REPORT 
OF 
Certain Medico-Legal Cases. 
BY 
THAD. M. RTF.VF.NS_ M [) 
Indianapolis, Ind. 
[Reprinted, from the St. Louis Medical Surgical Journal. December. 1878. j 
ST. LOUIS: 
GEO. O. RUMBOLD AGO. 
18 79. REPORT ON CERTAIN MEDICO-LEGAL CASES. 
[The following cases are reported and attention called to certain points 
developed by them, not in the spirit of personal criticisms of any indi- 
vidual, but simply that the attention of physicians and those interested 
may he directed to the necessity of taking some steps to remedy condi- 
tions in connection with some expert testimony which all must admit 
to he wrong. For the last five or seven years, especially, much has been 
said about the evils arising from such testimony, both as regards the 
attorney and physician, but the most good that has been accomplished has 
been by sharpening the perception and controlling the egotistical daring of 
experts by the reports of such cases as that of Mendicott, Schaffe, Whar- 
ton, etc.] 
While there are a great many points in toxicology not fully 
understood, there is still a great deal known upon the subject, 
and received by authority, that needs to be brought pointedly to 
the minds of not only special and general practitioners, but of 
experts. Professors Eeese and Wormley have (outside of their 
published systematic treatise) done much to bi*ing special points 
of interest more fully before the profession. 
We propose in this paper to mention some things that have 
come under our own observation, thoughts that have been thrust 
upon us by experience. 
In this city a man was accused of poisoning his wife by 
strychnia. We will first give a synopsis of .the hypothetical 
case put by the attorney, and afterwards that of the testimony 
relevant to the points we wish to discuss. The following is the 
gist of the case as presented by the attorney for the State: 
“ Suppose that a woman about 50 years of age had suffered 
from neuralgia of the stomach for some time, but for several 
weeks had been much better. ’She was in the habit of taking 
morphine to allay the pain; she had been up all day attending to 
her household duties; was out at the gate at six o’clock p. m., 
conversing with her neighbors; between seven and eight o’clock 
her husband gave her, in a glass stained by tincture of iron, a 
powder dissolved in water; within a few minutes after she be- 4 
Certain Medico-Legal Cases. 
came sick ; her neighbors gathered in after eight o’clock and 
found her in a convulsion; the doctor arrived about half-past 
eight o’clock ; she said a brownish-colored powder had been 
given her; that it was as bitter as quinine and made her sick, and 
that she had a bad spell and felt so queer, and said she would 
die if they let her have those spasms any more; her pulse was 
accelerated ; her respiration was hurried, her face and lips of a 
livid color; her countenance indicated fear; she had lain in bed 
for an hour; when the doctor arrived she lay on her back; her 
arms were naturally extended at her side; there was h slight 
flexion of the fingers; in about ten or fifteen minutes another 
convulsion followed which was tonic in character; eyes open, 
pupils dilated, a wild look in the face, clen'ched hands, body and 
feet stretched out with violent cramps, head thrown back, arms 
drawn over chest, drawing of the corners of the mouth, body 
and face of a livid hue; the convulsions lasted from a half minute 
to two minutes, with decreased intermissions, until half past ten 
o’clock, when she died in a convulsion; the first evidence of 
approching convulsions appeared in the fingers, arms and lower 
limbs, afterwards extending over the body, and then to the lace 
and jaws, each convulsion coming on in a similar way; they 
were followed by relaxation and full consciousness; a dose of 
chloroform, about 40 drops, was given her about nine o’clock, or 
a little later, and sometime afterwards, not more than 60 drops 
more was given ; she once asked to be turned over; when a con- 
vulsion were coming on she asked to be held; asked for water, 
and when her lips were touched with the spoon containing the 
water, she went into a convulsion; a slight touch, and a person 
walking across the room, thus slightly shaking the house, each 
brought on a convulsion; she perspired befeme her death; when 
dead, the body was in a relaxed condition, but soon afterwards 
it became stiff, and so continued for a number of days after 
death; before the manifestation of these systems, she had no 
trouble of this kind, and was suffering onljT from neuralgia of 
the stomach. 
