all he ate before his return to Mrs.
Wharton's from the banking-house at 4 P.M. Mrs. Wharton then offered
him some lager beer, and, partly at his own suggestion, put into it
something out of a bottle labeled "Gentian Bitters." He found the
liquid so bitter that he took but a part of it.[20]

Shortly afterward Mr. Van Ness became partially blind, and was "seized
with the same feeling of giddiness" as on the day before. After this
he had convulsions, with unconsciousness, for which large doses of
chloroform and chloral were given. During the attack the patient
repeatedly said it was of the same character as the preceding ones,
and referred the trouble to the pit of the stomach and to indigestion.

The next morning (Sunday), about an hour after waking, he took some
tea and toast, and in ten minutes was seized with nausea, followed by
heartburn and retching, which lasted all day. On Monday morning some
beef tea--two-thirds of a cupful--was given him, and in less than an
hour as much more, which induced nausea with heartburn. In the evening
he was roused, and more beef tea offered him, which he refused because
the last dose had made him sick, and he was afraid this would have the
same effect. He was, however, prevailed on to take it. After this he
fell asleep, but in a short time woke up with violent nausea, burning
at the pit of the stomach, and finally vomiting. Not until this
occurred did he discover anything wrong with the beef tea: as he
vomited it he found it had an acrid metallic taste.[21]

The circumstantial evidence in the case did not amount to any more
than, or indeed as much as, in the previous trial. It was distinctly
admitted that no motive could be found, Mr. Van Ness testifying that
the relations between himself and Mrs. Wharton were most friendly;
that he held four thousand dollars of her government bonds, for
which she had not even a receipt; that she depended upon him for the
completion of her pecuniary arrangements for a contemplated trip to
Europe; or, in other words, that she had nothing to gain and much to
lose by his death, and that there was no conceivable emotional motive,
such as hate, revenge or envy.[22]

No attempt was made to prove that Mrs. Wharton had at any time in her
possession strychnia, the poison alleged to have been used by her. As
on the previous trial, the case centred upon the expert testimony, but
there was no direct chemical evidence, neither the food, the matters
vomited no