontinue stimulants, as it was a very bad practice. He gave the same order at his second visit. Dr. Patterson said he was called on the night of the 24th February to see Mrs. Taylor and Mrs. Pritchard. Dr. Pritchard said they had been sick after taking bitter beer. Witness said Mrs. Taylor appeared to suffer from some powerful narcotic, and Mrs. Pritchard appeared to suffer from antimony. His impression was that she was being poisoned by antimony, and in cross-examination he said he formed that opinion simply by looking at her. He refused a certificate to the registrar as to the cause of death of the mother-in-law. He never mentioned poison to Mrs. Pritchard, because the treatment he prescribed, provided she got nothing else, was quite sufficient to have brought her round. He did not communicate to Dr. Pritchard his suspicion as to Mrs. Pritchard's being poisoned with antimony, because he did not think it would have been safe to do so. wrote to the registrar that Mrs. Taylor's death was "extremely sudden, unexpected, and, to him, mysterious." He James Struthers, registrar of deaths, said Dr. Pritchard certified that Mrs. Taylor died of paralysis, and Mrs. Pritchard of gastric fever. Dr. Cowan, of Edinburgh, a friend of Mrs. Pritchard, deposed that Dr. Pritchard and Mrs. Taylor lived on good terms with each other. Mr. Taylor, the prisoner's father-in-law, said his daughter and Dr. Pritchard lived happily together. Alexander M'Call, of the Glasgow police, and John Murray, sheriff's officer, deposed as to articles handed to the analytical doctors for examination. Mr. J. Campbell, manager of the Glasgow Apothecaries' Company, deposed that the prisoner bought large quantities of strychnine, laudanum, tartar emetic, tincture aconite, Fleming's tincture aconite, conii, tartarised antimony, &c., extending from the latter end of last year. Within two or three months the wit ness sold the prisoner more tartarized antimony than he did all the rest of the Glasgow doctors together, though he did a large dispensing trade. John Corrie, chemist, also deposed to having sold aconite to Dr. Pritchard. Drs. Douglas, Maglagan, Littlejohn, and Perry, deposed to the post mortem examination of the bodies of Mrs. Taylor and Mrs. Pritchard. The substance of their testimony was, that Mrs. Pritchard had taken large quantities of antimony in the form of tartar emetic in a succession of doses. That the Battley's solution of opium found in Mrs. Taylor's pocket contained aconite, more than five per cent., but less than ten per cent. The medical witnesses also declared their opinion that Mrs. Pritchard died of repeated small doses of antimony, and Mrs. Taylor of a dose of antimony administered shortly before her death. There was nothing to indicate apoplexy. Tartar emetic could be readily beaten with egg flip, and a sufficient dose to keep up illness could be given in a lump of sugar. Mr. Mac Brair, trustee of the late David Cowan, of Portsmouth, proved that Mrs. Taylor had control of 30007. under Mr. Cowan's will, and that Mrs. Taylor had made a will leaving two-thirds of that sum to Mrs. Pritchard, and in the event of her death to Dr. Pritchard, who was to get the interest till his children should attain the age of twenty-one, and after that time he was to get the money for himself. In July, 1864, Mrs. Taylor had paid £500 to Dr. Pritchard. Formal evidence of two declarations, emitted by the prisoner respectively on the 2nd of March and 21st of April, was then given, declaring that he had never administered poison to Mrs. Pritchard or Mrs. Taylor, and that he never administered antimony to his wife, except on one occasion, in October last, when he applied it externally to a swelling in her throat. The case for the prosecution was then closed, and evidence was given for the defence. Dr. Michael Taylor, of Carlisle, brother to Mrs. Pritchard, and son of Mrs. Taylor, said he advised his sister after his mother's death to get a nurse, but she objected, as she did not like strangers about her. John Simpson (of Duncan and Co., chemists, Edinburgh), said his firm frequently sold "Battley's Sedative Solution" to a person who asked for it in Dr. Pritchard's name. His firm sold no less than half-a-gallon (eighty ounces) of Fleming's tincture of aconite in a year. Thos. Fairgrieve, chemist, Edinburgh, said he often sold bottles of Battley's solution to Mrs. Taylor. He sold two ounces to her on January 29, and two more on February 4, 1865. In the course of the year he sold fifty ounces of Fleming's tincture of aconite. He had made up prescriptions of two ounces of said tincture for a liniment. There was no aconite in Battley's solution. James Thompson, commission agent, said he had been in the habit of purchasing Battley's solution from Duncan, Flockhart, and Co., for Mrs. Taylor in the name of Dr. Pritchard, and had bought a bottle of the solution for her the night before Mrs. Taylor went to Glasgow, immediately