“From the symptoms and facts, what, in your opinion, was 
the cause of her death ? ” 
The hypothetical case put by the defense only differs slightly 
from this, except that “ no examination of the stomach, kidneys, 
bladder or womb was made, or at least none was reported.” The 
stomach, however, had been examined, and no poison found. Certain Medico-Legal Cases. 
5 
To the first of these hypotheses, a very well-informed chem- 
ical expert assumed “that it would cover almost the entire 
ground ” of a case of strychnia poisoning; that at least only one 
symptom mentioned was out of the general rule in such cases, 
viz.: the interval between the paroxysms being at first from ten 
to fifteen minutes.” 
To the second hj’pothesis, his answer was “that death might 
possibly be caused from uraemic poisoning or from hysterical 
convulsionsalso that such convulsions might be produced by 
morphine, the action of morphine and strychnia often being so 
similar as to be mistaken one for the other, although this same 
witness, in the preliminary examination (before the grand jury), 
having been summoned by the prosecution, testified that “ there 
was no similarity between the effect produced by the two articles!!! ” 
Upon the point of the detection of strychnia, he said the 
ten thousandth part of a grain could, and ought to be, found in 
any case of poisoning by strychnia, under any circumstances. 
An expert of good authority made answer that, “in his opin- 
ion, it could, under the hypothesis, be nothing but a case of 
strychnia poisoning,” that “while uraemic poisoning produced 
tetanic convulsions,etc., the time at which death occurred elimi- 
nated a supposition of that kind from the case, as he was not 
aware that death had occurred in less time than two days from 
uraemic trouble.” 
The hypothesis of the defense did not produce any change in 
his answer. The symptoms and circumstances of the case were 
alone sufficient to form his opinion, as stated, without chemical 
examination. 
Another physician examined answered,in the main, similarly, 
except that he was not so positive, and instanced one point in 
the symptoms that, according to his judgment, differed from a 
usual case of tetanic convulsions, viz.: the legs being in normal 
condition instead of being widely separated. 
A chemist, giving the distinction between symptoms of strych- 
nia poisoning and tetanus, both idiopathic and traumatic, 
gave it as his opinion that the hypothetical case presented was a 
typical one of strychnia poisoning; also, that morphia being 
present, it would obscure the test for strychnia, and that, to de- 
tect with certainty, we must separate the one from the other, 
and that the facts narrated in the hypothetical case pointed,even 
without a chemical analysis, to strychnia poisoning. 6 
Certain Medico-Legal Cases. 
An extraordinary incident in the above case was that the ex- 
pert whose testimony was reported first above, asserted that the 
stomach having been analyzed and no strychnia found (as we 
shall see because of a faulty analysis), therefore no strychnia was 
present ; still the attorney for the defense, obtaining the glass 
from which the potion was given, gave it to the expert men- 
tioned, for the examination of its contents. The chemist re- 
ported to the attorney that a large amount of strychnia was 
obtained from such glass; and yet this knowledge was kept en- 
tirely in the background, and the jury, by the testimony of the 
same expert, led to believe that no strychnia had been found, 
either in or out of the body. It was also proven that the accused 
had purchased strychnia, a few days previous, of a neighboring- 
druggist; thus, all the circumstances and all symptoms pointed 
to death by strychnia, and that administered by the prisoner. 
The only point upon which acquittal was based was the fact that 
strychnia was not found, and, as we have seen, this was not prool 
of the absence of the article. After the case was over and the 
accused cleared, the fact of finding strychnia in the glass by the 
expert whose testimony went so far to acquit was gleefully nar- 
rated by the attorney as a proof of his own shrewdness. 
Whatever the privileges of an attorney may be, the expert 
was certainly, in this case, placed in an unenviable position. 
