Evidence for the Prosecution

Archibald Smith, Advocate.  Sheriff-Substitute of Lanarkshire (by the Lord Advocate) - The prisoner was judicially examined before me, and emitted a declaration on 31st March, which I identify.  It was freely and voluntarily emitted, after she had been duly admonished.  The two letters now shown to me were exhibited to the prisoner, and signed by her.

Cross-examined by the Dean of Faculty - Only four letters in all were shown to the prisoner.  She was examined on a charge of murder.  The greater part of the questions were put by me. The statements in the declaration were all made in answer to questions.  The answers were given clearly and distinctly.  There was no appearance of hesitation or reserve.  There was a great appearance of frankness and candour.  The declaration was of some length.

I knew the late M. L'Angelier. He lodged in my house. He first come to me about the end of July and he remained in my house as a lodger till his death.  His usual habits were regular. Sometimes he was out at night.  Not very often at first, but frequent of late. His general health was good till about January.  I recollect his having an illness somewhere about the middle of February. He had an illness about the 22nd of February, and he had one eight or ten days before that. I cannot exactly remember the day.

The night he was first attacked, he wished the passkey, because he would be late. I went to bed and did not hear him come in. At eight in the morning, I knocked at his door and got no answer.  I knocked again, and he answered "Come in, if you please."  I went in, and found him in bed.  He said, "I have been very unwell; look what I have vomited." I said, "I think that's bile." I did see what it was that he had vomited -  it was a greenish substance. There was a great deal of it.  It was about the thickness of gruel.  I said, "Why did you not call on me?  "He said, "on the road coming home I was seized with a violent pain in my bowels and stomach and when I was taking off my clothes I lay down upon the carpet.  I thought I would have died, and no human eye would have seen me.  I was not able to ring the bell. If you please to make me some tea, I think I will not go out."

[By the Lord Justice-Clerk] Did you find him on the carpet or the bed?  - I found him on the bed.

I emptied out what he had vomited.  I advised Mr. L'Angelier to go to a doctor, and he said he would. He told me not to make any breakfast but said he would take some tea then he went to some sleep.  He slept, I think, for about an hour -  till nine o'clock.  I went back to him at that time and found that he had had a sleep and was a little better, and would go out. He got his tea when I went to him at nine.

Mr. Thuau, saw him also; he lodged, at that time, in my house.  I think, as far as I can remember, that he rose betwixt ten and eleven o'clock.  He went out.  He said he was going to his place of business, but intended also to call upon a gentleman. His place of business is at number 10 Bothwell Street, Messrs. Huggins.  It is not very far from my house but a good many streets off.  He returned about three in the afternoon.  He said he had been at the doctor, and had got a bottle which he had with him.  I do not remember if he said he felt any better; he took the medicine.  I do not remember that he had complained of anything else besides the pain in his stomach and bowels.  He did complain of being very thirsty.  When he returned at three o'clock, he still complained of being thirsty but not so much as before.

The illness did make a change in his appearance - a great change.  He looked yellow and not like what he used to be.  He became dull in appearance.  Before that his complexion was fresh.  After that the colour left him - a great deal. His skin became dark under the eyes and the red on his cheeks seemed to be more broken.  He complained of cold.  I remember him, after he came in, complaining of being very cold.  When he came in, he lay down on the sofa, and I laid a railway rug over him but do not remember doing anything to his feet.  He never was the same after.  He got a little better but when asked how he felt, he always said, "I never feel well."

I can not tell exactly what was the date of his first illness but the second illness was about 22nd February.  It was on a Monday morning about four o'clock when he called me and, on going to him, I found him vomiting.  It was quite same was the same kind of stuff as he had vomited before.  I think the same both in colour and in kind.  There was not quite as much of it as last time.  He complained of the same pain in the bowels and stomach, and of thirst. He was very cold.  I was not aware he was out the night before - he said nothing about that.  I put more clothes on him and jars of hot water to his feet and stomach. I made some tea, and he had a great many drinks - toast and water and lemon and water.  He got a little better.  I left him and called about six.  He was a little better then.  He did not rise till the forenoon.

I think this was on 22nd February, because he had bought a piece of boiling meat on the Saturday from. Stewart, St. Georges Road. He had a passbook with Stewart, which I now identify.  I see the piece of meat entered on 21st February and it was sent on the Saturday before that illness, which was on the Monday morning. A doctor came - Dr. Thomson - on the Monday. Thuau went for him in the forenoon, but I do not remember the hour he called. The doctor left a prescription for powders, which I sent for and got.  L'Angelier was eight days, I think, in the house, and away from his office. I recollect him taking one or two powders, but cannot say if he took the rest.  He said he did not think they did him the good he expected.

Dr. Thomson came more than once.  L'Angelier said, - "The doctor always says I am getting well," but he said he did not feel well; he said, "I do not think I am getting better." He said this often.  He went to Edinburgh soon after.  I cannot say the date, or how long it was after this illness.  I think he was eight days away.  He came back, I think, on a Tuesday.  Thuau told me at four that L'Angelier would be back that evening and I got in bread and butter. I identify his passbook with Chalmers the baker.  The bread and butter are entered on 17th March.  He returned that night at half-past ten.

He was in the habit of  receiving a great many letters, but I thought they were addressed in a gentleman's hand.  There were a great many in the same handwriting.  He never told me who the letters were from.  I identify a photograph of a lady which I saw lying about his room.  I said, "is that your intended, Sir"  He said, "perhaps some day."   I did not think the letters came from a lady. I always took in the letters, but he never said anything about my taking them in.  I knew he expected to be married about the end of September, 1856.  He wished a bedroom and dining room.  He said he was going to be married about the end of March, and said he would like me to take him in.  I did not agree.  One time, when he was badly, I said," it will be a bad job if you get ill and you going to get married." He said, " it will he a long time before you see that, Mrs Jenkins."

On his return on 17th March he asked me if I had a letter for him. I said I had not, and he seemed disappointed.  He stayed over the 18th and left on the 19th, and when he left he told me to give any letters to Thuau, who would address them.  He said he was going to Bridge of Allan.  A letter came for him on the 19th.  It was the same as the others that had been coming.  I gave it to Mr Thuau to address. I cannot say if any came on the Friday, but one came on the Saturday  in what was more like a lady's writing than the others.   I gave it to Thuau.  L'Angelier said he would not be home till Wednesday night or Thursday morning of the following week.  He was very much  disappointed at not getting a letter, and when he went away he said, "if  I get a letter I may be back tonight."  I don't know whether he went anywhere else before going to Bridge of Allan.  I identify an envelope as like the one that came on the Saturday but I cannot speak as to the other one shown me.

I next saw L'Angelier on the Sunday night about eight o'clock. I was surprised, and asked why he came home. He said, "the letter you sent brought me home."  He asked when it came. I said, "on Saturday afternoon." He said he had walked fifteen mile but he did not say where he had come from. I understood he had been at Bridge of Allan.  He told me to call him early next morning.  He said he intended to go back by the first train, but whether or not to Bridge of Allan I cannot say.  He looked well, and said he was a great deal better, and almost well. He went out that night about nine o'clock, and before going out he said, "if you please, give me the passkey.   I am not sure but I may be late."

