Chapter IV · (continued 2)

Cross-examined by Mr. Grove.—“I did not see the patient during a severe attack. I have observed in animals that spasms are brought on by touch. That is a very marked symptom. The spasm is like a galvanic shock. The patient was not at all insensible during the time I saw her, and she was able to swallow, but I did not see her during a severe attack. After death we found the lungs very much congested. There was a small quantity of bloody serum found in the pericardium. The muscles of the whole body were dark and soft. There was a decided quantity of effusion in the brain. There was also a quantity of serum tinged with blood in the membranes of the spinal cord. The membranes of the spinal marrow were congested to a considerable extent. We opened the head first, and there was a good deal of blood flowing out. Part of the blood may have flowed from the heart. That might partially empty the heart, and would make it uncertain whether the heart was full or empty at the time of death. I have often examined the hearts of animals poisoned by strychnia. The right side of the heart is generally full. In some cases I think that the symptoms did not appear for an hour after the administration of the poison. I have made the experiments in conjunction with Mr. Nunneley. We have made experiments upon frogs, but they are different in many respects from warm-blooded animals. I have in almost all cases found the strychnia where it was known to have been administered. In one case it was doubtful. We were sure the strychnia had been administered in that case, but we doubted whether it had reached the stomach. There were appearances which might lead one to infer the presence of strychnia, but they were not satisfactory. I have detected strychnia in the stomach nearly two months after death, when decomposition has proceeded to a considerable extent.”

Re-examined by the Attorney-General.—“From half a grain to a grain has been administered to cats, rabbits, and dogs. From one to two grains is quite sufficient to kill a dog.”

Question.—“How does the strychnia act? Is it taken up by the absorbents, and carried into the system?”

Answer.—“I think it acts upon the nerves, but a part may be taken into the blood and act through the blood. We generally examined the stomach of the animals when the poison had been administered internally. Sometimes we examined the skin. The poison found in the stomach would be in excess of that absorbed into the system.”

Question.—“Are you then of opinion that, a portion of the poison being taken into the system and a portion being left in the stomach, the portion taken into the system would produce tetanic symptoms and death?”

Mr. Serjeant Shee objected to a question which suggested a theory.

The Attorney-General.—“What would be the operation of that portion of the poison which is taken into the system?”

Answer.—“It would destroy life.”

Mr. Baron Alderson.—“And yet leave an excess in the stomach?”

Answer.—“That is my opinion.”

The Attorney-General.—“Would the excess remaining in the stomach produce no effect?”

Answer.—“I am not sure that strychnia could lie in the stomach without acting prejudicially.”

Question.—“Suppose that a minimum quantity is administered, which, being absorbed into the system, destroys life, should you expect to find any in the stomach?”

Answer.—“I should expect sometimes to fail in discovering it.”

Question.—“If death resulted from a series of minimum doses spread over several days, would the appearance of the body be different from that of one whose death had been caused by one dose?”

Answer.—“I should connect the appearance of the body with the final struggle of the last day.”

Question.—“Would you expect a different set of phenomena in cases where death had taken place after a brief struggle, and in cases where the struggle had been protracted?”

Answer.—“Certainly. At the post-mortem examination of which I have spoken we found fluid blood in the veins.”

Mr. Serjeant Shee.—“Is it your theory that in the action of poisoning the poison becomes absorbed and ceases to exist as poison?”

Answer.—“I have thought much upon that question, and have not formed a decided opinion, but I am inclined to think that it is so. A part may be absorbed and a part remain in the stomach unchanged.”

Mr. Serjeant Shee.—“What chymical reason can you give for your opinion that strychnia, after having effected the operation of poisoning, ceases to be strychnia in the blood?”

Answer.—“My opinion rests upon the general principle that, in acting upon living bodies, organic substances—such as food and medicine—are generally changed in their composition.”

Mr. Serjeant Shee.—“What are the component parts of strychnia?”

Mr. Baron Alderson.—“You will find that in any cyclopædia, brother Shee.”