The above synopsis of evidence and results opens up numer- 
ous points of interest to medical witnesses, upon some of which 
the teachings of recognized authority, although in the main 
plain enough, needs to be collected and systematized, for the 
reason that medical men or attorneys fail to obtain the gist of 
such teaching. We do not say that, experts cannot perform their 
work as well as those whose authority we follow, but they each, 
upon different subjects, consult different authorities, who present 
the thoughts in different language. 
When we are called upon the witness stand, we should con- 
sult and reconcile all who are indeed authorities. This is what 
we wish to do in the following comments, as iar as we go. 
Nothing new from us need be expected. 
The following are the points we will notice, and call atten- 
tion to authorities : 
1st. Can strychnia, morphia, etc., taken into the stomach 
always be found, after proper and diligent search, in the con- 
tents or coats of the stomach, tissue or blood ? With reference Medico-Legal Cases. 
7 
to this question, consult Taylor’s “ Med. Jurisprudence,” edition 
of ’75, pages 691-693; here some of the poison was obtained from 
the stomach, but none from tbe tissue. Also, same page, where 
none was found. Page 694, the non-detection was held as no 
proof of its absence. Page 556, as to extraction of morphia. 
Taylor, on poisons, pages 788-789, where this subject is elab- 
orately discussed and similar conclusions arrived at, both as 
regards strychnia and morphia. 
“ Manual of Toxicology,” by Prof. Reese, page 431, (from 
Prof. Casper) where grs. iii were found in the stomach, but none 
in the tissue or blood; also in same, page 433 (failure to detect), 
also second case, same page, where grs. vi were taken, exam- 
ined six weeks after death; none found in stomach or elsewhere. 
Wormley’s “ Micro Chemistry of Poisons,” page 503, case of 
Dr. Christian, as to non-detection of opium, although it had been 
taken ; in same page, 503, as to recovery of morphine from the 
tissues; page 591-592 as to the detection of strychnia in the coats 
of the stomach or tissues, which is considered very difficult. 
Guy’s “Forensic Medicine,” page 549; he only combats the 
idetf that strychnia is never to be detected in the tissues or blood, 
but says nothing as to the cases where it may not be found. 
2d. In cases where strychnia, morphia, etc., are known to 
have been taken and not detected, how is such non-detectiveness 
accounted for? 
The following are the causes laid down in all authorities: 
1st. The nature of the poison, there being no known tests 
for it. 
2d. Loss by vomiting, purging, etc. In most cases, however, 
the most violent vomiting does not dislodge the poison. 
3d. Loss by absorption and elimination. In death by of 
laudanum after six hours, no morphia or meconic acid was found. 
(See Christian case reported in Reese’s “ Toxicology,” page 71). It 
was presumed that the non-detection was from this cause. So of 
cases in which strychnia was sought for when six grains were 
taken ; death in six hours; none found by Dr. Reese. 
It is very true that Woodman and Tidy, upon the authority 
of Dr. Rogers, say that in case of death by strychnia, and the 
victim dies within two or three hours, the poison should be 
found in the stomach, for although they admit that if death is 
delayed it may then be lost by elimination, the}" hold that the 8 
Certain Medico-Legal Cases. 
time mentioned is not sufficient to permit loss in this manner. 
The questions which will be more fully noticed in a case yet 
to be reported, as to what is meant by death must be taken into 
account in this connection, for certainly elimination from the 
stomach of an article in solution may go on even after somatic 
death; the capillaries and absorbents still continue to act, more 
rapidly in some cases than in others, according to the nature of 
the substance contained in the stomach, etc. The exact time 
when such action ceases in every case has not to our knowledge 
been ascertained, so we must view this testimony of Dr. Rogers 
in the light of such circumstances, and only conclude that in 
rapid somatic death (for that is what he means), the probabili- 
ties of the removal of the poison from the stomach by the pro- 
cess of elimination is rendered less. 
4th. Decomposition of poison in blood or tissue. This is no 
doubt true in some; but as yet only probable as regai’ds stryeh 
nia and morphia. 
5th. Decomposition in the dead body. This is not consid 
ered probable as regards strychnia, for several months at least. 
