afterwards, and it was fully proved that he had been asleep before his illness suddenly began,—it followed that the acid must have been administered after he fell asleep, the accomplishment of which was rendered easy by a practice he had of sleeping on his back with his mouth wide open. But, after he gave the alarm, the door was found barred as when he went to bed. Consequently no one could have administered the poison except his wife or servant; and it was satisfactorily proved, that no suspicion could attach to the latter. Such was one of the principal train of circumstances, which, as it were by a process of elimination, led to the inference that the wife was undoubtedly the person who administered the poison. Other circumstances of a similar tendency were also derived from the medical evidence; but these it is unnecessary to detail at present. I have related the particulars of the whole case fully elsewhere.[128] The prisoner strenuously denied her guilt after being sentenced, but confessed before her execution. 4. The next article in the moral evidence relates to the intent of the person who is proved to have administered poison. When the administration is proved, little evidence is in general required to establish the intent. It is sufficient that the giver knew the substance administered was of a deadly nature; and in regard to any of the common poisons this knowledge is sufficiently constituted by his simply knowing its name. In some cases, however, the exact nature of the poison is not established with certainty; and then something else may be required to prove the prisoner’s knowledge, and through that knowledge his intent. In the case of Charles Munn, formerly alluded to [p. 50], arsenic was the poison presumed to have been taken by the deceased. But the purchase or possession of it by the prisoner was not for some time satisfactorily established; neither was there any chemical evidence, the deceased having lived forty days and upwards after taking the poison. It was proved, however, that whatever it was which had been administered, the prisoner knew very well that what he gave was deleterious; because he persuaded the deceased, who was pregnant by him, to take it by assigning to it properties which no drug either possesses, or is so much as thought by the vulgar to possess. On one occasion he persuaded her that it would show whether she was with child, and on another that it would prevent people from knowing she was with child. In such cases, then, good evidence may be derived from the arguments used by the giver to persuade his victim to take the poison; and sometimes, as in the instance now mentioned, it will lie with the medical witness to inform the court whether or not the reasons assigned are false.