A CLERGYMAN TRIED FOR MANSLAUGHTER.

Auckland Star, Volume XXI, Issue 4122, 20 September 1883, Page 4

A CLERGYMAN TRIED FOR MANSLAUGHTER.

Poisoned by a Parson.

[FROM OUR LONDON CORRESPONDENT.]

A verdict of "Not Guilty" has been returned in the West Mailing poisoning case which has just been tried at Maidstone • and the Rev. John Henry Timmins has thereby escaped any penal consequences whatever of the extraordinary "medical treatment" to which he subjected the girl Sarah Anne Wright, and from which' "treatment" that unfortunate young nelson died. The story of tlie Timmins "catas" trophe (for one can scarcely call it anything worse) is most- remarkable, and should be a solemn warning to amateur " physickers" all over the world. In New Zealand especially an immense amount of unauthor iseel and uninstructed "closing" g oe3 sub rosa, and I therefore hope the history of the Kentish parson's misadventure will be widely read. A colonial jury might not be so lenient as "the twelve honest men of Maidstone," and in any case it would be extremely unpleasant to be the hero of such'a fatal "sensation."

The clergyman indicted last week for manslaughter, "in feloniously killing and slaying" the deceased girl, who was a labourer's daughter in humble circumstances, is verging on three score and ten and has been for forty years Vicar of West Mailing. He has nover ceased to bear the best of characters for piety and morality and for kindness and benevolence to his poorer neighbours. It would appear also that in early life Mr Timmins attended lectures at St. Thomas's 1 lospital, and from that circumstance it was assumed that ho had acquired some knowledge of medicine and of the properties of drugs. He was in tho habit of visiting the family 0 f the girl Wright, who, in December last, had been for some time ailing, but by the' 14th of the month she was growing a little better On that day the Reverend Mr Timmins went to see her, inquired how she was and producing a bottle from his pocket, poured a portion of the contents into a glass and asked for some water. No water however, seemed to be forthcoming, and Mr Timmins bade her take the undiluted fluid. At first she refused, but he pressed her, saying that it would do her good. So she swallowed the potion, and straightway arose, screaming, from the sofa on which she had been lying. He again asked for water, which being obtained he made her drink some of it. After he had left the house the girl again rose, staggered, foamed at the mouth, and vomited. At the end of another twenty minuteß or so a nurse went to Mr Timmins's residence, and he returned with brandy, some of which mixed with water, he tried to make the girl swallow. The mixture, however, could not be got into her mouth. At the reverend gentleman's desire a doctor was then sent for ; but before he came, in less than two hours from the administration of the fatal draught, the girl died. The medical man, thus too tardily summoned who took part in the autopsy of the corpse' stated that the girl's death had been caused by her drinking essential oil of almonds. Mr Timmins had told him that he had " administered a teaspoonful of the oil, which was inoouous." He had pro. misecl to send the surgeon the bottle which had contained the stuff; but he had not done so. In cross-examination the doctor said that there was an inoouous oil of almonds, which was of a yellow colour • and that the poisonous " essential " oil of almonds became harmless after being kept for some time. The medical evidence was completed by Professor Hcaton, lecturer on chemistry at Charing-cross Hospital, who showed the "'bitter" and the " essential" oil of almonds were the same, ani contained a variable quantity of prussic acid; and that what remained in the bottle of the druggist who had supplied Mr Timmins there was 3-5 per cent, of prussic acid, which would givo two grains in a teaspoonful—sufficient to cause death.

It must be mentioned that the Reverend Mr Timmins's son had been suffering from nettle-rash, and he had obtained from the local chemist an ounce of "bitter"or " essential" oil of almonds, to be applied externally. The medicament was obtained by an order in Mr Timmins's handwriting but not signed by him. Nevertheless tfiei chemist seems to have felt some alarm at the heaviness of the dose sent for; and he wrote to the Vicar, warning him that _j oil was very poisonous, and asking him if it was really the article he required. The Vicar replied that the oil was for external application, and that he would sco that proper use was made of it. The chemist added that he had pasted on the phial containing the stuff two labels, one inscribed "essential oil of almonds," the other containing the printed word "poison." He had had tho oil for eighteen months in stock ; and of course, as a chemist, he knew that, prussic acid being volatile, the percentage thereof in essential oil of almonds will diminish with timo ; but he had never known of bitter oil of almonds being taken internally ; and, previous to the vicar's order being sent him, ho had never heard of the bitter oil being used even externally. Poison, he added, might be absorbed.

The main contention of Mr Edward Clarke's extremely able defence was that the prisoner had made an unhappy mistake. He had written to the chemist for "bitter oil" of almonds—unaware, it was suggested, that the bitter and essential forms are identical—for external application only. Tho chemist had sent an oil which Mr Timmins thought was innocuous; and as to the bottle having been labelled " poison," that averment depended only on the recollection of the chemist. But where is the bottle ? " The girl's mother had not observed any poison label on the bottle; and, besides, even if it had been so labelled, the prisoner might have supposed it to be not poisonous, and his subsequent conduct showed no suspicion of poison in his mind." It must bo admitted that after the deceased had jumped up screaming from the effects of the poison, Mr Timmins first offered what remained of the contents of the git,- to tha girl's mother, who wisely refused to put her lips to it, and then proposed to drink it himself. The learned Judge, in summing up the case, explained to the jury what evidence was necessary to sustain a charge of homicide by negligence, and pointed out that, unless gross negligence were established against the accused, it would be their duty to acquit him. It was clear, Mr Justice Day remarked, that Mr Timmins knew he was to receive a poisonous drug,, for external application only. " A person who administered suoh a drug was bound to be careful; and in this case it was clear there had been a want of care." The jury almost immediately -returned a verdict of " Not Guilty "; that is to say, they found that there was no criminal negligence in a person, not being a medical man, administering internally a potion which he had been warned was poisonous, and which was declared to be intended for external application only. The verdict of acquittal was received with son applause in Court, and the Rev. Mr Tini: mins is doubtless entitled him to tto sympathy of his neighbours, to whom his virtues have long since endeared bus. Still it is most earnestly to be hoped that for the future the reverend gentleman wl sedulously abstain from the empirical practice of medicine among his neighbours.