Another cause not spoken of by some, but recognized by Worm- 
ley, Reese and others, and first noticed by Brieger in 4850, is 
the pi’esence of certain substances, such as quinine, morphia, 
etc., where strychnia is sought for. It is certain that those sub- 
stances will obscure, and some absolutely forbid reaction to tests 
upon strychnia. Morphia, in excess of strychnia, and when both 
are in minute quantities, will (according to those authorities) 
interfere with the reaction. It is true that this pre supposes in 
our present state of knowledge an imperfect analysis, for the 
strychnia can be separated from the other articles, and should be 
in all cases. But suppose that by reason of a faulty analysis this 
should not be done, it would bear the same relation to the proof of 
strychnia in the stomach or tissues as do any of the causes of the 
failure in the detection of the poison, viz : it does not prove its 
absence, but leaves that question untouched. Such fact would 
have to be proven in other ways; thus the presence of morphia 
ought to be placed as another cause of the non detection of 
strychnia. 
The sum of the whole is that non-detection of poisons is no proof 
that it had not been taken, nor even that it was not then present. 
Take the case of the State vs. Palmer, or the “Cook case,” 
as it is termed. Palmer was convicted, although Dr. Taylor Certain Medico-Legal Cases. 
9 
failed to detect strychnia. It was held first that the stomach had 
been opened and contents removed, therefore no strychnia could 
be found. This would have been a true case of non-detection, 
other proof being ample as to its presence, but second, it was 
held that the mode of analysis was faulty, and that if a proper 
one had been made, strychnia might have been found; this ob- 
jection was made by Dr. Letherby. If this was the case it 
have been a true ease of non-detection, but would only 
make the suspicion of death by poisoning stronger than if 
there had been a true and proper analysis. But again mor- 
phia was known to have been administered shortly before the 
pills supposed to contain strychnia; we have seen that morphia 
would (if in excess) interfere with the test'of strychnia. This 
would be another cause of non-detection, and if we say the 
strychnia might and should have been separated from the mor- 
phia, it matters not; it, simply along with all other causes men- 
tioned, left the indication of the presence of strychnia without 
the additional evidence of analysis; it was proper then in that 
case, as it has been in many others, that if all other proofs offered 
as to the administration of the drug with the intent to destroy, 
and as to the final cause of death should be made satisfactory to 
the minds of the jury, either of the coroner’s or higher court, 
conviction should follow, notwithstanding the poison had 
not been found, it is true that finding it would be “confirmation 
strong” as to the cause of death, but it would not be certain 
proof even in the presence of all the other facts of the case, 
for not only have cases been recorded but it is a fact, any one 
can see at a glance, that poisons may and have been found in the 
body with convulsions and other symptoms very similar to those 
mentioned, and yet death did not result from such ; for instance 
they might be given in medicinal doses, which fact might or 
might not have been known to those making the examination. 
In fact the analysis may not discover anything when there is 
something there, through some irremediable causes or by the 
fault of the analysis, or, on the other hand, discover something 
which may, without the greatest care, cause us to be misunder- 
stood, and permit censure to fall when and where it ought not. 
The facts thus obtained from an analysis are only to be viewed 
in the same light and bearing as others revealed throughout the 
whole history of the case. True, conviction may follow when 10 
Medico-Legal Cases. 
there has been no analysis, and a just acquittal where a true and 
proper analysis has revealed the presence of poisons. 
In the “Cook case,” where Palmer was accused of poisoning 
him, the symptoms 'and circumstances alone were relied upon to 
convict. (See Taylor on Poisons). It is true that it is sel- 
dom that these two items of testimony can be sufficient, but 
where the symptoms of strychnia poison have been minutely no- 
ticed from first to last, and in addition the circumstances point 
to a giving of some “deleterious” article, then in many cases 
we might be justified in regarding it as a case of strychnia 
poisioning. Whether criminal or not is another question accord- 
ing to other proof added. Certainly, however, in most cases 
extreme caution must be observed by experts in deciding as to 
the absolute cause of symptoms alone, or even in connection 
with suspicious circumstances, for instance, that the death was oc- 
casioned by some irritants, or where no signs of irritation exist, 
but the nervous system is powerfully impressed by some article, 
we often cannot assert positively without something more to 
rely upon than symptoms or circumstances, that arsenic has been 
the active agent. 
