THE ALLEGED POISONING CASE.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1136, 8 December 1893, Page 19

THE ALLEGED POISONING CASE.

MRS BLAKE ON TRIAL

The trial of Mrs Ellen Blake, on a charge of having on or about the 17th October ■wilfully administered poison to her husband, James Blake, with intent to murder him, wascommenced at the Supreme

Court on the 6th, before the Chief Justice. There was a large assemblage of spectators in the body of the Court, and a row of ladies’ heads peered over the gallery rails. Mr Gully (Crown Prosecutor) conducted the -case for the Crown, and Mr A. W. Gould defended the prisoner, who pleaded not guilty. Dr Felt gave evidence as to attending on the man James Blake. In July, as the man was suffering from stricture, he sent him to the hospital,where he remained for 8 weeks. On the 10th October he was again called in to see Blake and found him suffering from diarrhoea and ulcerated mouth. He never administered mercury to him, but his symptoms were consistent with mercurial poisoning. He overheard Blake on one occasion reproaching the prisoner for not giving him the medicine witness left for him. Mrs' Blake told witness she did not think her husband would get better. Mr Gould examined the doctor at some length. His evidence was substantially the same as that which he gave in the Resident Magistrate’s Court. ■ Dr Patrick Mackin stated that when he was called in on the 14th October he found Blake in- an emaciated state ; teinperature, 96deg. ; gums swollen and highly in-, flamed, and blue line on them; ulcers inside mouth ; teeth loose and greatly de-

cayed, and breath very offensive. The patient also had diarrhoea. All the symptoms were suggestive of mercurial poisoning and general debility. He treated Blake, And on thS 16th found the condition of his mouth somewhat better. He told the patient this, and said he hoped when they got the mercury out of his system he would improve. In the outer room prisoner said to witness he should not give her husband, false hopes, because there was no hope ; that lie knew very well he would not recover, and that he was quite resigned. Witness prescribed wine, and left. When he next called Blake was much worse, and apparently in a dying state. He presented all the symptoms witness had first noticed, but in an aggravated form. In answer to witness, Blake told him there was a brassy taste in his mouth and a burning sensation in the pit of the stomach. Witness concluded he was suffering from irritant poisoning, and that the administering of the poison had. been recent. His suspicions, were aroused, and he communicated with the police. Detective Ede visited him at his surgery, and as a consequence witness accompanied him, Inspector Pender and Detective Campbell on the night of the 17th to Blake’s house. Mrs Blake was up, and a lady and a gentleman were in the • kitchen. Mrs Blake was searched, and in a purse which she gave to Detective Campbell there was some white powder found clinging to the sides. The detective asked her what it was, and prisoner said " Chalk.” .Witness remarked that it looked more like calomel, and prisoner used words to the effect of “ I did not give it to him.” Blake r ,was removed to the hospital at a later hour of the night on witness’ order. The patient’s life was despaired of for the first week after his arrival, but since then he had been slowly recovering. He had analysed the white precipitate, and had found it to be a compound of mercury and ammonia, containing 80 per cent of mercury. It was a slow, irritant poison, and would account for all the symptoms manifested by Blake between the 14th and the 17th October. Pure mercury was not poisonous. Mrs Blake asked him on the 17th October if her husband l would live long, to which witness replied, “ Not long as he now is.” Dr John Ewart, resident surgeon at Wellington Hospital, deposed that James ■ Blake (husband of accused) was in the hospital from July 26 to September 2 for treatment for stricture. On the latter date he was discharged almost well. He had received nothing in the hospital containing mercury. He returned to the hospital on the early morning of the 18th of October, and had remained there under witness’ care up to the present time.. He diagnosed patient’s condition on 18th October, and found him very weak, slightly feverish, suffering from diarrhcea, and occasional vomiting. ..There was profuse salivation, the breath very offensive, the lips, gums and roof of mouth ulcerated, a blue line on gums, the teeth loose, while gums had receded from them. The tongue was swollen and slightly ulcerated. All these symptoms were consistent with nothing he could think of but mercurial j poisoning. Had the patient received but one dose of poison the effects would probably have passed off more rapidly, and there would have been more vomiting and pain at the beginning. This opinion was based upon a history of the case given him by the patient himself. It was quite possible, although very unlijcely, that one • large dose would 1 have produced it. It was a case of life and death when patient entered the hospital, and for some weeks he remained in a critical condition. The symptoms were quite consistent with the theory of poisoning by the white precipitate mentioned by previous witnesses. The blue ointment (produced) if used frequently and continuously over a large surface and well rubbed in would possibly if the skin were very thin produce the Symptoms observed in Blake. William Edward Woods, chemist, Cuba street deposed that the box of blue ointment, (produced) came from his place. It J was his preparation. It contained two- j thirds of the pharmacopoeia blue ointment, I 50 per cent of which was mercury and two- . j thirds lard. The box held one ounce, one-1 sixth part of which, therefore, would, be !

