The Strange Case of Dr. Cream. to chemists and surgeons who would dispense them in proper quantities. After obtaining specimens of Cream's handwriting and comparing them with the Broadbent and Harper letters, the police con cluded that a prima facie case of attempted blackmail had been made out, and on June 4 Cream wasarrested charged with that offense. A search of the prisoner's lodgings revealed a case holding fifty-four bottles of pills, and of these bottles seven contained strychnine of medicinal quantities, taking pill by pill. One bottle was full and contained one hundred and sixty-eight pills of one twenty-second of a grain each. Empty five-grain capsules were found, each capable of containing a full score of these pills. Thus the poisoner was enabled to compound a dose of nearly a grain of the drug. A paper was also discovered bearing the address of Alice Marsh and Emma Shrivell. It was now morally certain that the pris oner had been guilty of something more than attempted blackmail, and consequently, on July 18, Inspector Tunbridge charged him with the wilful murder of Matilda Clover. Three months later the criminal was put upon trial for his life at the Old Bailey. The indictment was an omnibus one includ ing the murder of the three girls, the at tempted murder of Lou Harvey and the attempt at blackmail of Drs. Harper and Broadbent. Both prosecution and defense presented a strong array of counsel. The late Sir Charles Russell, then Attorney General, afterward Chief Justice of England, led for the former, Mr. Geoghegan for the latter. As a result of some clever detective work, it was possible for the officers of Scotland Yard to lay bare a portion of Dr. Cream's trail. No testimony was offered by the de fense, and after a trial which lasted four days the jury found the prisoner guilty of
43 1
Clover's murder. No right of criminal ap peal exists in England, and there occurred no delay to the expiation of his many crimes. So much for the facts of one of the most peculiar cases in the annals of criminal juris prudence. What the mental state of Cream was, the author does not attempt to say. Before such a condition of utter depravity science stands aghast. The medical men appointed to inquire into the prisoner's men tal condition declared him perfectly responsi ble. This, however, must needs count for very little, as their investigations were limited by the absurd test which the courts in their omnipotent discretion have seen fit to pre scribe for the determination of a prisoner's sanity or insanity. That a man may be ut terly irresponsible for his actions and should be so held even though he "knew the nature and quality of the act he was doing, or that he knew such act was wrong," ' needs no argument. Had it not been for the blackmailing let ters, one might almost be tempted to say that the case was one of homicidal mania, because of the absolutely purposeless char acter of the crimes, and yet this attempt to derive advantage from their commission seems somewhat inconsistent with the claim that Cream should be placed in that cate gory. Probably Lombroso's theory of an instinctive criminal who commits offenses simply and purely because he cannot refrain, would be nearer the mark. Cream appears to have been actuated by the same motive which induces a mischievous boy to torture an unfortunate animal which may have fallen into his power. The Mephistophelian delight in witnessing the agony of others must place him in the class of a Roman 1 Members of the legal profession are, of course, aware that this absurd test first laid down in McNaughten's case (10 C. & F. 200) has been repudiated by some of the courts of this country, notably in New Hampshire.
