**The unhappy marriage of the Busers ended in tragedy. Illustration by Marco Heer.**

A poisoned marriage: the Buser case

The restrictive divorce laws of the 19th century repeatedly led to human tragedies. In the case of the Buser couple, they even resulted in murder.

Patrik Süess

Patrik Süess is a freelance historian.

On 17 August 1838, 52-year-old Anna Maria Buser, née Graf, appeared before the Liestal District Court in the canton of Basel Landschaft asking for a divorce from her husband Heinrich, whom she had married 23 years previously and with whom she lived in the mill in Niederschöntal in the commune of Füllinsdorf. Anna accused her husband of getting drunk too often and when inebriated, getting up to all sorts of shenanigans and coming out with insulting remarks. She claimed that he had been known to drink three bottles of schnapps in two days and that he would sometimes stay out all night and then come home and sleep instead of going to work. It wasn’t the first time that Anna had gone to the authorities. Several months previously, she had asked to have her husband placed under guardianship because she said he was a spendthrift and “feeble minded”. And she wanted to be in charge of the mill. The authority denied this request as the mill business was doing well and was making money. Anna then appeared before the district court to file for divorce again and to ask “for the business to be handed over to her, for her own and her sons’ sakes, and to offer her husband an annual salary.”

Feeling forsaken by God, a meanness gradually developed in her heart, and with time that meanness turned into a loathing towards her spouse, who, through his drunkenness, diminished their earthly possessions and undermined their supposed happiness.

Excerpt from the execution speech by Father Heinrich Mener, 14 May 1840.

Heinrich agreed to the divorce – as long as he could remain in charge of the mill. Other than that, he refuted Anna’s claims, accusing her of severely disparaging and belittling him for a long time, and turning employees and even their own children against him. Buser’s neighbour, Cantonal Councillor Platter, corroborated the latter claim, saying that the eldest son had often been physically abusive towards his father, to which Anna reacted with visible pride, saying “that her husband now had a master in his son”. He also said she once served up a dead cat on Heinrich’s dinner plate. While Platter acknowledged that like all millers Heinrich was often to be found in hostelries, nobody could recall ever seeing him drunk or raucous.

Depiction of Anna Maria Buser in an account of the case based on official documents by J. Ulrich Walser, entitled Die Giftmörderin (‘Murder by poison’) 1840. — **Depiction of Anna Maria Buser in an account of the case based on official documents by J. Ulrich Walser, entitled *Die Giftmörderin* (‘Murder by poison’) 1840.** Wikimedia

Although it was evident that the married couple were living in perpetual discord, after hearing both parties, the district court decided “not to recognise a divorce at the current time”. Instead, the couple were subjected to court-enforced cohabitation, whereby they were seriously advised by the court to tolerate each other amicably. There was very little hope of that, as shown by Anna’s last words to the judge when she said she would decide how to run the business successfully and how to increase their assets. She added that if her husband didn’t like it, she would get her servants to hold him down and have him beaten for as long as she saw fit. The district judge had little choice but to refuse the divorce. Basel Landschaft was a reformed canton, which meant that divorces were possible under strict conditions, unlike in Catholic regions, where according to church doctrine, marriage is a sacrament and thus cannot be dissolved. Catholic cantons only permitted a so-called ‘separation from bed and table’, in other words living apart, in the most extreme cases. The reformer Zwingli had previously specified a whole list of possible grounds for divorce, such as adultery, severe physical mistreatment (by the man), wilful abandonment, a capital offence committed by one of the spouses, infectious disease, insanity, and male impotence.

**Portrait of Huldrych Zwingli, painted by Ludwig Georg Vogel in the 19th century. Vogel modelled the painting on a picture of Hans Asper from the 16th century.** Swiss National Museum

But even under reformed law, marriage was in principle not designed to be dissolved. In Basel Landschaft, the almost 100-year-old rules of the marriage court still applied in 1838. Issued in 1747, they only listed marital breakdown and ‘wilful abandonment’ as grounds for divorce. And even in such cases, judges were required to exercise great caution when issuing divorce judgments, even if sufficient cause had been put forward, in the hope that the parties might nevertheless be reconciled. Although it was clear in today’s terms that the Busers’ marriage had broken down, the district court forced the couple to continue to live under the same roof. It was forbidden for a married couple to live separately without the State’s consent: “Spouses should in no way be permitted to separate of their own volition – whatever the reasons may be.” The moral court monitored whether people were living together or not: in the view of the legislator at the time, marriage was “a supraindividual institution (...) over which the spouses generally do not have control”, because its existence – as the ultimate form of regulating gender relations – was “in the State’s overarching, public interest”.

**The City of Basel’s marriage court rules of 1747 only permitted marital breakdown and ‘wilful abandonment’ as grounds for divorce.** Bayerische Staatsbibliothek

In February 1839, Heinrich Buser fell ill, suffering from severe vomiting, diarrhoea and unbearable stomach pains. He became emaciated, experienced severe chills, and eventually suffered paralysis of his arms and legs. In May, Heinrich, who by that point was bed-ridden, told his brother Jakob of his suspicion that his wife had poisoned him. Jakob then went to the district examining magistrate in Liestal, who immediately removed the seriously ill Heinrich from the marital home. When Anna Buser was summoned and confronted with her husband’s suspicions, she replied coldly that she hoped “the disease he had contracted because of his slovenly lifestyle would finish him off for his and our own good.”

