MRS. PERKINS ARRESTED

Charged with Poisoning Husband

Prisoner Protests Her Innocence and and an Adjournment Taken till February 27

[Welland Tribune, 22 February 1907]

Cayuga, February 19-The investigation of Detective Greer in the Perkins poisoning case culminated today when Mrs. Mattie Perkins was arrested on a charge of murdering her late husband, Henry Perkins. The arrest was made by High Constable Farrell, assisted by Constable L_ at the home of Mrs. Perkins parents in Cayuga. The constables walked quietly up to Mr. Curry’s home and read their warrant. Mrs. Perkins took her arrest coolly, but protested her innocence. She kept the constables waiting fully half an hour while preparing to accompany them.

“This is an outrage,” she said. “I should have been notified to be prepared.” But the constables thought otherwise, employing themselves in searching the house. They confiscated a trunk, but do not consider it is the one required. When asked if she had brought a trunk from Canfield, she said, “Yes, but it’s for you to find it.”

When the cab drove up she entered quietly accompanied by her sister, Mrs. Hyslip, and was driven to the court house where the information was read by T.E. Cline, J.P.

The information ran: “That you Mrs. Mattie Perkins, of North Cayuga did on the 25^th day of December murder your husband, Henry Perkins, of North Cayuga.

Crown Attorney Murphy then moved on behalf of the Crown that the preliminary hearing be postponed till February 27^th and Mrs. Perkins was handed over to the jail authorities.

Protests Her Innocence

The prisoner looked somewhat flushed, but was quiet and self-possessed. She was dressed in black, with a veil. She went quietly to the jail but broke down when parting with her sister, and spent the afternoon crying and protesting her innocence. She said the constable told her she would be home at night, and that everyone had deceived her. Mrs. Curry, mother of the prisoner, took the arrest very hard.

The authorities believe that they have a strong case against the prisoner. Thos. McDonald of Canfield is said to have been given incriminating evidence, and letters written by the prisoner to Henry Perkins, brother, will be produced at the trial.

The prisoner refused the key of her home at Canfield to High Constable Farrell, but he obtained it from Mrs. Hyslip at the close of the examination.

Mrs. Hyslip gave the key reluctantly. “I would like to open the house myself,” she said.

“All right,” replied Farrell. “We can open it with an ax. Then she relinquished the key. Acting Sheriff Murphy, Detective Greer and High Constable Farrell immediately drove to Canfield to search the house.

Would Find Nothing

Mrs. Perkins protested they would find nothing and she is the most abused of women. The arrest could have taken place three weeks ago, but Detective Greer wished to verify every clue before taking action. The prisoner scarcely seems to realize the seriousness of the charge and appears quite confident of release.

The case is attracting great attention here, as it is just ten years since Mrs. Sternaman was arrested on a similar charge. High Constable Farrell states the Mrs. Sternaman was not nearly as self-possessed as Mrs. Perkins, but seemed to dread her trial. While never losing self-possession, Mrs. Perkins  says her heart is weak and that she may never see trial.

The Case in Brief

Henry Perkins, a carpenter and farm owner, living at Canfield, Ontario, died on Christmas morning 1906 under circumstances which led the authorities to believe that poison was the cause of death. The body was exhumed, and at an inquest held January 22, the jury returned a verdict of poisoning by the administration of strychnine by parties unknown.

The theory that Perkins took strychnine with suicidal intent was scouted because shortly prior to his death he had wired to a friend in Welland to come to him at once. That looked as if he had something important to tell.

Questions put to the widow, Mrs. Perkins, elicited replies, refuting warmly any implied accusation against her. She had at the time of death objected strenuously to a post-mortem examination. Perkins had, moreover, drawn up a new will the night before his death, but the will had not been witnessed. On several days prior to his death the deceased had been severely distressed at intervals in much the same way as in his last illness, and it was the opinion of one doctor that strychnine in comparatively large doses had been administered on Sunday, the 23^rd December and on Christmas morning. Perkins had quite a bit of property, and many assertions have been made that “another man” was the chief cause of the tragedy. All this will now be probed.