I saw him next about half-past two on the Monday morning.  He did not use the passkey.  The bell rang with great violence.  I rose, and called, "who's there?" He said, "it is I, Mrs Jenkins; open the door, if you please."  I did so.  He was standing with his arms closed across his stomach.  He said, "I am very bad; I am going to have another vomiting of that bile."  The first time I had said, "that's bile," and he had replied, " I never had bile;  I never was troubled with bile." He said he thought he never would have got home, he was so bad on the road.  He did not say whether it was pain or vomiting.  After he had come in he asked for a little water. I filled a tumbler, and he drank it empty.   He wished come tea.  I went into the room before he was half-undressed, and he was vomiting severely.  It was the same kind of matter as before, and it seemed so both in colour and substance.  There was gaslight.

The second occasion was the easiest.  On the third occasion he suffered great pain.  I said, "were you not taking anything that disagreed with you? - referring to his food at Bridge of Allan.  He said, "no, I have taken nothing that disagreed with me;  I never was better than when I was at the coast" - meaning, as I understood, at Bridge of Allan.  I said, "you have not taken enough of medicine and he said, "I never approved of medicine.  He was chilly and cold, and wished hot water to his feet and stomach.  I got jars of hot water, and also three or four pairs of blankets and two mats.  He got a little easier, but became very bad at four o'clock.  I said I would go for Dr. Thomson, in Dundas Street.  He thanked me, but said it was too much trouble so early.  I said, " No."  He told me the name and residence of the doctor, but said he feared I would not find the way.  I said, " No fear." He got a little better; but about five he got very bad again, and his bowels got very bad.  I said I would go to the nearest doctor - a Dr. Steven.  He asked what kind of a doctor he was, and told me to go and bring him.

I went for Dr. Steven at five o'clock.  The doctor was badly, and could not come.  He said to give twenty-five drops of laudanum, and to put a mustard blister on the stomach, and hot water, and that if L'Angelier was no better he would come.  L'Angelier said he could not take laudanum. I gave him plenty of hot water. He said that a blister would be of no use; he was only retching.  About seven o'clock he was dark about the eyes.   I again proposed to get Dr. Steven; and he was anxious, this time, that I should go for the doctor.

When the doctor came he ordered mustard immediately, and I left the room to get it.  I did not hear the doctor ask L'Angelier what was wrong.  I said to the doctor, "Look what he has vomited"; and the doctor said, "Take it away, it is making him faintish." I got mustard, and the doctor put it on. He said he would wait to see the effect, and gave him, I think, a little morphia.  He stayed about half an hour.  I went in with more hot water, and when I was applying it L'Angelier said, "oh, Mrs. Jenkins, this is the worst attack I ever had." He said, "I feel something here," pointing to his forehead.  Dr. Steven said, "it must be something internally; I see nothing wrong." L'Angelier said, "can you do anything, doctor?" He said time and quietness were required.

I left the room, pointing to the doctor to come, and I asked what was wrong.  He asked if L'Angelier was a person that tippled?  I said he was not.  The doctor said he was like a man that tippled, and I assured him that L'Angelier was not given to drink.  I remarked, "it is strange; this is the second time he has gone out well and returned very ill; I must speak to him and ask the cause." The doctor said, "that will be an after-explanation," and he said he would be back between ten and eleven.

The first time I went back to him L'Angelier asked me what the doctor thought. I replied, "he thinks you will get over it"; at which he said, "I am far worse, than the doctor thinks." I saw him several times.  He always said, "if I could get some sleep I should be better." About nine o'clock, when I drew the curtains, he looked badly. I asked if there was no one he would like to see.  He then asked to see a Miss Perry, and told her address Bath Street or Renfrew Street, I think No. 4 . I sent for her. I went out and in three or four times.  The last time I went in he said "Oh, if I could get five minutes' sleep, I think I would get better. These were his last words. I left him, and went back quietly in five or ten minutes. I thought him asleep, and went out.  The doctor came soon after.  He asked for his patient, and I said he was newly asleep, and that it was a pity to waken him.  He said he would like to see him, and we went in.  The doctor felt his pulse, and lifted up the head, which fell down.  He told me L'Angelier was dead.  I think I have told all I know.

I did not ask L'Angelier where he had been. I knew, from the time he said he was going to be married, that there was a private correspondence; but I did not know who the lady was or where she lived.  That was the reason why I did not ask where he had been at nights.  Miss Perry came but she was too late. I sent my little boy to Mr. Clark, another lodger; he was at the National Bank.  Clark came, and also Chrystal, a grocer.  Stevenson came, but not then.  Chrystal went in and shut L'Angelier's eyes.  He said he would send word to his employer.  A Mr  Scott, the foreman of Menzies, an undertaker, came first.  Stevenson, from Huggins & Co., came also.  Dr. Thomson, M. Thuau, and Dr. Steven were sent for. I told Stevenson I wished him to take charge, and he did so.  The clothes which L'Angelier took off at night were on the sofa.  They took a letter out of his pocket, and some one said, " This explains all." I saw the letter and said, '  This is the letter that came on Saturday." When the letter was got Thuau and Stevenson were there, and perhaps Kennedy.  I cannot say which said "This explains all," I think Stevenson.  Stevenson locked up the things.  At that time I did not hear anything said of an examination.  The examination by the doctor was, I think, on the Wednesday.  All the things were left just as they were till Stevenson locked them up. 

When L'Angelier came from Bridge of Allan on the Sunday he had a tight short coat or jacket, with handkerchief in breast pocket, and he wore a Glengarry bonnet.  I did not see him go out; he had a bonnet when he came back at two, but I cannot say if it was the same.  He had bowel complaints on both of his first illnesses.

Cross examined by the Dean of Faculty - As to the first illness before the 22nd, I cannot speak to the date of it. It might be eight or ten days before the second illness.  I think so, but I cannot remember the date.  The first illness was much worse than the second. I think he began to complain of his health in January.  He had a sore throat, then a boil on his neck, and then another about the end of January.  On these illnesses I suggested that it was bile that was wrong with him.  I was troubled with that myself, and my symptoms were something like his, but not so violent.  There was purging on both of his first illnesses. 

The second illness was on a Monday morning, the 23rd. He dined at home on the Sunday.  On the Saturday night he said he was not very well, and did not intend to go out on Sunday.  He was taking fresh herrings, with sauce of eggs and vinegar, on that Saturday, and I said, "That is not good for you." He used many vegetables.  He said he always got them at college in France, and was never the worse.  I cannot say if he was out on the Sunday.  I think I would have recollected his asking for the key, but Thuau sometimes let him in.  He was confined to the house eight days after that Sunday.  I only remember him being out one about the 23rd or 24th.  Dr. Thomson visited him during these eight days.  After his first illness he brought home a bottle.  I do not recollect his bringing more than one.  The bottle was laudanum.  There were eight bottles and some powders in his room after his death.  The authorities got the bottles.  Mr Murray, I think, and Stevenson were there.   This was some days after the death, I think, but I am not sure. I was in the room when they took the bottles away. Murray put some questions to me, but I do not remember what they were.