Case II.—Another case either illustrates the falsity of experts, 
or a woeful lapse of memory. In this city two men were 
suspected of the murder of a third; one was arrested at once. 
Upon trial the physician who attended the murdered man at the 
time of his injury, testified to hi> having found wounds upon the 
head, one necessarily fatal, two dangerous, one slight. Their 
positions, etc., were described from notes taken at the time. 
The same physician, in company with a second, made a post mor- 
tem examination of the murdered man, both signing the 
report. The attending physician testified that the skull was 
“fractured but not depressed,” etc. His associate was not 
examined during that trial, but afterwards the second mur- 
derer was arrested and tried; the attorney defending summoned 
the physician who had assisted at the autopsy, and whose name 
was signed to the report. He asserted that he had examined 
the head of the deceased directly after the injury; that one seri- 
ous wound and two or three slight abrasions were found ; that the 
fatal wound was at the prominence of the parietal bone; that 
this had not only fractured the skull, hut depressed it; in fact 
such a depression as would be made b}' the body of an ale bottle Medico-Legal Cases. 
11 
(making an impression one and a-half or two inches in depth), 
with a fracture running to the base of the skull, where a clot of 
blood appeared. Ilis recollection was very distinct, not only as 
to the form of the principal wound, but also that there was no 
wound at the junction of the sagital and lambdoidal sutures. 
This could not be, he said, as these two sutures run parallel with 
each other!! there was none over the mastoid process. All this 
he was certain of' and ridiculed any reports that would state such 
facts, but when the prosecuting attorney showed the report of 
the autopsy, and asked him if he did not write such, and also 
sign it as his report, he at first replied “yes” but it certainly had 
ban changed; but when no alteration in the writing could be 
found, he explained the fact that he had reported a fracture, but 
no deprt ssions of the skull, by saying that at the time he first ex- 
amined him (before the autopsy) there “ might have been a de- 
pression which had disappeared before the time of the au- 
topsy ! 1! ” Such are the shifts men are driven to in such cases. 
Are they objects of pity or •ondemnation ? 
As to the language of the report that “a wound was found at 
the junction of the sagital and lambdoidal sutures ” he had noth- 
ing to say in view of his former assertion, that such was impos- 
sible, they being parallel !! ” Whether such a complete discom- 
fiture was the result of ignorance or some other cause, we leave 
the reader to judge, after saying that this was the same expert 
that in the first case reported (strychnia poisoning), pretended to 
(or did), detect the strychnia in the glass given him by the at- 
torney, and this before his testimony (that had much to do in 
clearing the accused) was given !! We feel humiliated while 
we write that we have such experts(?) among us. 
Case ITT.—Another point we wish to examine is whether a 
poison introduced into the stomach after somatic death, can pro- 
duce like effects upon that organ to the same taken before death. 
At a certain trial in this city where a man was accused of poison- 
ing his wife with arsenic in order to obtain the amount of a pol- 
icy of insurance she held, the stomach and contents were ana- 
lyzed. arsenic was found, but none of the adjacent visceras were 
examined; a small quantity of fluid mixed with mucus appeared 
in the stomach and upon the mucous membrane, which in places 
was of a reddish hue, small ecchymosed spots were seen. Such 
appearances were held to be due to the action of the arsenic. 12r 
Medico-Legal Cases. 
