Sydney Morning Herald (NSW : 1842 - 1954), Monday 6 August 1888, page 9 (2)
National Library of Australia http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article28344424
THE BOTANY MYSTERY.
VERDICT OF WILFUL MURDER AGAINST
LOUISA COLLINS.
The inquiry concerning the deaths of Charles Andrews and John Collins, who were respectively husband and child of the woman Louisa Collins, was further continued on Saturday morning, at the Coroner's Court, Chancery-square, before the City Coroner (Mr. H. Sheill, J.P.). Louisa Collins appeared as on Friday. Alfred Newman, assistant custodian of wills in the department of the Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of Now South Wales, produced a document purporting to be the will of Charles Andrews on the 31st Janunry, 1887, and signed by John Stephen and William Farrer as witnesses. The Coroner, after reading the will, said it was evident that the will was not prepared by the deceased. The only part in the handwriting of the deceased was the signature.
Mrs. Collins : A man in the insurance office filled the will up.
Constable Jeffs, of Botany, stated that he knew the deceased, Charles Andrews ; on the 16th December, 1886 in the afternoon, Mrs. Andrews, the woman before the Court, went to the police station, Botany, and complained of her husband " fighting and rowing' with the boarders ;" witness went down that evening, to Popple's Paddock, to the residence of the deceased, and found everything quiet ; knocked at the door and got no answer; a neighbour named James Lawes made a statement to him ; the week after Andrews's death, witness went down to Popple's Paddock
to what he believed was the house in which the deceased had lived, and there saw several people dancing and singing; amongst the persons there was Louisa Collins ; witness saw Andrews about five days before he heard of his death.
Charles Sayers, residing at, Botany, stated he knew the deceased Charles Andrews, he was a man who enjoyed first class health ; he was not in the habit of drinking to excess ; first heard of his illness on the Saturday prior to his death, which took place on the following Wednesday ; went to his house on the morning of the day he died ; he was lying on a sofa in the front room ; he was conscious; in reply to witness he said, he was vomiting, and had pains in his stomach ; he said he had seen a doctor, and got some medicine for it, but he could not keep it on his stomach, and if he did not get better he thought he would die; witness cheered him as well as he could, but he heard of his death the same afternoon.
Mary Laws, residing at Popple's-terrace, Botany, stated that she knew the deceased, also Michael Peter Collins ; knew that the latter had been living in Andrew's house prior to the latter's death; witness once heard a quarrel between the two and Mrs. Andrews ; Andrews seemed very angry at Collins being in the house, and told him he had brought trouble on him (Andrews) and his family ; Collins had left previous to that quarrel, and was living at another house, but he called that day, and that gave rise to the trouble ; Mrs. Andrews had told witness that Andrews was jealous of Collins and her ; a few days after Andrews's death, Collins returned to the house; there was dancing the week following Andrews's death in an empty house in the terrace ; Mrs. Andrews and Collins were there; it was understood that the merrymaking was in celebration of the wedding of Mrs. Andrews and Collins, although they were not aware of any ceremony having taken place ; remembered the day Andrews died; on Wednesday, the 2nd February, a little girl went over to her house, and said that Mrs. Andrews wanted witness to go over, as Andrews was dead ; witness went over; it was only a minute or two after Andrews's death, and she saw Louisa Andrews ; she said " she was going to Sydney by the next tram, to let the insurance people know, and to the Savings Bank;" she went by the next tram.
Dr. M. Martin, recalled, said that taking into consideration the whole of the symptoms of the deceased, Charles Andrews, during life, and the fact that arsenic had been found in the remains by Mr. Hamlet, wilness was of opinion that the deceased died from inflammation of the lining membrane of the stomach and bowels ; caused in all probability by some irritant poison, gastritis was one of the results of arsenical poisoning, and even if arsenic had not been found in the remains witness would still have the same opinion as to the cause of his death, from the symptoms and from the well-known fact that arsenic may not be found in the bodies of those who have died from poisoning by that drug. During witness' attendance on the deceased he was struck with the idea that she had her eye on a second husband ; witness formed this opinion from her manner; she seemed indifferent as to the fate of the deceased ; believed he gave instructions that deceased was not to have beer; but found afterwards, that he had been getting beer; on the 1st of February witness saw Andrews, and there was nothing to lead him to suppose that he would have died so soon; heard of his death the next day ; witness ordered bismuth for him ; there was no arsenic in any of the drugs prescribed for the deceased.
Dr. Samuel Thomas Knaggs said having heard the evidence of Dr. M. Martin, he now believed that the vomiting was uncontrollable by the usual remedies; the symptoms which Dr. Martin had described the deceased Charles Andrews to be suffering from were those of " gastro enteritis, " and were also in common with symptoms often found in arsenical poisoning ; the uncontrollability of the symptoms by the usual remedies would indicate the presence of some irritant poison.