L'Angelier spoke of coming back on the Thursday night if a letter came on the day he went to Bridge of Allen.  Thuau sent the letter after him, but he did not come.  The letter came about half past three on the Saturday.  Thuau came in to dinner about six o'clock, and re-addressed it.  I think it came by the last post, before dinner. L'Angelier said he was a little better when he came from Edinburgh; but I knew a greater difference on him when he came from Bridge of Allan.  He took tea and toast that Sunday night. I cannot say what he had on when he went out on Sunday nor when he came in next morning.  The gas was out in the lobby, and when I went into the bedroom he was half-undressed.  He said he had been very bad, but he did not say what it was.  He did not say he had been vomiting on the way home.  After he came back he vomited a great quantity of stuff.  The chamber-pot was quite full, but he did not vomit much after I emptied it.  He purged twice - once before I went for the doctor and once after.  I gave him hot water; he vomited much, and got better.  That was before the chamber-pot was emptied, which was done after the doctor came, and by his orders.  Before he came I told L'Angelier I would keep what he had vomited, and let the doctor see it.  There was laudanum in his press, but he refused to take it, and said he never could take it.  "Besides," he said, "it's not good; it has been standing without a cork."  Dr. Steven assured me, that L'Angelier would get over it the same as before.  I think on the morning of his death he complained of his throat, but I cannot say.  The doctor gave him some water, and he said it was like to choke him; and I think he also spoke of his throat.  When he was in bed that morning he always put his arms out of the clothes, stiff-like.  I cannot say if his hands were clenched, but his right hand was clenched when he died.

Miss Perry came about ten o'clock. I asked, "are you the intended, Ma'am?" and she said, " Oh, no! I am only a friend."  I had supposed, when L'Angelier asked to see her, that she was the intended.  I told her he was dead.  She was very sorry - very strikingly so - very much overwhelmed; cried a great deal.  I was surprised.  My message to her, by the little boy, had been that L'Angelier was very bad, and, as soon as convenient, to come and see him.  I took her in to see the body after it was laid out.  When she said she was not the intended, I said I heard he was going to be married, and how sorry the lady would be.  She kissed the forehead several times.. It was not violent grief.  She cried very much, and said how sorry she was for his mother.  I cannot say that she spoke as if she knew his mother. L'Angelier had two wooden writing desks in his room. I took note of the things taken away. I know of some of the clothes, but other things I don't know of. I was not in the room when the boxes were searched. I was in the house; when I once went in, they got the gas lighted, and said, "That will do," or "That's all that's required."  I do not recollect any lady calling for L'Angelier.  A married lady and her husband were once at tea with him.  Sometimes messages came from ladies.  When L'Angelier was badly, a can of marmalade and some books were sent.  "Mrs. Overton" was on the card.  L'Angelier had an illness one night about the end of August or beginning of September. He said his bowels had been very bad, and that he had not been in bed all night.  That was the same night on which there was a fire in Windsor Terrace.

[The fire at 207 St Georges Rd and 2&4 Windsor Terrace was on 21st August 1856]

Re-examined by the Lord Advocate - The topcoat and Balmoral bonnet now shown me are like L'Angelier things - like the coat he had on when he died, and the bonnet or cap he had on that night, but he had two or three caps. I identify his portmanteau.  When I said to Miss Perry the intended would be sorry, she told me not to say much about the intended, or to leave the matter alone.  I identify the morocco leather bag, which belonged to Thuau, and L'Angelier had at Bridge of Allan.

To the Court -  On the last illness, my inquiry as to his taking anything referred to Bridge of Allan.  His answer was, "No, I never was better than the few days I was at the coast." I never asked where he had been that night, as I thought he might be visiting his intended.  My husband was away all the time, and I saw him only once about New-Year time.  The letters that came on the Thursday and Saturday I took from the post, and laid down in his bedroom in the morning. I saw the Saturday one more fully, and, I noticed that the handwriting was very like a lady's.

To the Dean of Faculty - While L'Angelier was lodging with me, I left home about the end of August, and was away all September.  L'Angelier's illness was before that.

To the Court - Thuau was in Edinburgh during L'Angelier's last illness.  He had gone there on the Saturday.

Cross examined by the Dean of Faculty - I saw him about two o'clock.  He said he had come straight from Glasgow.  I saw him twice.  He did not get the letter.  He came back in about half an hour, and left me about three, saying he had got no letter, and was to leave for Bridge of Allan.  This was on Thursday the 19th of March.

William A. Stevenson , examined by the Solicitor General - I am warehouseman with Huggins & Co., Bothwell Street. The late M. L'Angelier was in our warehouse under me. He was unwell in March, and got leave of absence that month. He said he was to go to Edinburgh. He afterwards, went to Bridge of Allan. I did not see him in the interval. I got a letter from him from Bridge of Allan. The postmark is Bridge of Allan, March 20. The letter is in these terms:-

Bridge of Allan,
Friday.

Dear William,

I am happy to say I feel much better, though I fear I slept in a damp bed for my limbs are all sore, and scarcely able to bear me - but a day or two will put all to rights. What a dull place this is. I went to Stirling today but it was so cold and damp that I soon hurried home again. Are you very busy? Am I wanted? If so, I am ready to come home at any time. Just drop me a line at P.O. You were talking of taking a few days to yourself so I shall come up whenever you like. If any letters come please send them to me here. I intend to be home not later than Thursday morning - Yours sincerely,

P. Emile L’Angelier.

That is his handwriting. He generally signed "P. Emile L'Angelier." In our office he was generally called Emile. To that letter I now identify my reply - which I got back at the Post Office, Bridge of Allan. I was sent to Bridge of Allan on Friday, 27th March, to take possession of M L’Angelier's property. He had been four and a half years with Huggins & Co. I got notice of his death on the Monday forenoon from Corbet, a partner of the firm. I went to our place of business, then to the French Consul's office, where I saw Thuau, a follow-lodger of L'Angelier's. Thuau told me that Dr. Thomson was L’Angelier's medical man. We went there, and got Dr. Thomson to go with us to Mrs. Jenkins's. We saw the body there. I heard of another medical man, a Dr. Steven, having attended him; we sent for him, and he came. There was then no suspicion. The doctors said an examination of the body was the only way in which more could be known. I authorised that to be done next day (Tuesday). In consequence of the examination I informed the Fiscal. I did not expect L’Angelier to be in Glasgow on the Sunday night; that was inconsistent with his letter to me. When I went to his lodgings on the Monday I saw his clothes lying on, his bedroom sofa. I examined them, and found on them various articles - a bit of tobacco, three finger-rings, 5s. 7 ½d., a bunch of keys, and in his vest pocket were a letter and its envelope. I identify these. The letter reads -

Why, my beloved did you not come to me? Oh, beloved, are you ill? Come to me sweet one. I waited and waited for you, but you came not. I shall wait again tomorrow night, same hour and arrangement. Do come, sweet love, my own dear love of a sweetheart. Come, beloved and clasp me to your heart. Come and we shall be happy. A kiss, fond love. Adieu, with tender embraces. Ever believe me to be your own ever dear fond Mini

The letter was addressed " Mr. E. L’Angelier. Mrs. Jenkins, 11 Franklin Place, Great Western Road, Glasgow." When I found this letter I said something, but I cannot exactly say what it was. I said this letter explained his being in Glasgow, and not at Bridge of Allan.

