When I first saw her, five hours after the alleged date of the taking of the arsenic, the skin was warm and moist, the face full and flushed, the pulse frequent and firm, the muscular strength natural. The chamber-pot contained only a small quantity of the fæces of a child and apparently a little water, but no vomited matters, and no white powder. The fluid discharged in presence of the apothecary was found on careful analysis to contain a large quantity of zinc, but not an atom of arsenic. She gradually recovered from the illness under which she laboured at the time I saw her, and in two days she admitted she was quite well, but continued to insist that she had taken the poison.—M. Tartra has related a singular case of the same kind, where a young woman feigned poisoning with nitric acid, and was not detected for several days.[136] _Imputed poisoning_ differs in general from feigned poisoning only in so far as the symptoms which are feigned are imputed to the agency of another. The imputation of the crime of poisoning by feigning or actually producing the symptoms, and contriving that poison shall be detected in the quarters where in actual cases it is usually sought for, has been not unfrequently attempted. Two important continental cases have already been referred to for other purposes [pp. 66, 76]; and I may here relate the heads of two English cases, which are of great interest, and will serve to illustrate the mode of procedure in such circumstances. The first of these, which I have related elsewhere in detail,[137] is a striking example of the power of science in eliciting the truth, and redounds highly to the credit of Mr. Thackrah, the medical gentleman who conducted the investigation.