Mr. Serjeant Shee.—“Have you any reason to believe that strychnia can be decomposed by any sort of putrefying or fermenting process?”

Witness.—“I doubt whether it can.”[42]

ANALYTICAL EVIDENCE.

On the fifth day, the late Doctor Alfred Swaine Taylor, the well-known Analytical Chemist and Author of “Medical Jurisprudence” (the text-book of the legal profession in all criminal investigations), Doctor Owen Rees, now one of the physicians extraordinary to her Majesty, and the late Professor Brande, of the Royal Institution, were called as witnesses. By the two first, the analytical examination of the various parts of Mr. Cook’s body had been conducted, and they had made a joint report of the results. By the last, that report had been carefully examined, and he had also heard all the evidence as to symptoms previously given in the case. No inconsiderable portion of the cross-examination of Dr. Taylor was occupied by questions connected with the publication, in the Illustrated Times, by Mr. Augustus Mayhew, of what professed to be statements as to the details of their analysis by Dr. Taylor and Dr. Rees, in which, if correctly reported, the former had committed himself somewhat prematurely to opinions on the case, and had used expressions towards the prisoner which, to say the least, were not discreet. Dr. Taylor, however, stoutly maintained that he had not used many of the expressions objected to; that the opportunity of interviewing him, after the American fashion, had been unfairly obtained, and the pretended report published not only without, but contrary to, his expressed wish. Except, however, as throwing a shade of partisanship over his conduct, and so far lessening the value of his evidence, the whole episode was useless to the defence—perhaps, to a certain extent, injurious. Dr. Taylor had been hasty and injudicious, and undoubtedly taken at an advantage by the energetic reporter, who certainly obtained his interview with him by pretences not strictly true.[43] With these remarks, due to Dr. Taylor’s reputation and abilities, we proceed to give his evidence.

Dr. Alfred Swaine Taylor, examined by the Attorney-General.—“I am a fellow of the College of Physicians, lecturer on medical jurisprudence at Guy’s Hospital, and the author of the well-known treatise on poisons and on medical jurisprudence. I have made the poison called strychnia the subject of my attention. It is the produce of the nux vomica, which also contains brucia, a poison of an analogous character. Brucia is variously estimated at from one-sixth to one-twelfth the strength of strychnia. Most varieties of impure strychnia that are sold contain more or less brucia. Unless, therefore, you are certain as to the purity of the article, you may be misled as to its strength. I have performed a variety of experiments with strychnia on animal life. I have never witnessed its action on a human subject. I have tried its effects upon animal life—upon rabbits—in ten or twelve instances. The symptoms are, on the whole, very uniform. The quantity I have given has varied from half a grain to two grains. Half a grain is sufficient to destroy a rabbit. I have given it both in a solid and liquid state. When given in a fluid state it produces its effects in a very few minutes; when in a solid state, as a sort of pill or bolus, in about six to eleven minutes. The time varies according to the strength of the dose, and also to the strength of the animal.”

Question.—“In what way does it operate, in your opinion?”

Answer.—“It is first absorbed into the blood, then circulated through the body, and especially acts on the spinal cord, from which proceed the nerves acting on the voluntary muscles.”

Question.—“Supposing the poison has been absorbed, what time would you give for the circulating process?”

Answer.—“The circulation of the blood through the whole system is considered to take place about once in four minutes. The circulation in animals is quicker. The absorption of the poison by rabbits is therefore quicker. The time would also depend on the state of the stomach,—whether it contained much food or not, whether the poison came into immediate contact with the inner surface of the stomach.”

Question.—“In your opinion, does the poison act immediately on the nervous system, or must it first be absorbed?”

Answer.—“It must first be absorbed.”

Question.—“The symptoms, you say, are uniform. Will you describe them?”