To the Lord Justice-Clerk - I did not know who Mini was.

By the Solicitor General - I was intimate with him in business, not much otherwise. I found a bunch of keys in his pocket. I kept them, and on that or the following day gave them to T. F. Kennedy, our cashier. I know L'Angelier had a memorandum book. I saw it on the Monday, but where I got it I cannot say. I identify it. I know the handwriting to be his. I took the book to our office, sealed it up, and I saw it subsequently given up to the police officer Murray, under a warrant.

Cross-examined by the Dean of Faculty - [Look at that label], - "Glasgow, 30th March. Found in the desk of the deceased Pierre L'Angelier, in the office of W. D. Huggins & Co., 10 Bothwell Street." That is my signature. I put it into his desk. It was not then sealed up. I did not take it out after I put it in. I saw two officers open the desk. I am not sure which officer took it. The label bears that it was found in the desk. They found it there. I saw the book when they got it, and when they opened the desk. When I found the memorandum book in L'AngeIier's lodgings on the Monday, Dr. Steven, Dr. Thomson, Thuau, and T. F. Kennedy, and perhaps Mrs. Jenkins were there. I cannot say if they knew of the book being found by me. I put it into the desk, but I cannot say if that was the same day. It was the same week. I did not carry it about in my pocket. I sealed it up and put it on one of the desks. I found it there again. I cannot say how long it lay on a desk; I think it remained till next day (Tuesday). I do not mind of putting it into the desk. I saw it several times lying. It was opened once or twice on Monday by me. It was sealed, and opened, and sealed again, the ordinary office seal being used. I saw it in the desk, I think, on the Wednesday morning, as the Fiscal desired me to bring the letters. I took some letters, but not the book. I saw it; it was not then sealed. I never saw L’Angelier write in this book. His desk was opened frequently, and when this was done and they were looking at the letters, I was always present. T. F. Kennedy, our cashier, Walker, our invoice clerk, Miller, one of the warehouse lads, and it may be others, were present; but not a single man who was a stranger to our establishment was there except the Rev. Mr Miles. He did not see the letters. He came to inquire about the death. I saw him once or twice. I made no list of the things in L’Angelier's lodgings, nor any list of the things in the desk. I saw the letters. They were numbered in the office.

Re-examined - I did not notice any of the entries on the day I got the memorandum book. All the entries between 11th February and 14th March are in L’Angelier's handwriting. The last entry is on 14th March.

To the Dean of Faculty - The entries are in pencil. Some of them are very faint, and it is difficult to identify such.

To the Solicitor General - I was accustomed to see L’Angelier write in pencil.

To the Court - The entries are not at all about business.

The Solicitor General - then asked the witness to read these entries.

The Dean of Faculty objects to this being done.

Witness was removed.

The Dean of Faculty argued that there was no evidence whatever of this book being a journal at all. It might be a memorandum book but it was irregularly kept, and there was no reason to believe that the entries were put under their proper dates.

The Lord Advocate, in reply, stated that the memoranda were in L’Angelier's handwriting, as had been proved, and that they were written under certain dates. Whether all these entries were written on the dates they bore was another matter, but they would be able to prove that very many of the things mentioned therein did happen on the dates when they were entered. That, therefore, this was most material and weighty as evidence he thought it was impossible to deny. They had there, in the deceased’s handwriting and under certain dates, a mention of circumstances which tallied with many of the events, as they would be able to prove. He thought if they showed, as they could show, that the entries after 7th March were all entered at their proper dates, it would go far to prove that the other entries also represented circumstances which took place under their dates.

The Court retired for consultation, and on their return the Lord Justice-Clerk said they were of opinion that, in the present state of the case, and with the information the Court had, they could not allow these entries all to be read. At present they did not know the individual by the name in the entries, or by the blank that occurred in one or two of them. They gave no opinion as to whether it would be competent to have the entries read when a foundation was laid for them.

The witness was then recalled, and the examination resumed.

When I was at Mrs. Jenkins's on the Monday I did not see the desks. I did not examine the repositories on Monday. On that day I examined his desk in our office. There were a great many letters there; I examined some of them, and I observed they were principally in the same handwriting. I locked the desk. On Friday, the 27th, I went to Bridge of Allan. I went to Mrs. Bayne’s. She showed me some things of L'Angelier's - a portmanteau, a cigarette-case, a travelling rug, a leather bag, and a dressing-case. The portmanteau and leather bag, which I identify, were both locked, but the dressing case, which I also identify, was open. I desired Mrs. Bayne to send them to Huggins's office, which she did. In L'Angelier's lodgings I found keys to open the portmanteau and bag. The bag I found contained a leather letter-case, in which were several letters. In the portmanteau I found clothes and a prayerbook, but no letters. I sent the bag and portmanteau locked to Mrs. Jenkins's. I gave the letters and papers in the desk to Murray, the police officer. I saw them put into a box, which I sealed in Murray's presence. It was taken to the Fiscal's office, and I saw it opened there. I did not then initial the letters, but I did so some days afterwards. From the handwriting I believed them to have been the letters which had been in the box. I went with Murray to Mrs. Jenkins's. Murray took away the bag locked. I afterwards took the key to the Fiscal's office, and saw the bag opened and the letters taken out. Murray afterwards opened a desk of L'Angelier's at Mrs. Jenkins's. I did not think there was another. I saw Murray take away all the letters that were in different articles at Mrs Jenkins's. He put them into a parcel, and I saw them afterwards in the Fiscal's office. I did not go with Murray there. I cannot say what letters were found in the different places. The four letters shown me are all in L'Angelier's handwriting. I was present at the funeral on Thursday, the 26th. He was buried in the burying-ground of St. David’s Church. I was present afterwards when the body was exhumed. I saw the body on Tuesday, the 31st. It was the same body. I read some of the letters in the small travelling bag. So far as I examined them I kept them in their original envelopes. I did not shift the letters and envelopes, to my knowledge.