By the Coroner : Not finding traces of arsenic in the body after death was no evidence that death did not arise from arsenical poisoning ; there were cases recorded, where the poison was eliminated by vomiting and purging, and yet produced fatal results without leaving a trace behind ; taking into consideration the symptoms of the deceased (as described) during life, and the fact that traces of arsenic were found in his remains, witness was inclined to suspect arsenical poisoning.
Louisa Collins declined to call any evidence or to make a statement.
The Coroner, in summing up, said that the jury in considering their verdict, must exclude from their thoughts the child John Collins. He died from natural causes. lt was necessary in exhuming the body of Andrews to do the same with the child, and the chemical analysis demonstrated the fact that not a trace of poison was found in the body. In the case of the deceased Charles Andrews it was different. They were perfectly aware that the death of Michael Peter Collins led to this inquiry. In his case Dr. Martin was called in and held a consultation with Dr. Marshall, who was in attendance upon the deceased, and noticing that the symptoms were the same as in the case of Andrews, that led to the holding of this inquiry', and they must know that in the remains of Collins, nearly three grains of arsenic were found. That Charles Andrews died from arsenical poisoning, very few could doubt. Tho symptoms were these of arsenical poisoning. The fact that a small trace of arsenic only was found in his remains, afforded no evidence whatever that the deceased did not die from arsenical poisoning. There were cases recorded, as Dr. Knaggs had said, in which deaths were proved to have taken place from arsenical poisoning, and in a remarkably short time after death no traces of arsenic had been found. The poison (arsenic) was eliminated by vomiting and purging, and it found its way out of the system in that manner during life. If they were of the opinion that Charles Andrews died from arsenical poisoning, they would have to ask themselves by whom was the poison administered and who had an interest in giving the drug to him. The woman Louisa Collins, formerly Andrews, was the wife of Charles Andrews. She had her last husband living in the house with her when Andrews was alive, and Collins was expelled from the house, and, according to the evidence of the son, Arthur Andrews, his father was at that time in good health. They had further evidence to show that at that time Andrews was a hale and hearty man, and able to work 15 hours a day. This was within a few days of his death; and young Andrews had stated that within a few days of Collins being thrown out of the house his father became ill, the illness being a pain in the pit of the stomach. That continued up to his death; and very soon after his death a wedding feast followed.
They welcomed the new bride nnd bridegroom-viz., Louisa Andrews (now Collins) and Michael Peter Collins. Was there no suspicion in all that : On the 31st January, two days before his death, the deceased (Andrews) made a will, bequeathing everything he possessed to his wife. Of the
contents of that will Louisa Collins was perfectly aware. It was read to the witness in her presence. The question for determination was, whether the death of Charles Andrews caused by arsenical poisoning ? If so, by whom was the poison administered ; If they were of opinion that Louisa Collins administered that poison to her husband and thereby caused his death, they would have to return a verdict of murder against her. If not so satisfied, their verdict would have to be in the opposite direction, exonerating her. If they considered that the deceased did not die from arsenical poisoning, then they must return a verdict of death from natural causes ; but they must consider the fact that in a number of cases where death had taken place from arsenical poisoning, no traces had been found after death. The symptoms in this case were those of arsenical poisoning, and from the fact that arsenic had been found in the remains, how could they arrive at any conclusion other than that arsenic was the cause of his death.
After 10 minutes' deliberation, the jury returned a verdict as follows : " We find that the child John Collins died from natural causes. We find that Charles Andrews met his death by arsenical poisoning, and further, that the poison was administered by his wife, then Louisa Andrews, now Louisa Collins; and we further find that Louisa Collins is guilty of the wilful murder of her husband, Charles Andrews."
The Coronor, then committed Louisa Collins to Darlinghurst gaol, to stand her trial for the wilful murder of her husband, Charles Andrews.
Darlinghurst Gaol State Archives NSW
Sydney Morning Herald
10 August 1888
Evening News (Sydney, NSW : 1869 - 1931), Monday 10 December 1888, page 4
National Library of Australia http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article108118623
The fourth trial...
There was a petition organised.....
Newcastle Morning Herald and Miners' Advocate (NSW : 1876 - 1954), Friday 28 December 1888, page 2
National Library of Australia http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article139043745
Still, the press carried letters to the editor such as this... Evening News 24 Dec 1888
The petiton was unsuccessful...
Freeman's Journal (Sydney, NSW : 1850 - 1932), Saturday 12 January 1889, page 8
National Library of Australia http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article115380911
Wikipedia
My interest in this woman began when I came across this once more, just one of many in the NSW Gallery of Crime and Punishment
Weekly Times Melbourne Sat 12 Jan 1889
If you would like to read more about her, you may like to read...
Black Widow - the true story of Australia's first female serial killer,
by Carol Baxter, Allen & Unwin, is available from all major bookshops or online
No comments:
Post a Comment
I welcome your comments. All will be moderated before publication.