Answer.—“The animal for about five or six minutes does not appear to suffer, but moves about gently; when the poison begins to act it suddenly falls on its side; there is a trembling, a quivering motion of the whole of the muscles of the body, arising from the poison producing violent and involuntary contraction. There is then a sudden paroxysm or fit, the fore legs and the hind legs are stretched out, the head and the tail are drawn back in the form of a bow, the jaws are spasmodically closed, the eyes are prominent; after a short time there is a slight remission of the symptoms, and the animal appears to lie quiet, but the slightest noise or touch reproduces another convulsive paroxysm; sometimes there is a scream, or a sort of shriek, as if the animal suffered from pain; the heart beats violently during the fit, and after a succession of these fits the animal dies quietly. Sometimes, however, the animal dies during a spasm, and I only know that death has occurred from holding my hand over the heart. The appearances after death differ. In some instances the rigidity continues. In one case the muscles were so strongly contracted for a week afterwards, that it was possible to hold the body by its hind legs stretched out horizontally. In an animal killed the other day the body was flaccid at the time of death, but became rigid about five minutes afterwards. I have opened the bodies of animals thus destroyed.”

Question.—“Could you detect any injury in the stomach?”

Answer.—“No. I have found in some cases congestion of the membranes of the spinal cord to a greater extent than would be accounted for by the gravitation of the blood. In other cases I have found no departure from the ordinary state of the spinal cord and the brain. I ascribe congestion to the succession of fits before death. In a majority of instances, three out of five, I found no change in the abnormal condition of the spine. In all cases the heart has been congested, especially the right side. I saw a case of ordinary tetanus in the human subject years ago, but I have not had much experience of such cases. I saw one case last Thursday week at St. Bartholomew’s Hospital. The patient recovered.”

Question.—“You have heard the description given by the witnesses of the symptoms and appearances which accompanied Cook’s attacks?”

Answer.—“I have.”

Question.—“Were those symptoms and appearances the same as those you have observed in the animals to which you administered strychnia?”

Answer.—“They were. Death has taken place in the animals more rapidly when the poison has been administered in a fluid than in a solid form. They have died at various periods after the administration of the poison. The experiments I have performed lately have been entirely in reference to solid strychnia. In the first case the symptoms began in seven minutes, and the animal died (including those seven) in thirteen minutes. In the second case the symptoms appeared in nine minutes, and the animal died in seventeen. In the third case the symptoms appeared in ten minutes, and the animal died in eighteen. In the fourth case the symptoms appeared in five minutes, and death took place in twenty-two. In the fifth case the symptoms appeared in twelve minutes, and death occurred in twenty-three. If the poison were taken by the human subject in pills it would take a longer time to act, because the structure of the pill must be broken up in order to bring the poison in contact with the mucous membrane of the stomach. I have administered it to rabbits in pills.”

Question.—“Would poison given in pills take a longer period to operate on a human subject than on a rabbit?”

Answer.—“I do not think we can draw any inference from a comparison of the rapidity of death in a human subject and in a rabbit. The circulation and absorption are different in the two cases. There is also a difference between one human subject and another. The strength of the dose, too, would make a difference, as a large dose would produce a more rapid effect than a small one. I have experimented upon the intestines of animals, in order to reproduce the strychnia. The process consists in putting the stomach and its contents in alcohol, with a small quantity of acid which dissolves the strychnia, and produces sulphate of strychnia in the stomach. The liquid is then filtered, gently evaporated, and an alkali added—carbonate of potash, which combines with the sulphuric acid, and precipitates the strychnia. Tests are applied to the strychnia, or supposed strychnia, when extracted. Strychnia has a peculiar strongly bitter taste. It is not soluble in water, but it is in acids and in alcohol. The colour tests are applied to the dry residue after evaporation. Change of colour is produced by a mixture of sulphuric acid and bichromate of potash. It produces a blue colour, changing to violet and purple, and passing to red; but colouring tests are very fallacious, with this exception,—when we have strychnia separated in its crystallised state we can recognise the crystals by their form and their chemical properties, and, above all, by the tetanic symptoms and death when administered through a wound in the skin of animals.”[44]

Question.—“Are there other vegetable substances from which, if these colouring tests were applied, similar colours could be obtained?”