The Court at this point adjourned till the following morning, and the record bears - It being now six o'clock in the evening, in respect of the impossibility, with a due regard to the justice of the case, of bringing this trial to a conclusion in the course of the present sederunt - therefore, and in respect of the necessity of the case, the Lords continued the diet against the panel till tomorrow morning at ten o'clock, and ordained the haill parties, panel, assizers, and all concerned, then to attend, each under the pains of law; and the haill fifteen jurors now in the box to repair, under the charge of the macers of Court, to the Regent Hotel, Waterloo Place, Edinburgh, to remain under their charge till brought here tomorrow morning, in the hour of cause above-mentioned, and being strictly secluded, during the period of adjournment, from all communication with any person whatever on the subject of this trial, the Clerks of Court having liberty to communicate with them in relation to their private affairs. Meantime ordained the panel to be carried to, and detained in the prison of Edinburgh."

Second Day-Wednesday, 1st July, 1857.

The Court met at ten o'clock.

William Stevenson, recalled, and examined by the Solicitor General - On Wednesday morning, 25th March, before delivering the great mass of letters, I personally delivered some to Mr. Young, Joint-Fiscal. I did not mark them, but I took a note of the date of postmarks. They were afterwards numbered by me - in the hands of the Fiscal. I took a note of the numbers when put on. This is it. I had a note of the postmarks. - one had not a postmark. I have not my note of the postmarks,

The Dean of Faculty - It is extremely loose this sort of evidence.

The Lord Justice-Clerk - Nothing can be looser or more singularly unsatisfactory than that there should be the slightest deficiency in the proof in such a case.

Cross-examined by the Dean of Faculty - Mr Young, the Fiscal, did not mark the letters. A clerk of the Fiscal's was, I think, present at the time. I never saw the Sheriff - he was never present. Mr. Hart was not present. I have not now got the note of the postmarks. I destroyed it. I think the Fiscal saw the note when I laid it down to compare it with the numbers; but he did not tell me to keep it.

To the Solicitor General - I gave up seven letters, I think, on the Wednesday, and the five now shown me I identify by my initials and the numbers I put on them, and the word "desk" which word was to explain that I got them in L’Angelier's desk in our office. I read portions of some of these letters before I gave them to the Fiscal. I did not look at the contents when I gave them up. I first communicated with the Fiscal on the subject on the afternoon of Tuesday, 25th March, after the doctors had made their post-mortem examination. I did not on the Tuesday believe there was any ground for a criminal charge; but on the Wednesday I felt uncomfortable about the case. My feelings then pointed to a quarter where he was likely to have been.

Cross-examined by the Dean of Faculty - I have a memorandum of the letters here. There were six letters in, the memorandum. When I said seven that included one found in the breast-pocket of the deceased. I am not aware of having seen No. 56 of my list. The numbers were put on the letters in the Fiscal’s office in my presence. I was requested to take letters of different dates. I cannot tell why these numbers were put on. All these five letters have envelopes and the postmarks are on the envelopes only. When I checked the letters by the postmarks. I cannot say that some were in the same envelopes as before; I merely believed them to be the same. I had no other means of identifying the letters themselves. I was precognosced several times; I have not been precognosced since I came to Edinburgh. I saw parties connected with the Crown yesterday, or the day before, and this morning. This morning I saw Mr. Wilson and Mr. Bray, of the Fiscal's office in Glasgow. They did not ask me about the letters. I told them I was in a most uncomfortable position about this matter; that I had got quite a sufficiency in the Court, and that I wanted to be done with it. That was not in consequence of anything said by those gentlemen; it was because I felt exceedingly uncomfortable and very unwell. As to the entry about the six letters, I cannot say when it was made.

To the Lord Justice-Clerk - The entry was not made on 25th March. That was the day on which I got the letters.

By the Dean of Faculty - It appears in the book after an entry on 24th April. I found letters belonging to L'Angelier in the tourist's bag in the desk in the warehouse in a leather portmanteau at his lodgings, and also in the desk in his lodgings, and one in his vest pocket. I can't say how many letters there were in the desk at the warehouse. They were numerous. Part of them were, wrapped in two brown paper parcels, and part were lying loose. The two parcels were sealed with the company's stamp. They had been sealed by L'Angelier himself apparently. As to the seven letters I gave to the, Fiscal, I don't know whether they were in a sealed packet or lying loose. I cannot identify any of the letters found in the desk, except the six in the desk which I have spoken to, and the one found in the vest pocket. I don't know how many letters I found in the travelling bag. They were not very numerous. I should say under a dozen. I did, not count them. I read a portion of them. In the portmanteau I have no idea how many I found. They were numerous. I think they were partly loose and partly tied with twine or tape. I saw them in the Fiscal’s office. I presumed them to be the same, but I cannot distinguish those found in the portmanteau, nor those found in the desk at the lodgings. I recollect L'Angelier going to Edinburgh. I never saw him after he went there. He was not back to the warehouse, to my knowledge. I have seen a number of letters in the same handwriting as those now- shown me. The signature is "M. A. P."; it is Miss Perry's signature. I found portions of this handwriting in all his repositories. I can't say as to the small bag. I can't say how many in this handwriting I may have seen. There were a good many; I think not so many an in the other handwriting - not nearly so many. My impression is that there would not be one-half of them in this handwriting. I could not say if there would he a third, but there were a good many of them. I should be inclined to say, speaking roughly, that there were 250 to 300 of all the letters found, in all handwritings. I understood that L'Angelier corresponded with a number of ladies in the South and in France. I have seen letters addressed to ladies in France and in England. I have heard him speak about ladies in England. He was a vain person - vain of his personal appearance very much so. He never spoke of himself to me as very successful among ladies. He was of a rather mercurial disposition - changeable. His situation in Huggins's warehouse was packing-clerk. I am not aware what money he had when he went to Bridge of Allan or to Edinburgh. I saw the first medical report made by Dr. Thomson. It was made on Tuesday, the 24th. Shown seven medical reports, witness was asked to find it.

The Court - You had better show it to him.

The Dean of Faculty - It is not there - that is the point.

Witness - Need I look for it then?

The Dean of Faculty - No; but you saw a report.

Witness - Yes; it was on a small slip of paper. There is a report here by Dr. Steven and Dr. Thomson, dated "28th March." The report I speak of was made on 24th March. It was given to me, and I gave it to Mr. Young, the Fiscal. I have not seen it since. (Shown a portmonnaie.) This was got, I think, in L'Angelier’s vest - at an events in his clothes. There were three rings in it, which I have already spoken to as having been found on him. I did not give this up to the Fiscal with the other things. It was found on the Monday that he died; it was locked up in one of his drawers; it was not taken out till all the articles of dress were packed up a considerable time afterwards; it was then packed up in one of the portmanteaux; I have no note of when it was given up, but I recollect giving some articles out of the portmanteau to Mr. Miller and Mr. Forbes, agent for the prisoner.

To the Lord Justice-Clerk - I was several times precognosced; at the time of the first precognition I understood there was a criminal charge against someone on account of the death of L'Angelier; and it was known I was the first person who had any of the articles in his repositories. I have not the of the first precognition. I think it was after giving up the articles to Murray on the 30th. On none of these occasions am I aware that the Sheriff was present during my precognition. I understood at the time that it was known and understood who the letters in the first handwriting were from, and I knew that the charge was murder. The party was in custody at that time. Murray is an officer belonging to the Fiscal. I did not see the Sheriff or the Fiscal at the desk or repositories while I was there. The letters were put into a bag by me, and no inventory was made. Everything in the shape of letters was given up. The box containing the letters found in Huggins's office was sealed up. I am not aware whether the bag was sealed up. The letters found in the lodgings were put into a brown paper parcel. I am not aware whether it was sealed. There was another officer with Murray, and he initialled some.

