Beer poisoning at Liverpool

Results of the inquest 11th March 1901

After sitting 11 days . the inquest at Liverpool on the body of Mary RANKIN , who died in December last from the effects of beer poisoning was concluded on Saturday . The beer which the deceased had consumed was shown to have contained arsenic and to have been manufactured in part from glucose or in invert sugar supplied by Messrs Bostock and Co Ltd , of Garston

Who in their turn at used in the manufacture of the glucose sulphuric acid supplied by Messrs J. Nicholson and sons limited , of Leeds , which sulphuric acid was found on analysis contained a very high amount of arsenic

The evidence was completed on Friday , and the coroner , TE Sampson summed up on Saturday morning . H explained to the jury that to establish any criminal charge against any of the parties concerned . they must be satisfied that there had been culpable negligence . He took it for granted , the jury was satisfied that death had arisen from arsenical poisoning and that the publicans and the brewers had done all that could be expected after ascertaining the source of danger which had arisen . He then discussed the position of the directors of Messrs Bostock Ltd of their consulting chemist . Dr Morris of London and of their works chemist . Mr F.B COOK in regard to Messrs Nicholson , he said the fact that after supplying Messrs Bostock with pure sulphuric acid for 10 years . they had suddenly , and without notice to one that was exceedingly dangerous , was a point , which must seriously engage their attention. He went in detail to the leading points of the evidence and warned the jury . they must be thoroughly satisfied that one or other of the parties had been guilty of gross carelessness and of culpable negligence before they could send them to trial on a charge of manslaughter . The jury , after an absence of almost two hours, returned and the foreman said they found the cause of death was arsenical poisoning Bostock’s directors were not culpably negligent but were to blame for not notifying Nicholson’s of the acid they were using was for use in food products . Nicholsons were not culpably liable but displayed extreme indifference Mr Cook was negligent , but not culpably so . Dr Morris displayed great carelessness , in his supervision of Mr Cook , replying to the coroner foreman said the verdict in regard to the Nicholsons did not amount to culpable negligence . The jury added a rider that better supervision should be exercised over the quality of the liquors supplied in licensed houses . in view of the length of the inquest . the coroner exempted the jury from service for the rest of their lives