preceding her death. Two witnesses spoke to consulting Dr. Pritchard for affections in the ear, and getting bottles from Dr. Pritchard in his consulting room. One of the witnesses produced the bottle which Dr. Pritchard had given him; but the prisoner's counsel said he had no desire that its contents should be examined, and it was ordered to lie on the table of the court. Charles Pritchard, the eldest son of the prisoner, eleven, and Jane Pritchard, his daughter, fourteen years of age, were examined very briefly; the son saying that his papa and mamma lived very happily together, and were very fond P of one another, and the daughter saying that her grandmamma and papa were very fond of each other. The prisoner was much affected while his children were under examination. The Solicitor-General then addressed the jury for the Crown, and contended that the only two persons who had any opportunity to perpetrate the murders were the prisoner and Mary M'Leod; that the gradual poisoning of the wife could not have been done by a girl of seventeen; and that in the nature of the murder they could almost detect the finger of a doctor. He noticed the facts in evidence as showing that the prisoner had the opportunity of committing the murder, dwelling especially upon his dropping the sugar into the egg flip, which made the servant and Mrs. Pritchard sick. As to Mrs. Taylor, her death was clearly due to the aconite which had been mixed with Battley's solution, and the evidence left no room to doubt that the prisoner had put the aconite in the bottle. Mr. Clark addressed the jury for the prisoner, and contended that the prosecution had failed to trace the poisoning to the prisoner. All that the SolicitorGeneral had contended was that there were only two persons who could commit the crime-the prisoner and Mary M'Leod-and yet without asking Mary M'Leod whether she put any thing in the food, the jury were asked to believe that she was not guilty, and therefore that the prisoner was guilty. He concluded by maintaining that the whole evidence for the prosecution hung upon probability, and could never justify the jury in finding a verdict against the prisoner. The Lord Justice Clerk at considerable length summed up the evidence. At the conclusion of his summing up, his lordship said the prisoner's counsel had urged that M'Leod might have been the person who committed the murders. It was, however, right to consider the balance of probabilities. Was it possible that a servant-maid sixteen or seventeen years of age could have herself conceived or executed such a design, and if she had conceived it, could she have executed it subject to the vigilance of the husband of her victim, himself a medical man? That was very hard to believe indeed. On the other hand, if the prisoner conceived and executed the design, it was not so difficult to believe that Mary M'Leod may have been the perfectly unconscious and innocent instrument of carrying out his purpose. If they were satisfied the murder was committed, the parties who had access to Mrs. Pritchard only could have done it. Some of them were plainly innocent, and in the case of others the probability of guilt was reduced to two. Of these two one or other of them was guilty. The jury retired, and returned in about an hour with a unanimous verdict of guilty of both charges. The Lord Justice Clerk then sentenced the prisoner to be executed at Glasgow on the 28th inst., and said that the verdict of the jury proceeded upon evidence which could leave no reasonable doubt on the minds of those by whom it was considered. Some days after the trial the prisoner volunteered a confession to the Rev. Mr. Oldham, the clergyman who attended him, in which he declared himself, by a solemn statement in writing, which he drew up with great care and deliberation, to have been guilty of adultery with M'Leod and of poisoning his wife, but avowed his innocency of the murder of Mrs. Taylor. Eight days later he retracted this statement and made a second confession as follows: "Confession by Edward William Pritchard, and made in the presence of an all-seeing God, and of the Rev. T. Watson Reid, my present spiritual adviser, on the 19th day of July, 1865, at Glasgow prison, for communication to the proper authorities. "I, Edward William Pritchard, in the full possession of all my senses, and understanding the awful position in which I am placed, do make free and open confession that the sentence pronounced upon me is just; that I am guilty of the death of my mother-in-law, Mrs. Taylor, and of my wife, Mary Jane Pritchard; that I can assign no motive for the conduct which actuated me beyond a species of terrible madness and the use of ardent spirits. I hereby freely and fully state that the confession made to the Rev. R. S. Oldham, on the 11th day of this month, was not true; and I hereby confess that I alone, not Mary M'Leod, poisoned my wife in the way brought out in evidence at my