The Lord Justice-Clerk - You seem to have done all that you thought necessary, and with much propriety, in the way of making memoranda, though not in the way that the Fiscal would have done it. But during any of your precognitions were you asked to go over the letters and put any marks on them to enable you to say where they were found? Witness - Not when they were delivered up. Afterwards I was requested to put my initials on some of them.

The Lord Justice-Clerk - I think it right to say that I know of no duty so urgent, so impressive, and so, imperative as that of the Sheriff superintending and directing every step in a precognition for murder; and that, in the experience of myself as an old Crown officer, and of my two brethren as Sheriffs, the course which this case seems to have taken is unprecedented. I must say that, although your memoranda (addressing witness) were not made artistically or scientifically, I think you have done the best according to your judgement and experience; nor do I suppose that there is any imputation against you.

The Dean of Faculty - No, on the contrary.

The Lord Advocate - I think it right to say that, perhaps before the end of the case, in some respects the observations of your lordship will be modified.

The Lord Justice-Clerk - I only speak to what occurred in reference to the examination of one witness, who apparently received all the letters founded on to support a charge of murder, I presume.

The Lord Advocate - With regard to the fist stage, unquestionably there was very great looseness.

The witness then left the Court on the understanding that he was to hold himself in readiness for being recalled.

Dr Hugh Thomson (by The Lord Advocate) - I am a physician in Glasgow.  I knew the late M. L'Angelier for fully two years.  He consulted me professionally; the first time fully a year ago.  He had a bowel complaint.  He soon got the better of that.  Next time he consulted me, on the 3rd February of this year,  he had a cold and cough, and a boil at the back of his neck.  He was very feverish, and the cough was rather a dry cough.  These are all the particulars I have.

I prescribed for him. I saw him next about a week after 3rd February.  He was better of his cold, but I think another boil had made its appearance on his; neck.  I saw him again on 23rd February.  He came to me.  He was very feverish, and his tongue was furred and had a patchy appearance, from the fur being off in various places; he complained of nausea and said he had been vomiting and purging; he was prostrate, his pulse was quick, and he had the general symptoms of fever. I prescribed for him.  I took his complaint to he a bilious derangement, and I prescribed an aperient draught.  He had been unwell, I think, for a day or two, but he had been taken worse the night before he called on me.  It was during the night of the 22nd and morning of the 23rd that he was taken worse.  He was confined to the house for two or three days afterwards. I am reading from notes I made on 6th April. I made them from recollection, but the dates of my visits and the medicine were entered in my books. I visited him on 24th February and on 25th and 26th February; and on 1st March I intended to visit him, but I met him in Great Western Road.  The aperient draught I prescribed for him on the 23rd contained magnesia and soda; on the 24th I prescribed some powders containing rhubarb, soda, chalk with mercury, and ipecacuanha. These were the medicines I prescribed.  On 23rd February, I have described his state.  On 24th he was much in the same state.  He had vomited the draught that I had given him on the 23rd, and I observed that his skin was considerably jaundiced on the 24th; and from the whole symptoms I called the disease a bilious fever.  On the 25th he was rather better, and had risen from his bed to the sofa, but he was not dressed.  On the 26th he felt considerably better and cooler, and I did not think it necessary to repeat my visits till I happened to be in the neighbourhood.  It did not occur to me at the time that these symptoms arose from the action of any irritant poison.  If I had known he had taken an irritant poison, these were the symptoms I should have expected to follow.  I don’t think I asked him when he was first taken ill.  I had not seen him for some little time before, and certainly he looked very dejected and ill; his colour was rather darker and jaundiced, and round the eye the colour was rather darker than usual. I saw him again eight or ten days after 1st March.  He called on me, and I have no note of the day.  He was then much the same as on 1st March.  He said that he was thinking of going to the country, but he did not say where.  I did not prescribe medicines for him then, and gave him no particular advice. About 26th February, I think, I told him to give up smoking; I thought that was injurious to his stomach.  I never saw him again in life.

On the morning of 23rd March, Mr. Stevenson and M. Thuau called on me and mentioned that M. L’Angelier was dead, and they wished me to go and see the body, and see if I could give any opinion as to the cause of death.  They did not then know that I had not seen him during his last illness I went to the house.  The body was laid out on a stretcher, dressed in graveclothes, and lying on the table.  The skin had a slightly jaundiced hue.  I made the note from which I read on the same day.  I said it was impossible to give any decided opinion as to the cause of death, and I requested Dr. Steven to be called, who had been in attendance during the illness. I examined the body with my hands externally, and over the region of the liver the sound was dull - the region seemed full; over the region of the heart the sound was natural.  I saw what he had vomited, and the landlady volunteered a statement of the symptoms before death.  When Dr. Steven arrived he corroborated the landlady's statements as far as he was concerned. He could not account for the death.  There was no resolution come to on the Monday as to a post-mortem examination.  On the afternoon of that day I was called on by Mr. Huggins and another gentleman, and I said the symptoms were such as might have been produced by an irritant poison.  I said it was such a case as if it had occurred in England a coroner’s inquest would be held.  Next morning Mr. Stevenson called again, and said that Messrs Huggins & Co. requested me to make an inspection.  In consequence of that I said I would require a colleague and Dr. Steven was agreed on. I called on him, and he went with me to the house, and we made the inspection on Tuesday forenoon about twelve o’clock.  We wrote a short report of that examination to Mr. Huggins immediately.  We afterwards made an enlarged report.  I identify this report, which is in the following terms: -

"At the request of Messrs W. B. Huggins & Co., of this city, we, the undersigned, made a post-mortem examination of the body of the late M. L'Angelier, at the house of Mrs. Jenkins, 11 Great Western Road, on the 24th March current, at noon, when the appearances were as follows - The body, dressed in grave clothes and coffined, viewed externally, presented nothing remarkable, except a tawny hue of the surface.  The incision made on opening the belly and chest revealed a considerable deposit of subcutaneous fat, The heart appeared large for the individual, but not so large in our opinion, to amount to disease.  Its surface presented, externally, some opaque patches, such as are frequently seen on this organ without giving rise to any symptoms.  Its right cavities were filled with dark fluid blood.  The lungs, the liver, and the spleen appeared quite healthy. The gall bladder was moderately full of bile, and contained no calculi.  The stomach and intestines, externally, presented nothing abnormal.  The stomach, being tied at both extremities, was removed from the body.  Its contents, consisting of about half a pint of dark fluid resembling coffee, were poured into a clean bottle, and the organ itself was laid open along its great curvature.  The mucous membrane, except for a slight extent at the lesser curvature, was then seen to be deeply injected with blood, presenting an appearance of dark-red mottling, and its substance was remarked to be soft, being easily torn by scratching with the fingernail.  The other organs of the abdomen were not examined.  The appearance of the mucous membrane, taken in connection with the history as related to us by witnesses, being such as, in our opinion, justified a suspicion of death having resulted from poison, we considered it proper to preserve the stomach and its contents in a sealed bottle for further investigation by chemical analysis, should such be determined on.  We, however, do not imply that, in our opinion, death may not have resulted from natural causes; as, for example, severe internal congestion, the effect of exposure to cold after much bodily fatigue, which we understand the deceased to have undergone.  Before closing this report, which we make at the request of the procurator-fiscal for the county of Lanark, we beg to state that, having had no legal authority for making the post-mortem examination above detailed, we restricted our examination to the organs in which we thought we were likely, to find something to account for the death.  Given under our hands at Glasgow, the 28th day of March, 1857, on soul and conscience.

