administration is proved, little evidence is in general required to establish the intent. It is sufficient that the giver knew the substance administered was of a deadly nature; and in regard to any of the common poisons this knowledge is sufficiently constituted by his simply knowing its name.
In some cases, however, the exact nature of the poison is not established with certainty; and then something else may be required to prove the prisoner's knowledge, and through that knowledge his intent. In the case of Charles Munn, formerly alluded to [p. 50], arsenic was the poison presumed to have been taken by the deceased. But the purchase or possession of it by the prisoner was not for some time satisfactorily established; neither was there any chemical evidence, the deceased having lived forty days and upwards after taking the poison. It was proved, however, that whatever it was which had been administered, the prisoner knew very well that what he gave was deleterious; because he persuaded the deceased, who was pregnant by him, to take it by assigning to it properties which no drug either possesses, or is so much as thought by the vulgar to possess. On one occasion he persuaded her that it would show whether she was with child, and on another that it would prevent people from knowing she was with child. In such cases, then, good evidence may be derived from the arguments used by the giver to persuade his victim to take the poison; and sometimes, as in the instance now mentioned, it will lie with the medical witness to inform the court whether or not the reasons assigned are false.
Sometimes it has been pleaded by the prisoner that he gave the poison by mistake. In all such cases, if he descends to particulars, which he cannot help doing, there is every likelihood that the falsehood of the defence will be made evident by the particulars of the story not agreeing with other particulars of the moral or medical evidence. At present it is only necessary to allude to inconsistencies in his story with the medical facts. No general rules can be laid down on the method of investigating a case with a view to evidence of this kind: I must be satisfied with an illustration from an actual occurrence. On the trial of Mr. Hodgson, a surgeon, at the Durham Autumn Assizes in 1824, for attempting to poison his wife, it was clearly proved, that pills containing corrosive sublimate, and compounded by the prisoner, were given by him to her in place of pills of calomel and opium, which had been ordered by her physician. But it was pleaded by him, that, being at the time intoxicated, he had mistaken, for the shop-bottle which contained opium, the corrosive-sublimate bottle which stood next it. This was certainly an improbable error, considering the opium was in powder, and the sublimate in crystals. But it was not the only one which he alleged he had committed. Not long after his wife took ill, the physician sent the prisoner to the shop to prepare for her a laudanum draught, with water for the menstruum. When the prisoner returned with it, the physician, in consequence of observing it to be muddy, was led to taste it, before he gave it to the sick lady: and finding it had the taste of corrosive