Answer.—“There are a variety of mixtures which produce similar colours;[45] one of them also has a bitter taste like strychnine.[46] Vegetable poisons are more difficult of detection than mineral: the tests are far more fallacious. I have endeavoured to discover the presence of strychnine in animals I have poisoned in four cases, assisted by Dr. Rees. I have applied the process I first described. I have applied the tests of colouring and taste. In one case I discovered some by the colour test. In a second case there was a bitter taste, but no other indication of strychnine. In the other two cases there were no indications at all. In the case where it had been discovered by the colour test, two grains had been administered; and in the second case, where there was a bitter taste, one grain. In one of the cases where we failed to detect it, one grain, and, in the other, half a grain had been given. I account for the absence of any indication, because it is absorbed in the blood, and is no longer in the stomach. It is in a great part changed in the blood. When administered in large doses there is a retention of some in excess of what is required for the destruction of life.”

Question.—“Supposing a minimum dose, which will destroy life, has been given, could you find any?”

Answer.—“No. It is taken up by absorption, and is no longer discoverable in the stomach. The smallest quantity by which I have destroyed an animal is half a grain. There is no process with which I am acquainted by which it can be discovered in the tissue.[47] As far as I know, a small quantity cannot be discovered.”

Question.—“Suppose half a grain to be absorbed into the blood, what proportion does it bear to the total quantity of blood circulated in the system?”

Answer.—“Assuming the system to contain the lowest quantity of blood—25lb.—it would be one-fiftieth of a grain to a pound of blood. A physician once died from a dose of half a grain in twenty minutes. I believe it undergoes some partial change in the blood which increases the difficulty of discovering it. I never heard of its being separated from the tissues in a crystallised state. The crystals are peculiar in form, but there are other organic crystallised substances like them, so that a chemist will not rely on form only. After the post-mortem examination, a portion of the stomach was delivered to me by Mr. Boycott, covered with bladder, tied and sealed. The jar contained the stomach and the intestines. I have experimented upon them with a view to discover if any poison was present. I sought for prussic acid, morphia, strychnia, veratria, tobacco poison, hemlock, arsenic, antimony, mercury, and other mineral poisons, but only found small traces of antimony. The parts on which I had to operate were in the most unfavourable condition that could possibly be. The stomach had been cut completely from end to end; all the contents were gone, and the fine mucous surface, on which any poison, if present, would have been found, was lying in contact with the outside of the intestines—all thrown together. The inside of the stomach was lying in a mass of intestinal fœcal matter. That was, I presume, the fault or misfortune of the person who dissected, but it seemed to have been shaken about in every possible way in its journey to London.[48] By my request the spleen, two kidneys, and a small bottle of blood, were sent up to me. We had no idea where the blood came from. Each part of the liver, one kidney, and the spleen, all yielded antimony. It was reproduced, or brought out by boiling the animal matter in a mixture of hydrochloric acid and water. Copper, in the shape of foil and gauze in a sort of web of fine copper, was introduced, and the antimony was found deposited on the copper. The quantity of antimony was less in proportion in the spleen than in the other parts. I detected some antimony in the blood. We applied the tests of Professor Brande, Dr. Rees, and others. It is impossible to say how recently it had been administered, but I should say shortly before death, that is, within some days. The longest period at which antimony can be found in the blood after death, within my knowledge, is eight days; the earliest period, within my knowledge, eighteen hours. A boy died within eighteen hours after taking it, and it was found in his liver. It is usually given in the form of tartar emetic; it acts as an irritant, and produces vomiting. If given in repeated doses, a portion would find its way into the blood and the system, beyond what was ejected. If it continued to be given after it had produced certain symptoms, it would destroy life. It may, however, be given with impunity.”