Suspicions confirmed

Her wish came true. Heinrich Buser died on 20 May 1839. But it wasn’t his slovenly lifestyle that killed him. Straight after the first post-mortem, doctors were able to state with certainty that Heinrich had died as a result of metal poisoning. It didn’t take long for Anna Maria Buser to confess to her husband’s murder. After a series of witness statements, the authorities eventually managed to piece together what had happened. In order to carry out the poisoning, Anna had first been to see an unlicensed apothecary named Stocker in Frenkendorf, who was in fact a carpenter and was known to the authorities as ‘the quack’. She came right out with it and asked him for a poison that would cause a slow death. In exchange, she offered Stocker 50 doubloons and two years’ worth of flour. Anna’s accomplice Heuberger – who had previously worked as a servant in the Buser’s household but who scarpered just before Heinrich’s death when the situation got too risky – put Anna in touch with Stocker and picked the poison up from him. But the authorities didn’t believe Heuberger was Anna’s lover as his “outward appearance was as hideous as his character”. However, Stocker’s ‘poison’ didn’t work – and Stocker then blackmailed Anna, threatening to disclose what he knew. Anna then tried copper shavings, which she grated into her husband’s roast potatoes. When that didn’t work either, she slipped lead oxide, which she had bought from a painter, into his brandy. While this made Heinrich sick, it only ended up being fatal in combination with sulphuric acid and hydrochloric acid.

The sulphuric acid had been in the house for ten years, while the hydrochloric acid had been procured the previous winter from a Dr Gaß in Muttenz to treat a sick horse. Anna poured the lead oxide into Heinrich’s grape brandy which had been coloured with black cherries. “He didn’t notice a thing,” she remarked in the hearing.

Excerpt from an account of the case based on official documents by J. Ulrich Walser, entitled "Die Giftmörderin", 1840.

The authorities were never able to determine with certainty whether the eldest son, Heinrich junior, was privy to his mother’s murderous plan, as he shot himself on 14 June with his military rifle. When asked about her motive, Anna replied: “I did it because they wouldn’t let me divorce him (...). If the court hadn’t forced us to live together (...), it would never have occurred to me to do such a thing.”

A change ahead of its time

We can only speculate as to whether a timely divorce would have saved Heinrich Buser’s life. What is certain, however, is that by 1874 at the latest the court would generally have been able to grant a divorce. The total revision of the Federal Constitution recognised ‘marital breakdown’ and ‘joint request’ as grounds for divorce for the first time throughout Switzerland – both of which would have applied in the Buser case. The introduction of ‘joint request’ as grounds for divorce can almost be described as revolutionary. While the element of ‘breakdown’ still assumed an ideal of marriage dictated by society, ‘joint request’ for the first time gave the spouses themselves the authority to decide whether the marriage would continue to exist or not.

**Plaque commemorating the Constitutional revision of 1874.** Swiss National Museum

But this revolution didn’t last long. As almost no other country in Europe recognised ‘joint request’ as grounds for divorce, the divorce rate in Switzerland was also higher at this time than in other countries. Between 1876 and 1880, there were more than four times as many divorces in Switzerland than in France, and at the turn of the 20th century, Switzerland still had twice as many divorces as the German Reich. Too many, as far as politicians were concerned. In the Swiss Civil Code of 1912, the principle of ‘joint request’ was abolished again. Lawyer and politician Robert Briner’s traditional view, put forward in 1910, prevailed (initially): “Marriage is not merely a contract under private law that is subject to the caprice of the spouses, but a much higher, moral legal relationship that is independent of the will of the couple (...) and which can only be entered into and dissolved with the State’s consent.”

A clear verdict

On 6 April 1840, the criminal court imposed the death penalty on Anna Maria Buser, ordering her to be beheaded by sword. The Basel cantonal parliament confirmed the verdict with 51 votes to 2. Stocker and Heuberger were sentenced to ten and five years of shackled imprisonment, respectively.

Execution announcement in the journal Intelligenzblatt für die Stadt Bern, 16 May 1840. — **Execution announcement in the journal *Intelligenzblatt für die Stadt Bern*, 16 May 1840.** e-newspaperarchives

Anna never showed any remorse for her crime. While in prison she said that she had forgotten her husband long ago. The Berner Volksfreund newspaper reported that Anna Maria Buser was serene as she made her way to the barrack yard in Liestal, where thousands of spectators had gathered to watch her execution, on 14 May 1840. “Mrs Buser showed an audacity that deserves respect, even in a criminal. She might not have known how to live properly, but she knew how to die with determination.”

More of: Modern Age Religion Society Crime Women in history

Further posts

A Sausage, Arsenic, and the Death Penalty: The Case of Furrer

Patrik Süess 16.07.2024 The case of murderer Johann Heinrich Furrer triggered heated debate about the abolition of the death penalty in the 1860s.

Lies, torture, death: the case of Anna Koch

Patrik Süess 04.06.2024 In 1849, Johann Mazenauer was suspected of murdering his girlfriend. The authorities in Appenzell wanted a confession and would use any means to get one. But they failed, as the woman was actually killed by the accused’s ex-lover.

Anna Koch murdered a rival and blamed the crime on her former lover. Illustration by Marco Heer

The Bärschwil triple murder

Philipp Krauer 04.10.2021 A bloody slaying in Bärschwil in Solothurn laid bare the global scars left by colonial violence in the late 19th century.

The idyll is deceptive. In 1896, an ex-mercenary murdered three people in Bärschwil in Solothurn.