mercury. In this form it was not the recognised poison. The white precipitate was used principally for parasites, sores, etc. It would have to be used in very large quantities to induce mercurial poisoning. Robert Cross, chemist, Vivian street, deposed that accused had been to his shop three or four times, but he could not remember what she bought. Inspector Pender gave an account of the search made at !the Blakes’ house on the night of the 17th October. Some powder, he said, was found in a purse on accused, which she said Was chalk, but which proved to be calomel. A quantity of calomel was also found in a chest of • drawers.

Chief-Detective Campbell also related what occurred on the same occasion, and of the finding of a quantity of calomel and blue ointment in various places. Accused was taken into custody, and when her husband was being removed to the hospital, she said: “ You see, dad, I have to suffer for what you have done yourself.” Wir. Skey, Government Analyst, Wellington, repeated the evidence given by him as to finding a quantity of white precipitate in the exhibits handed to him by the police and Drs Mackin and Fell. One of the exhibits was a box of tar pills, on which was a thin coating of white precipitate. Mary Ann Quirk, female searcher, deposed that while searching accused on the night of the 17th October Mrs Blake took a portion of her clothing which she had taken off and put it into the kitchen grate. Subsequently the article was taken out of the grate and found to contain a packet of white precipitate. Ellen Wright, who said she was a frequent visitor at the Blakes’, stated tiiat as a rule Mrs Blake used to prepare and cook her husband’s food. She had known him to be sick shortly after taking food. The Court adjourned at 5.45 p.m. and resumed at 7.30 p.m. Alice Blake, wife of James John Blake, son of prisoner’s husband, stated that her father-in-law was taken ill some time after he left the hospital. The prisoner had said to her that she hated her husband, and on another occasion prisoner said she wished he was dead. One day while prisoner was cooking some food for her husband witness heard a noise like paper rustling, and the next day while looking in prisoner’s purse she found a packet labelled “ poison,” and containing a white powder. Prisoner almost invariably prepared her husband’s food. She had heard Mr Blake and prisoner quarrel about a mad named Cole paying visits to the house. Cross-examined, witness denied that she had ever been alone in her father-in-law’s bedroom except for a minute., or two at a time. In a conversation with the prisoner witness had told her she had read that people could be poisoned by giving them powdered glass. Jas. John Blake, husband of the previous witness, stated that prisoner had offered him <£l a week to keep her husband because he was a “ regular old growl.” They did not live happily together. Witness’ father was very irritable, and had been more so of late.

Marian Lightfoot, a neighbour of prisoner’s, deposed that, so far as she knew, prisoner always prepared her husband’s food. She never heard prisoner say the powder was used for the children’s heads, apd did not know there was any necessity for so using it. She did not think prisoner and her husband lived very happily, and prisoner had frequently said to her. she hated him, and wished he was dead.

At 10.10 p.in. the Court adjourned until 10 o’clock next morning.