Referring to the symptoms previously proved in Cook’s case, the witness said—

“Vomitings produced by antimony would cause those symptoms. If given in small quantities, sufficient to cause vomiting, it would not affect the colour of the liquid with which it was mixed, whether brandy, wine, broth, or water. It is impossible to form an exact judgment when the antimony was administered, but it must have been two or three weeks at the outside before death. There was no evidence that it was administered within some hours before death. It might leave a sensation in the throat—a choking sensation—if a large quantity was given at once. I found no trace of mercury during the analysis. If a few grains had been taken recently before death, I should have expected to find some trace. If a man had taken mercury for a syphilitic affection within two or three weeks, I should have expected to find it. It is very slow in passing out of the body. As small a quantity as three or four grains might leave some trace. I recollect a case in which three grains of calomel were given three or four hours before death, and traces of mercury were found. Half a grain three or four days before death, if given in divided doses more favourable for absorption, would, I should expect, leave a trace. One grain would certainly do so.” The witness agreed with the opinion of the other witnesses as to the causes of the deaths of Mrs. Smyth, Agnes French, and the other lady (Mrs. Dove), and of the attack of Clutterbuck, and that the symptoms in Mr. Cook’s case appeared to be of a similar character. As a professor of medical science, he did not know any cause in the range of human disease, except strychnia, to which the symptoms in Cook’s case could be referred.

The cross-examination of Dr. Taylor was necessarily very diffuse and lengthy; with the exception, however, of the part in which it was sought to raise a prejudice against the witness as a partisan, to which I have previously referred, it was so important that, like the examination in chief, it must, in justice to all parties, be reported at length.

Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant Shee.—“I mean by the word ‘trace’ a very small quantity, which can hardly be estimated by weight. I do not apply it in the sense of an imponderable quantity. In chemical language it is frequently used in that sense. An infinitesimal quantity would be called ‘a trace.’ The quantity of antimony that we discovered in all parts of the body would make up about half a grain. We did not ascertain that there was that quantity, but I will undertake to say that we extracted as much as half a grain. That quantity would not be sufficient to cause death. Only arsenic or antimony could have been deposited, under the circumstances, on the copper, and no sublimate of arsenic was obtained.” [The witness, in reply to a further question, detailed the elaborate test which he had applied to the deposit, in order to ascertain that it consisted of antimony.]

Question.—“Would a mistake in any one of the processes you have described, or a defect in any of the materials you have used, defeat the object of the test?”

Answer.—“It would, but all the materials I used were pure. Such an accident could not have happened without my having some intimation of it in the course of the process. I should think antimony would operate more quickly upon animals than upon men. I am acquainted with the works of Orfila. He stood in the highest rank of analytical chemists.”

Question.—“Did not Orfila find antimony in a dog four months after injection?”

Answer.—“Yes; but the animal had taken about forty-five grains.”

Mr. Serjeant Shee called the attention of the witness to a passage in Orfila’s work in reference to that case, to the effect that the antimony was found accumulating in the bones, the liver contained a great deal, and the tissues a very little.

Witness.—“Yes; when antimony has been long in the body it passes into the bones; but I think you will find that these are not Orfila’s experiments. Orfila is quoting the experiments of another person.”[49]

Question.—“But is not that the case with nearly all the experiments referred to in your own book?”

Answer.—“No; I cannot say that.”

Mr. Serjeant Shee again referred to a case in Orfila in which forty-five grains were given to a dog, and three and a half months after death a quantity was found in the fat, and some in the liver, bones, and tissues.

Witness.—“That shows that antimony gets into the bones and flesh, but I never knew a case in which forty-five grains had been given to a human being in ten days, and I have given no opinion upon such a case.”

Question.—“A pretty good dose is required to poison a person, I suppose?”

Answer.—“That depends on the mode in which it is given. A dog has been poisoned with six grains. The dog died in the case you mentioned. When antimony is administered as it was in that case the liver becomes fatty and gristled. Cook’s liver presented no appearance of the sort. I should infer that the antimony we found in Cook’s body was given much more recently than in the experiments you have described. We cannot say positively how long it takes to get out of the body, but I have known three grains cleared out in twenty-four hours. I was first applied to in this case on Thursday, the 27th of November, by Mr. Stevens, who was introduced to me by Mr. Warrington, professor of chemistry. Either then or subsequently he mentioned Mr. Gardner. I had not known Mr. Gardner before. I had never before been concerned in cases of this kind at Rugeley.”

