ward on top of a fence, uncovered, while it was raining hard; and, upon being taken into the house, threatened to kill the witness with a butcher-knife. He also had heard her speak of conspiracies against her.

Medad Alexander, of Northfield, knew of her being dressed in men's clothing; had heard her complain that the water and milk at her house were poisoned by the neighbors. She claimed to own the place where she lived. This conversation was in her father's presence, and the old man said that she would not talk in that way if she were not deranged.

(At this point, the prisoner, who was obviously much disturbed by the line of defence adopted by her counsel, called upon them to close the case, let the judgment be what it might, unless they could bring on better evidence. She had previously reproached her counsel for not taking pattern by what she considered the very handsome course of the counsel for the government, in not making any attempt to prove her insanity.)

Samuel H. Reed, sheriff of Franklin County, testified that since being in prison on this charge, she had made complaints to him; on one occasion she said that a gun had been fired, the report of which she heard, and the ball came through the jail window, and was picked up by the jailer: that the jailer was intending to take her life, and had attempted to poison her, and she would never take food of him again; and that there was a conspiracy to get rid of her.

On cross-examination he said he could not speak of any very bad conduct on her part except abusive and vulgar language to himself and the jailer, and threats to kill the jailer.

Seth C. Smith, jailer, testified that she told him she had been shot at, and the glass was broken; he took a bullet out of his pocket and she said it was the same one; she complained that he was influenced by the former jailer, and by Northfield villains, to poison her; she abstained from food twelve days at one time; and another, a week; and, a third time, fifteen days.

On cross-examination, the witness said he mistrusted she got food from other prisoners; and that, at times, she was violent in her conduct.

The prisoner cross-examined him with great closeness, with the view of having him admit that her food was

poisoned, that she had actually been shot at, that the other prisoners heard the gun, and that he had actually picked up the bullet. The witness expressed the most entire ignorance on all these points, and when he went from the stand, a scene took place which is thus described by the reporter of the "Springfield Republican."

"Here Adeline could no longer restrain her indignation. at the bad taste displayed by her counsel in selecting evidence. She called upon the Court to dismiss her counsel, and declared she would rather plead guilty when she was innocent than have such falsehoods told of her. The counsel were somewhat embarrassed by this fire in the rear,' but the Court came to their support, and assured Adeline that she had very able and faithful counsel. She knew that, but she could not stand such evidence as they brought forward."

Hannah White, wife of James White, a previous witness, on one occasion, ten years ago, went to see Adeline, by request of Adeline's father, when Adeline showed her a bottle, saying that she didn't know what it contained or where it came from, and that her mother would be better off if she went away than if she stayed at home (giving the witness to understand that her father would poison the family.) At another time, Adeline was afraid to enter the house of the witness, and when approached, raised her hands saying "Oh don't grab me." She also testified to complaints by the defendant of attempts to poison.

Arad Webster, of Northfield, had heard her speak of attempts to murder her, of there being a passage under her house, and of her hearing people talking and running about the house; one time she was sitting up in an apple tree, complaining bitterly. He also spoke of various other apprehensions showed by her at different times, which seemed real to the witness.

Richard Colton, the magistrate before whom the preliminary examination was had, testified, that Dr. Stratton then stated, that the appearances were those of mercury, or might be of arsenic, and he couldn't say for a certainty which.

Lucy Webster, wife of Arad Webster, had heard her speak of conspiracies against her, of an under ground tunnel leading to her house, in which bloody deeds were carried on, of hearing voices when no voices were to be heard, and of being afraid to use the milk her father milked, because it

made her mother sick; she frequently expressed fears for her life.

Dr. David T. Brown, of the Bloomingdale Asylum, New York, saw her a few days previous to the trial, at the jail, and considered. her insane. She exhibited delusions and hallucinations; spoke of a conspiracy; believed it embraced parties connected with the jail; declared that attempts had been made to take her life while in jail, by poisoning her food, some of which she had retained, intending to have it analyzed, and that her enemies intended, if she was not convicted, to prove her insanity, in order to get her confined in a lunatic asylum. She said there was a passage to her building, either made or used by her enemies to annoy her; that her milk and water were poisoned. He noticed nothing leading him to doubt that her delusions were real; and they appeared to him to have extended over a period of many years, and to be permanent; she spoke of hearing voices at certain times; at one time, in a shed adjoining, one said, if they were going to kill her, they had better have it done at once; Capt. White said it should not be done on his premises; some one replied that he was a d-d old fool. Some one suggested that they should kill her, and place her so as to leave a suspicion of suicide; hearing which, she rubbed her dress against fresh paint, believing that the paint would show that she came to her death by violence. To him her general appearance seemed consistent with the supposition of insanity. If called to a patient in the situation of Elihu Phelps, as described, he would suppose some preparation of mercury had been taken, but would not feel authorized to pronounce a positive opinion. His opinion would be that mercury had been taken, though the symptoms alone would not be conclusive evidence. Salivation is not necessarily from mercury; he had seen it, from other causes; from fractured jaw, from the use of other medicines, tin, bismuth, &c., from carious teeth, and he mentioned an instance of a case of salivation, continuing for two years, without any obvious cause. his case, death might have arisen from the bladder difficulty mentioned.

