Guildford Street area in 1921

A herbalist known as Madame Primrose with a shop at 87 Guildford Street, Luton, was sent for trial at Bedfordshire Assizes accused that she "did administer or cause to be administered a certain poison or noxious thing with intent" and that she "did supply a certain poison or noxious thing" knowing it would be used for a wrong purpose.

The defendant was Cissie Horsenail, who at the time of the alleged offence displayed in the window of her herbalist shop then in Silver Street a card offering free advice. A young woman named Winifred Fox (now Winifred Thompson), a 23-year-old former straw hat machinist then working at Kent's, saw the sign and went into the shop.

She told the defendant what was troubling her and was promised something that she could provide for five guineas, or nine or ten guineas, but she could not guarantee anything for less than the nine guinea treatment. The girl said that was too much for her and went away, but subsequently returned with a man who had been courting her for some years and he paid £9.

The Town Clerk said the Bench could draw their own conclusions as to whether any person would receive a sum like £9 for simply supplying plain herbs which would have no detrimental effect. That was the essence of the case.

Later the defendant went to the house in High Town Road where the girl lived with her mother and took her some pills. In February the girl married the man, and on May 29th a boy was born. The child died 12 days later, and was the subject of a coroner's inquest after the doctor refused to give a certificate.

A further sum of 7s 6d was paid by the girl herself to the defendant for a further concoction in a bottle. She continued to visit defendant for three months, and the whole of the material was supplied, undoubtedly for a wrong purpose, said the Town Clerk.

Winifred Fox, now married to Stanley Thompson and living at 4 Malvern Road, Luton, said in evidence that she had said to the defendant, "I hope it doesn't do me any harm," as she was not well at the time. The defendant replied: "It is quite all right. There is nothing in it only herbs."

She took the treatment without any result, other than feeling unwell while taking it. Defendant refused to give any money back, but gave her another box of pills, which the witness put on the fire.

She had her baby on May 29th. It was very small and was born at the house of a certified midwife. The child weighed only 4 lbs in its clothes.

Mr H. W. Lathom for the defence asked if the reason for the prosecution was that the witness had not got part of her money back. That was not the reason, she replied, it was because her husband was so upset with the baby dying. She admitted she could not say if there was poison in the pills provided.

Mr Lathom admitted that his client had "fooled" the girl for the money. He suggested it was " a regular family put-up job" and suggested the witness and her husband were angry about the loss of the money. But questioned by the Town Clerk, she said it was the police who brought them into the case.

Police Inspector Duncombe said the complaint was made at the police office by a person other than Mr and Mrs Thompson.

Mr Lathom said he would call no evidence. He went on to deny the existence of any poison in the pills or anything else given by the defendant. It was a plain and sordid story of a woman taking advantage of the credulity of human nature and nothing more.

The pills were iron pills sold at 1s 1½d a box. If one could sell them for £9 the profit was worth having. There was nothing immoral in it if people were such fools as to spend their money. This boy and girl were determined to cover up their folly by a crime, and this woman (the defendant), knowing the gullibility of people, chose to charge a fancy price for a simple thing.

The Bench considered there was a prima facie case to be sent to the Assizes for investigation.

[The Luton News: Thursday, June 22nd, 1916]