Mr. Serjeant Shee read the letter written by Dr. Taylor to Mr. Gardner:

“Chemical Laboratory, Guy’s Hospital,

“Dec. 4, 1855.

“Re J. P. Cook, Esq., deceased.

“Dear Sir,—Dr. Rees and I have completed the analysis to-day. We have sketched a report, which will be ready to-morrow or next day.

“As I am going to Durham Assizes on the part of the Crown, in the case of Reg. v. Wooler, the report will be in the hands of Dr. Rees, No. 26, Albemarle-street. It will be most desirable that Mr. Stevens should call on Dr. Rees, read the report with him, and put such questions as may occur.

“In reply to your letter received here this morning I beg to say that we wish a statement of all the medicines prescribed for deceased (until his death) to be drawn up and sent to Dr. Rees.

“We do not find strychnine, prussic acid, or any trace of opium. From the contents having been drained away it is now impossible to say whether any strychnine had or had not been given just before death, but it is quite possible for tartar emetic to destroy life if given in repeated doses; and, so far as we can at present form an opinion, in the absence of any natural cause of death, the deceased may have died from the effects of antimony in this or some other form.

“We are, dear Sir, yours faithfully,

“Alfred S. Taylor.

“G. Owen Rees.”

Question.—“Was that your opinion at the time?”

Answer.—“It was. We could infer nothing else.”

Question.—“Have you not said that the quantity of antimony you found was not sufficient to account for death?”

Answer.—“Certainly. If a man takes antimony he first vomits, and then a part of the antimony goes out of the body; some may escape from the bowels. A great deal passes at once into the blood by absorption, and is carried out by the urine.”

Question.—“Can you say upon your oath that from the traces in Cook’s body you were justified in stating your opinion that death was caused by antimony?”

Answer.—“Yes; perfectly and distinctly. That which is found in a dead body is not the slightest criterion as to what the man took when alive.”

Question.—“When you gave your opinion that Cook died from the effects of antimony, had you any reason to think that an undue quantity had been administered?”

Answer.—“I could not tell. People may die from large or small quantities; the quantity found in the body was no criterion as to how much he had taken.”

Question.—“May not the injudicious use of a quack medicine containing antimony, the injudicious use of James’s powders, account for the antimony you found in the body?”

Answer.—“Yes; the injudicious use of any antimonial medicine would account for it.”

Question.—“Or even their judicious use?”

Answer.—“It might.”

Question.—“With that knowledge, upon being consulted with regard to Cook, you gave it as your opinion that he died from the poison of antimony?”

Answer.—“You pervert my meaning entirely. I said that antimony in the form of tartar emetic might occasion vomiting and other symptoms of irritation, and that in large doses it would cause death, preceded by convulsions.” [The witness was proceeding to read his report upon the case, but was stopped by the Court.] “I was told that the deceased was in good health seven or eight days before his death, and that he had been taken very sick and ill, and had died in convulsions. No further particulars being given us, we were left to suppose that he had not died a natural death. There was no natural cause to account for death; and finding antimony existing throughout the body, we thought it might have been caused by antimony. An analysis cannot be made effectually without information.”

Question.—“You think it necessary before you can rely upon an analysis to have received a long statement of the symptoms before death?”

Answer.—“A short statement will do.”

Question.—“You allow your judgment to be influenced by the statement of a person who knows nothing of his own knowledge?”

Answer.—“I do not allow my judgment to be influenced in any way; I judge by the result.”

Question.—“Do you mean to say that what Mr. Stevens told you did not assist you in arriving at the conclusion you state in writing?”