In

On cross-examination, he defined poison as a substance which is capable of destroying life without acting mechanically (following Dr. Guy's definition.) He had seen one case of poisoning by corrosive sublimate, and described the symptoms; he repeated that he was not fully satisfied that

Phelps had taken mercury, although strongly of that opinion.

Dr. James Deane, of Greenfield, a physician twentythree years, did not think the evidence conclusive, though it raised a strong presumption, that the death was caused by mercury. The disease of the urinary organs might have a strong effect in causing death. From the appearances there was undoubtedly suppuration; and with old men death often results from abscess of the prostate gland. He had seen a similar case within a few days which he thought would soon terminate fatally. Salivation and fœtor are both found in cases where mercury has not been used. A post mortem examination he thought indispensable. There is no difficulty in chemically ascertaining the presence of mercury, to the one hundredth part of a grain. A poisonous dose of corrosive sublimate could not be swallowed, without being recognized in a moment. Albumen has a strong affinity for corrosive sublimate, and acts as an antidote by forming an insoluble compound with it, in the stomach, destroying its virulence, and preventing it from forming an affinity with and decomposing the animal tissues. He exhibited a grain of corrosive sublimate, saying that there was no difficulty in recognizing the effects of a single grain, though that was not enough to destroy life. He also described the symptoms of mercury, mentioning a deep blue line round the gums as one. He had seen Adeline often in jail. She labored under intense delusions, supposed herself the object of a conspiracy, heard imaginary conversations, and was in a state of high mental excitement. She had fear of being poisoned by the jailer, and would not take her food, unless he brought it. He could not doubt that her apprehensions were real; and had no doubt whatever of a state of confirmed insanity.

On cross-examination, he said, that there are diseases which would produce all the symptoms of Elihu Phelps, and he could not have been satisfied without a very thorough examination. And if the examination developed no other facts, then he should believe it the effect of mercury, and, perhaps, could not doubt it. He might be aided in forming an opinion by symptoms which afterwards he would not recollect. Fracture of the lower jaw might produce the same train and combination of symptoms; he knew no single disease or drug that would produce them all. There

might be two concurring diseases, as salivation and colic, that would.

Dr. Deane, as well as most of the other witnesses for the defence, was closely re-examined by the prisoner. The following is a specimen of the closeness of her examination, made smilingly, and with a very musical voice, but with a pronunciation of names which indicated that her information was from books rather than conversation:

Prisoner. I would ask you, Dr. Deane, if Orfilo is not the greatest French authority on poisons?

Dr. Deane. I do not know any greater.

Prisoner. Is not Christison a great English authority? Dr. Deane. I think him very reliable.

Prisoner.

Now I want to know if John Hunter was not the greatest authority of his day on these subjects? Dr. Deane. Undoubtedly he was the highest authority of his time.

Prisoner. Now I want to know if all three of these authorities do not concur in saying that it is unsafe to infer the existence of poison from symptoms only?

Dr. Deane. I do not remember particularly, Adeline, as to each of these writers, but that undoubtedly is the prevailing opinion among modern writers on the subject of poisons. Dr. Luther V. Bell, of the McLean Asylum, Somerville, said the symptoms described would afford a very strong presumption of mercury, but not so strong as to shut out the contingency of their occurring from other causes; even if mercury were received, the evidence is not conclusive that the death was owing to mercury; the purulent matter, in connection with the fact of his having a disease of long standing, would indicate a severe malady, of which old men often die.

The symptoms do not indicate large doses at any one time certainly not more than a grain or two.

Undoubtedly the food should be examined, and chemical writers are of opinion that there is no difficulty in detecting the presence of poison. In cases of small doses, gradually taken, perhaps the examination would not disclose the poison; but it would at least have a tendency to show how far the disease of the prostatic gland had proceeded.

He thought there would be no possible mark of distinction between salivation by corrosive sublimate, and other mercurial preparations. The best writers say, that in cases of poisoning by mercury, there is a particular blue mark