The defense entered the plea that arsenic was introduced af- 
ter death by parties interested in the insurance company, they 
having had the jar, which was improperly sealed in their posses- 
sion for several days after the post mortem examination, to the 
exclusion of any friend of the accused. All the experts but one 
testified that the appearance of the stomach as described in the 
hypothetical case, indicated beyond a doubt that the arsenic was 
administered during life; the dissenting one testified that as death 
was a relative term, its meaning not embracing the cessation 
of “vitality” in the system, the same appearance in “kind” 
but not in “degree” could be produced by an irritant introduced 
into the stomach before such “ vitality ” had ceased, but as to the 
time of the cessation of such active processes lie could not state, 
it lasting longer i:i some than in others, and indeed the time not 
having been definitely settled so as to make a general rule as to 
its length. This theory was held to be visionaiy, for “ where a 
a man was dead he was dead, and life having ceased nothing 
could impress any ] art of the system as before death,” such was 
the reasoning. It is of great practical importance to toxicologists 
and jurors that this point should be understood, and first we must 
separate the idea of “somatic death ” from the cessa'ion of “ vital 
action.” It may seem strange that we are called upon to bring 
this point to the notice of experts at this time, but nevertheless 
we find an amount of forgetfulness that we would not have 
looked for, and that with gentlemen who were generally well 
posted. The very important fact noted by Dr. Reese, of Phila- 
delphia, in his work on toxicology, and subsequently more fully 
as tound in the American Law Journal, for February or March, 
1878, as to the imbibition of poison by the organic tissues ad- 
jacent to the stomach, when the article had been placed in that 
organ after death, was touched upon in this trial, but the subject 
turned upon the effect of arsenic, etc., upon the coat of the 
stomach itself. 
It is a physiological principle well established, that after the 
heart ceases to pulsate or the lungs to receive air, that the blood 
is forced through the capillaries by the same vital activity that 
causes it to circulate before such cessation of the central organs 
has taken place. This is the first stop in the testimony as to the 
continuance of “vitality” after what we designate, in general 
terms “death,” but experiment, however, shows that vital action 
continues in a greater or less degree for hours, nay, days, after Certain Medico-Legal Cases. 
13 
such a condition has been acknowledged. Of course we throw out 
of the count cases of suspended animation, trance, etc. If a body 
is found a few hours after death with wounds upon it, it often 
requires great skill to ascertain whether such were inflicted 
before or after the first steps in systemic death had commenced. 
Often the solution of the question is impossible. The effusion 
of lymph, the show of inflammatory action, discharge of blood, 
puffiness of the lips of the wound, etc., are held to indicate the act 
before death ; the absence of these that it was after, but practi- 
cally we are as often at fault &,s otherwise, in judging as to the 
time. 
This fact isrecognized by all toxicologists as well as physiolo- 
gists. Orfilla kiys it down as a rule that often in twenty-four 
hours an irritant will produce none of its characteristic signs 
upon the stomach, “ because the vitality of the capillaries has 
ceased ” but experiment has not, to our knowledge, been exten- 
sive enough to establish the limit of time, although reasoning by 
analogy may seem to satisfy us that such suppositions are cor- 
rect. 
Case IV.—Not only do mistakes, misunderstandings, the draw- 
ing of false conclusions from observed facts,etc., happen with attor- 
neys, experts and the court, but jurors are liable to similar im- 
perfections. While the teachings of attorneys or physicians are 
often to blame for this, still sometimes the false position is taken 
originally by the jurors. This shows most clearly how careful 
we should be and also bow careless we often are. In a certain 
case an inquest was held upon the body of a man who had died 
after being confined to his bed during the day. The autopsy re- 
vealed the fact that both lungs were extremely diseased, the right 
one being completely.disorganized, full of cavities and the cells 
impervious to air; the left one (except a very small portion of the 
upper lobe) being in the same condition. The physician (a man of 
small repute) testified that six weeks before, the patient came to 
him with cough, expectoration, want of respiratory murmur, etc., 
stating that he was taking in addition to other medicines, the 
contents of a certain powder, several of which he had with him. 