Answer.—“I stated it as a possible case—not as a certainty. If we had found a large quantity of tartar emetic in the stomach we should have come to the conclusion that the man died from it. As we found only a small quantity, we said he might have died from it. I attended the coroner’s inquest, first, I think, on December 14. Some of the evidence was read over to me. I think that Dr. Harland was the first witness I heard examined. I heard Mr. Bamford, and also Lavinia Barnes. I cannot say as to Newton. I heard Jones. I had experimented some years ago on five of the rabbits I have mentioned. That is the only knowledge of my own that I had of the effect of strychnia upon animal life when I wrote my book. I have a great objection to the sacrifice of life. No toxicologist will sacrifice the lives of one hundred rabbits to establish facts which he knows to be already well established. I experimented on the last rabbits since the inquest.”

Question.—“Do you not think it rather rash to judge of the effects of strychnia on man by so small an experiment?”

Answer.—“You must add to the experiment the study of poisons and cases.”

Question.—“Do you not think that a rabbit is a very unfair animal to select?”

Answer.—“No.”

Question.—“Would not a dog be better?”

Answer.—“They are very dangerous to handle.”

Question.—“Do you mean to give that answer?”

Answer.—“Dogs and cats bear a greater analogy to man because they vomit, while rabbits do not; but rabbits are much more manageable.”

Question.—“Do you admit that as to the action of the respiratory organs they would be better than rabbits?”

Answer.—“I do not.”

Question.—“As to the effect of poison would they not?”

Answer.—“I think a rabbit quite as good as any animal. The poison is retained, and its operation is shown. At the inquest I saw Mr. Gardner (the solicitor of Mr. Stevens). I suggested questions to the coroner. Some of them he put to the witnesses, and others they answered upon my suggesting them. Ten days before the inquest Mr. Gardner informed me in his letter that strychnia, Battley’s solution, and prussic acid, had been purchased on Tuesday; that was why I used the expressions to which you have referred. We did not allow that information to have any influence on our report.” [The witness’s deposition before the coroner was then read.] “Having given my evidence, I returned to town, and soon afterwards heard that the prisoner had been committed on a charge of wilful murder.”

Question.—“And that his life depended in a great degree on you?”

Answer.—“No. I simply gave an opinion as to the poison, not as to the prisoner’s case. I knew I should probably be examined as a witness on the trial.”

Question.—“Do you think it your duty to abstain from all public discussion of the question which might influence the public mind.”

Answer.—“Yes.”

Question.—“Did you write a letter to the Lancet?”

Answer.—“Yes, to contradict several mis-statements of my evidence that had been made.”

Letter to Lancet of Feb. 2, 1856, read, in which Dr. Taylor said:—“During the quarter of a century which I have now specially devoted to toxicological inquiries, I have never met with any cases like these suspected cases of poisoning at Rugeley. The mode in which they will affect the person accused is of minor importance compared with their probable influence on society. I have no hesitation in saying that the future security of life in this country will mainly depend on the judge, the jury, and the counsel who may have to dispose of the charges of murder which have arisen out of these investigations.”[50]

Cross-examination continued.—“That is my opinion now. It had been stated that if strychnia caused death it could always be found, which I deny. It had also been circulated in every newspaper that a person could not be killed by tartar emetic, which I deny, and which might have led to the destruction of hundreds of lives. I entertained no prejudice against the prisoner. What I meant was that if these statements which I had seen in medical and other periodicals were to have their way there was not a life in the country which was safe.”

Question.—“Do you adhere to your opinion that ‘the mode in which they will affect the person accused,’ that is, lead him to the scaffold, ‘is of minor importance, compared with their probable influence on society’?”

Answer.—“I have never suggested that they should lead him to the scaffold. I hope that, if innocent, he will be acquitted.”

Question.—“What do you mean by the mode in which they will affect the person accused being of minor importance?”

Answer.—“The lives of sixteen millions of people are, in my opinion, of greater importance than that of one man.”

Question.—“That is your opinion?”

Answer.—“Yes. As you appear to put that as an objection to my evidence, allow me to state that in two dead bodies I find antimony. In one case death occurred suddenly, and in the other the body was saturated with antimony, which I never found before in the examination of three hundred bodies. I say these were circumstances which demanded explanation.”