Cross-examined by the Dean of Faculty - On 24th March the contents of the stomach were poured into a clean bottle which Dr. Steven got.  The meaning of the statement that the stomach was tied at both extremities, is that that was done before the contents were taken out.  I am sure that the entire contents were poured into this bottle.  The stomach itself was put into the same bottle.  We took none of the intestines out of the body.  When we put the stomach and contents into this bottle, we secured it well with oil-silk and a cork.  We did that in the lodgings.  The oil-silk was put under the cork to make it fit the bottle, and partly to make it more secure, and over the whole a double piece of oil-silk.  We could not seal it there.  We went to Dr. Steven’s house, where Dr. Steven affixed his seal, and I took it with me, and it remained in my possession, locked into my consulting table.  On the Monday of the deceased's death I was shown, by Mrs. Jenkins, the matter which had been vomited or purged.  It was not observed, so far as I know.  We made a short report on the 24th to Mr. Huggins.  It was delivered to one of the partners of the firm, I am not sure to which.  At the time I attended M. L'Angelier in February, there were no symptoms that I could definitely say were not due to a bilious attack.  They were the symptoms of a bilious attack, all of them.  There was an appearance of jaundice.  I have heard of that as a symptom of irritant poison.  It is in Dr. Taylor's work on poisons.

By the Lord Justice-Clerk - Was the appearance of jaundice in the eyes?

Witness - It was in the skin.

The Dean of Faculty - Show me the passage in Dr. Taylor's work (handing it to witness).

Witness - I can't find the particular passage.  It is in the case of Marshall.

The Dean of Faculty - What was the poison in the case of Marshall?

Witness - Arsenic.

The Dean of Faculty - Well, see if you can find it.

Lord Handyside - Perhaps he has made a mistake on the subject, and refers to Marshall as a writer on the subject.  He is referred to in Taylor's "Medical Jurisprudence."

Witness - Yes (shown "Taylor on Poisons"); at page 62 Marshall is quoted  - "Strangury and jaundice have been noticed among the secondary symptoms"; that is, under chronic poisoning.

The Dean of Faculty - Do you know any case in which jaundice has been observed as a symptom of arsenical poisoning, except that single line in Taylor's book?

Witness - That is the only case.

The Dean of Faculty - That is not a case. Are you acquainted with Marshall’s work?

Witness - No.

The Dean of Faculty - You never saw it?

Witness - No, I never saw it.

The Dean of Faculty - You were under the impression that Marshall was the name of a case?

Witness - Yes; from the manner in which I had noted it down, I made that mistake.

By the Dean of Faculty - The jaundice I saw in L'Angelier's case was quite consistent with the idea that he was labouring under a bilious attack, and it could easily be accounted for in that way.

By the Lord Advocate - The jar now shown me was the jar in which the stomach and its contents were placed.

1. That the body of the deceased Pierre Emile L’Angelier contained arsenic.
2. That the arsenic must have been taken by or administered to him while living.

L'Angelier stayed a night or two with me before I was married. When I was asked by him for my advice, I told him that he ought to go to Miss Smith's family and tell them of their attachment, and ask Mr Smith's consent. I told him that was the most gentlemanly way. He said Mr Smith was opposed to it; that Miss Smith had spoken to her father, and that he had been excessively angry, and that it would be useless. This was before my marriage, which was a year ago. I had no intercourse with him after that. I was aware from what L'Angelier said, that there was a correspondence going on between them.

I remember that L'Angelier came to my office a few weeks before his death, and he spoke about Miss Smith. I said that Miss Smith was to be married to some gentleman - Mr Minnoch; and when I mentioned the public rumours, he said it was not true, but that if it was to come to this, he had documents in his possession that would be sufficient to forbid the banns. I don't recollect whether he said that Mr Smith had written to him on the subject of the reported marriage.

I did not see L'Angelier again before his death, but I thought that, having been received by Mr Smith in his house after L'Angelier's death, it was my duty to mention to him the fact of the correspondence having been carried on between L'Angelier and his daughter, in order that he should take steps to exonerate his daughter in case of anything coming out. I knew that the deceased had letters from Miss Smith in his possession. I called on Mr. Smith on the evening of L'Angelier's death, and told him that L'Angelier had in his possession a great number of letters from his daughter, and that it was high time to let him know this, that they might not fall into the hands of strangers; I said numbers of people might go to his lodgings and read them, as his repositories were not sealed. I went to Mr. Huggins; he was not in, but I saw two gentlemen, and told them what I had been told to ask. They said they were not at liberty to give the letters without Mr. Huggins's consent. I then asked them to keep them sealed up till they were disposed of. I think that was on the day of L'Angelier's death.

Having heard some rumours meanwhile, one day, I am not sure which, I saw Miss Smith in presence of her mother. I apprised her of the death of L'Angelier. She asked me if it was of my own will that I came to tell her; and I told her it was not so, but that I came at the special request of her father. I asked if she had seen L'Angelier on Sunday night; she told me that she did not see him. I asked her to put me in a position to contradict the statements which were being made as to her relations with L'Angelier. I asked her if she had seen L'Angelier on Sunday night, and she told me she had not. I observed to her that M. L'Angelier had come from Bridge of Allan to Glasgow on a special invitation by her, by a letter written to him. Miss Smith told me that she was not aware that L'Angelier was at Bridge of Allan before he came to Glasgow, and that she did not give him an appointment for Sunday, as she wrote to him on Friday evening, giving him the appointment for the following day - Saturday. She said to me that she expected him on Saturday, but that he did not come, and that she had not seen him on Sunday. I put the question to her perhaps five or six different times, and in different ways. I told her that my conviction at the moment was that she must have seen him on Sunday, that he had come on purpose from Bridge of Allan on a special invitation by her to see her, and I did not think it likely, admitting that he had committed suicide, that he had committed suicide without knowing why she asked him to come to Glasgow.

The Lord Justice-Clerk - Did you know of this letter yourself?