The physician, by inspection, found them to be composed of 
about one and one-half grains of morphine ; these powders he 
continued to use to allay the cough and irritation, and they 
seemingly produced no bad effect. After an exhausting walk 14 
Medico-Legal Cases. 
upon Friday, he retired to bed until next day, when the physi- 
cian was called and gave him one of the powders. It was 
proven that there was no mistake as to the quantity contained in 
each powder. He was suffering from pleuritic pains, coughs, 
and great exhaustion ; seemed to doze but not sleep during the 
day, and finally died about 7 o’clock p. m., with nothing to indi- 
cate opium poisoning when the s}Tmptoms were analyzed. The 
stomach was given to a chemist, who found morphine. The 
brain was found to be in a condition that some who are not experi- 
enced would deem indicative of an inordinate amount of conges- 
tion, but, in fact, very slightly more than is found in eight-tenths 
of all cases of deaths from any cause. 
Two physicians, who were present at the post mortem exam- 
ination, were examined. They insisted that the brain was 
highly congested, and, when asked if they could give a reason- 
able cause for such condition, both replied that it was from 
opium. The question remained with the jury (composed partly 
of physicians) how such a conclusion could be arrived at, for, if 
the brain was highly congested, might there not be other rea- 
sons under the circumstances to cause it ? No other evidence was 
introduced, the case going to the jury. They decided that the 
individul came to his death “from natural causes,” meaning, evi- 
dently, in consequence of the disorganization of both lungs. 
The coroner and the physicians examined, all asserted 
they believed the patient to have been poisoned by morphine, 
and that the drug caused death, although they admitted that he 
could have lived but a short time longer with such a patho- 
logical condition. The fact that when he came to be treated by 
the physician accused of trying to destroy his life, he had been 
and was a user of morphine in large doses, and that, if he had 
not been, the first dose of one and one halt to two grains 
would have produced alarming, if not fatal, symptoms, was over- 
looked, although, when their attention was called to the fact 
such a proposition was admitted as true. Still their opinions 
were fixed, and they departed questioning the correctness of the 
decision of the jury. 
Such cases show us the need of better education upon patho- 
logical and toxicological subjects. The best practical physicians 
are very often almost, if not wholly, ignorant as to what, in a 
cadaver, ought to be regarded as a product of disease, etc. 
And even more ignorant as to all the bearings of toxicologi- Medico-Legal Cases. 
15 
cal questions. In this case, even, the fact that morphine had 
been found in the stomach by the chemist was brought forward 
as almost conclusive evidence that the patient had died from the 
effect of this drug, and even, as evidence, that it had been ad- 
ministered with criminal intent. 
There is scarcely anything that shows more clearly than the 
above history the need of special knowledge, in deciding ecr- 
tain cases. 
The teachings of the above cases are, as we take it, 1st. That 
the manner of calling experts, some by the prosecution and 
others by the defense, ought to be changed, because such a plan 
often acts injuriously as to right and justice, and brings disgrace 
upon the expert testimony; and, 2d. That knowledge goes 
hand in hand with honest purpose and cool courage, and as to 
knowledge, it is not every time the man who has seen the most 
or collected the most facts from personal experience that is the 
best adapted for such work. It makes no difference how the 
knowledge is gained, so he possesses it. The expert must have 
the tact to select what is recorded by others, as well as observed 
by himself, for a “walking encyclopedia” may be a very poor 
practical man. 
As to honesty of purpose and cool courage, it is evident that, 
from the perusal of the above cases, we find that often experts 
may be be honest, but ignorant; or they are rendered incompe- 
tent by dishonesty of purpose or by being confused or intimi- 
dated by counsel or surroundings. Now, in either of such cases, 
they certainly were not, at that time, true experts. 
The time has come when, if the plan is permitted to continue 
n spite of the warning and contrary to the wishes of the med- 
ical profession, then the gigantic evil of false expert testimony 
must cease, by some means; and, if nothing else will stay its 
course, then the court record must be brought forth and arrayed 
before the profession, so that, if naught else will incite to knowl- 
edge, honesty and courage, fear of exposure must add its influence. 
This should, at least, be our object in all cases coming within the 
range of our observation. If we ourselves should trip, let some 
one perform that'efiaion for us, and in the same spirit of kind- 
ness that we propose to deal with others.