trial. That Mrs. Taylor's death was caused according to the wording of the indictment I further state to be true, and the main facts brought out at my trial I hereby fully acknowledge, and now plead wholly and solely guilty thereto, and may God have mercy on my soul. I pray earnestly for repentance not to be repented of, and for forgiveness from Almighty God through the intercession of our blessed Redeemer, Mediator, and Advocate, Jesus Christ the Lord and Saviour. "Fellow-creatures, pray for me; and, let me add, I am in charity with all men. "I have now to record my humble thanks to all who have taken part in any way for my interest. First, to their lordships the judges for their great patience, forbearance, and careful consideration of my case, and to the gentlemen of the jury. Second, to all the officials. I cannot help mentioning the clerk of the High Court of Justiciary, the governor (Mr. Smith) of the Edinburgh gaol, the chaplain (Rev. Mr. Russell), head-warder Nelson, warders John Livingstone and Mackintosh; the governor of Glasgow prison (Mr. Stirling); Mr. Armour, headwarder; chaplain Mr. Doran; his assistants, Messrs. Hogg and Troup; warders Mutrie, Thomson, &c.; Drs. Leishman and Dewar, surgeons to Glasgow prison; and Dr. Simpson, of Edinburgh gaol. To the non-officials my heartfelt thanks are especially due; to the Rev. Dr. Miller, of Free St. Matthew's, Glasgow, and to other ministers who have written me, not adding their names; to Dr. Norman MacLeod, may God bless him; and to my own immediate faith professors, Rev. R. S. Oldham and Rev. K. Watson Reid; to the police authorities, Superintendent M'Call and police at the Central Office, Glasgow; to Sergeant Stewart of the Edinburgh police force, and the sheriff officers Wilson of Glasgow, and Ferguson of Edinburgh; and to many others whose courtesy and kindness I cannot forget; above all to Sir Archibald Alison, Bart., sheriff, &c., for his humane, gentle treatment while undergoing his legal duties. May each and all accept the thanks of a dearly penitent sinner, and may Heaven be their reward, is the last prayer of Edward William Pritchard'. "JOHN STIRLING, governor, witness. 1 For an account of the execution of Dr. Pritchard, see Chronicle, ante. IV. THE ROAD MURDER. CONVICTION OF CONSTANCE KENT OF THE MURDER OF Her Brother, FRANCIS SAVILLE KENT. The case of this prisoner, who had been committed for trial upon her own confession 2, made five years after the event, of having murdered her infant brother at Road, in Wiltshire, took place at Salisbury on the 20th of July, before Mr. Justice Willes, one of the Judges of Assize for that county. Extraordinary interest had been excited in the public mind in reference to this case, on account of the impenetrable mystery which had surrounded the crime until it was at length cleared up by the voluntary confession of the guilty party, who at the time of perpetrating the act was a girl of only sixteen years of age.. The prisoner being placed at the bar, amidst the deep silence of a denselycrowded court, the Clerk of Assize, addressing her, said: Constance Emilie Kent, you stand charged with having wilfully murdered Francis Saville Kent, at Roadhill House, on the 30th of June, 1860; how say you, are you guilty or not guilty? Prisoner (in a low tone of voice): Guilty. Mr. Justice Willes, pausing: Are you aware that you are charged with having wilfully, intentionally, and with malice, killed your brother? Prisoner (with her head bent low): Yes. Mr. Justice Willes: And you plead guilty to that? The prisoner hesitated in her reply. Mr. Justice Willes waited for some minutes amidst breathless silence, and then said: What is your answer? The prisoner still remained silent. Mr. Justice Willes: I must repeat to you that you are charged with having wilfully, and intentionally, and with malice, killed and murdered your brother; are you guilty or not guilty? The prisoner, in a rather more firm voice, said, "Guilty.” Mr. Justice Willes (to the Clerk of Assize): Let the plea be recorded. A dead silence then ensued for some minutes, which was broken by Mr. Coleridge, Q.C., who said: My lord, as counsel for the defence, acting on the prisoner's behalf, before your lordship passes sentence, I desire to say two things-first, solemnly in the presence of Almighty God, as a person who values her own soul, she wishes me to say that the guilt is hers alone, and that her father and others who have so long suffered most unjust and cruel suspicion are wholly and absolutely innocent; and, secondly, she was not driven to this act, as has been asserted, by unkind treatment at home, as she met with nothing there but tender and forbearing love; and I hope I may add, my lord, not improperly, that it gives me a melancholy pleasure to be the organ of these statements for her, because on my honour I believe them to be true. 2 For an account of the confession and committal of the prisoner, see Chronicle, ante. |