Witness - I heard that there had been such a letter. I said to Miss Smith that the best advice that a friend could give to her in the circumstances was to tell the truth about it, because the case was a very grave one, and would lead to an inquiry on the part of the authorities; and that, if she did not say the truth in these circumstances, perhaps it would be ascertained by a servant, or a policeman, or somebody passing the house, who had seen L'Angelier, that it would be ascertained that he had been in the house, and that this would cause a very strong suspicion as to the motive that could have led her to conceal the truth. Miss Smith then got up from her chair and told me, " I swear to you, M. Mean, that I have not seen L'Angelier, not on that Sunday only, but not for three weeks " - or for six weeks, I am not sure which.

The Lord Justice-Clerk - And the mother was present?

Witness - Yes. This question I repeated to Miss Smith five or six times, as I thought it of great importance; and her answer was always the same. I asked her, in regard to the letter by which L'Angelier was invited to come to see her, how it was that, being engaged to be married to another gentleman. she could have carried on a clandestine correspondence with a former sweetheart. I referred to Friday's letter. She told me that she did it in order to try to get back her letters.

The Lord Advocate - Did you ask her whether she was in the habit of meeting L'Angelier?

Witness - Yes. I asked if it was true that L'Angelier was in the habit of having appointments with her in her home, and she told me that L'Angelier had never entered into that house, meaning the Blythswood Square house, as I understood. I asked her how, then, she made her appointments to meet with him. She told me that L'Angelier used to come to a street at the corner of the house (Mains Street), and that he had a signal by knocking at the window with his stick, and that she opened the window and used to talk with him.

The Lord Advocate - Did she speak about the former correspondence with him at all?

Witness - I asked her if it was true that she had signed letters in L'Angelier's name, and she told me that she had. She did not say why.

The Lord Justice-Clerk - Do you mean that she added his aame to here?

Witness - I meant whether she signed her letters with L'Angelier's name, and she said, " Yes."

The Lord Advocate - Did she say why she did so?

Witness - I did not ask her.

(Auguste Vauvert de Mean) - Cross-examined by Mr. Young - In the summer of 1856, before I was married, I went to live in Helensburgh. M. L'Angelier visited me there, and once he came on a Saturday to my lodgings there, and on Sunday we went on the Luss Road. I went up to my room, and L'Angelier not following, I called, and he replied in a feeble voice that he would be immediately. I saw him very pale. He had been frightfully sick, and had been vomiting all the time he was away. He once complained to me of being bilious. This was a year ago. He complained of once having had cholera. Last year he came to my office and told me that he had had a violent attack of cholera; but I don't know whether that was a year or two years ago. I don't recollect whether he was unwell when he complained to me. I thought he complained sometimes without great cause. I did not pay much attention to it. I know that when L'Angelier came to my house he always had a bottle of laudanum in his bag; but I don't know if he used it.

I once heard him speak of arsenic; it must have been in the winter of 1853-4. It was on a Sunday, but I don't recollect how the conversation arose; it lasted about half an hour. Its purport was how much arsenic a person could take without being injured by it. He maintained that it was possible to do it by taking small quantities; but I don't know what led to the conversation. I would be afraid to make any statement as to the purpose for which he said it was to be taken. I have seen something about it in a French dictionary on chemistry and other subjects. I am afraid of making a mistake - confounding this book with others I have read.

L'Angelier stated to me that he had once been jilted by an English lady, a rich person; and he said that, on account of that deception, he was almost mad for a fortnight, and ran about, getting food from a farmer in the country. He was easily excited. When he -had any cause of grief he was affected very much.

To the Lord Justice-Clerk - After my marriage I had little intercourse with L'Angelier. I thought that he might be led to take some harsh steps in regard to Miss Smith; and, as I had some young ladies in my house, I did not think it was proper to have the same intercourse with him as when I was a bachelor.

The Lord Advocate - What do you mean by " harsh steps?"

Witness - I was afraid of an elopement with Miss Smith. By "harsh" I mean "rash." This was after L'Angelier had given me his full confidence as to what he would do in the event of Miss Smith's father not consenting to the marriage with his daughter.

The Lord Justice-Clerk - Did you understand that Miss Smith had engaged herself to him?

Witness - I understood so from what he said.

The Lord Justice-Clerk - When you used the expression "You thought it right to go to Miss Smith's father about the letters, in order that he might take steps to vindicate his daughter's honour, or prevent it from being disparaged," did you relate to him her engagement and apparent breach of engagement? Had you in view that the letters might contain an engagement which she was breaking, or that she had made a clandestine engagement

Witness - I thought that these letters were love-letters, and that it would be much better that they should be in Mr. Smith's hands than in the hands of strangers.

The Lord Advocate - What were L'Angelier's usual character and habits?

The Lord Justice-Clerk -Was he a steady fellow?

Witness - My Opinion of L'Angelier's character at the moment of his death was that he was a most regular young man in his conduct - religious, and, in fact, that he was most exemplary in all his conduct. The only objection which I heard made to him was that he was vain and a boaster, boasting of grand persons whom he knew. For example, when he spoke of Miss Smith he would say, "I shall forbid Madeleine to do such a thing, or such another thing. She shall not dance with such a one, or such another."

The Lord Justice-Clerk - Did he boast of any success with females?

Witness - Never.

The Lord Justice-Clerk - Did he seem jealous of Miss Smith paying attention to others?

Witness - No, of others paying attention to Miss Smith.

The Lord Justice-Clerk - It was not on account of any levity in his character that you discouraged his visiting you after marriage?

Witness - No; I thought that his society might be fit for a bachelor, but not for a married man.

The Dean of Faculty - Do you understand the word " levity?"

Witness - Yes; lightness, irregularity.

The Lord Justice-Clerk - How long was it since you had seen him when he came to you a short time before his death? Had there been a long cessation of intercourse?

Witness - Yes; there had been a long cessation.

The Lord Advocate [showing witness photograph] - Is that like L'Angelier?

Witness - Yes it is a good likeness.

The Lord Justice-Clerk - About what age was he?

Witness - Between twenty-eight and thirty, I think.

The Lord Justice-Clerk - Did he bring recommendations to you, or did you get acquainted with him accidentally?

Witness - I think I got accidentally acquainted with him in house in Glasgow, but I do not recollect.

[End of testimony] [Back to the Madeleine Smith Story]  [Back to Index of Witnesses] 

I had not seen M. L'Angelier for about three weeks before his death, and the last time I saw him was on a night about half-past ten o'clock.  On that occasion he tapped at my bedroom window, which is on the ground floor, and fronts Mains Street. I talked to him from the window, which is stanchioned outside, and I did not go out to him, nor did he come in to me.  This occasion, which, as already said, was about three weeks before his death, was the last time I saw him.  He was in the habit of writing notes to me, and I was in the habit of replying to him by notes.  The last note I wrote to him was on the Friday before his death, viz., Friday, the 20th March current.  I now see and identify that note, and the relative envelope, and they are each marked No. 1.  In consequence of that note, I expected him to visit me on Saturday night, the 21st current, at my bedroom window, in the same way as formerly mentioned, but he did not come, and sent no notice.  Ther