Question.—“You adhere to the opinion that, as a medical man and a member of an honourable profession, you were right in publishing this letter before the trial of the person accused?”

Answer.—“I think I had a right to state that opinion in answer to the comments which had been made upon my evidence.”

Question.—“Had any comments been made by the prisoner?”

Answer.—“No.”

Question.—“Or by any of his family?”

Answer.—“Mr. Smith, the solicitor for the defence, circulated in every paper statements of ‘Dr. Taylor’s inaccuracy.’ I had no wish or motive to charge the prisoner with this crime. My duty concerns the lives of all.”

I omit here the numerous questions about Mr. Mayhew’s visit, and take up the cross-examination with the witness’s opinion of Cook’s symptoms.

“Cook’s symptoms were quite in accordance with an ordinary case of poisoning by strychnia.”

Question.—“Can you tell me any case in which a patient after being seized with tetanic symptoms sat up in bed and talked?”

Answer.—“It was after he sat up that Cook was seized with these symptoms.”

Question.—“Can you refer to a case in which a patient who had taken strychnia beat the bed with his or her arms?”

Answer.—“It is exactly what I should expect to arise from a sense of suffocation.”

Question.—“Do you know in your reading of any case in which the symptoms of poisoning by strychnia commenced with beating of the bed clothes?”

Answer.—“There have been only about fifteen cases, and in none of those was the patient seized in bed. Beating of the bed clothes is a symptom which may be exhibited by a person suffering from a sense of suffocation, whether caused by strychnia or other causes. A case has been communicated to me by a friend, in which the patient shook as though with an ague.” [Answer objected to, but allowed as witness had been questioned as to the results of his reading.] “I have known of no case of poisoning by strychnia in which the patient screamed before he was seized. That is common in ordinary convulsions. In cases of poisoning by strychnia the patient screams when the spasms set in; the pain is very severe. I cannot refer to a case in which the patient has spoken freely after the paroxysms had commenced.”

Question.—“Can you refer me to any case in an authentic publication in which the access of the strychnia paroxysm has been delayed so long after the injection of the poison as in the case of Cook on Tuesday night?”

Answer.—“Yes; longer. In my book on Medical Jurisprudence, p. 185, 5th Edition, it is stated that in a case communicated to the Lancet, Aug. 31, 1850, by Mr. Bennett, a grain and a half of strychnia taken by mistake destroyed the life of a healthy female in an hour and a half. None of the symptoms appeared for an hour. There is a case in which the period which elapsed was two hours and a half. A grain and a half is a full, but not a very considerable, dose. In my book on Poisons there is no case in which the paroxysm commenced more than an hour and a half after the injection of the poison. That book is eight years old, and since 1848 cases have occurred. There is a mention of one in which three hours elapsed before the paroxysms occurred.”

Mr. Serjeant Shee then referred to the case, and called attention to the fact that the only statement as to time was that in three hours the patient lost his speech, and was seized with violent convulsions.[51]

Cross-examination continued.—“I know of no other fatal case in which the interval was so long. In that case there was disease of the brain. Referring to the Lancet, I find that in the case to which I referred, as communicated by Dr. Bennett, the strychnia was dissolved in cinnamon water. Being dissolved, one would have expected it to have a more speedy action. The time in which a patient would recover would depend entirely upon the dose of strychnia which had been taken. I do not remember any case in which a patient recovered in three or four hours, but such cases must have occurred. There is one mentioned in my book on Medical Jurisprudence. The patient had taken nux vomica, but its powers depend upon strychnia. In that case the violence of the paroxysms gradually subsided, and the next day, although feeble and exhausted, the patient was able to walk home. The time of the recovery is a point which is not usually stated by medical men. I cannot mention any case in which there was a repetition of the paroxysms after so long an interval as that from Monday to Tuesday night, which occurred in Cook’s case. I do not think that the attack on Tuesday night was the result of anything which had been administered to him on the Monday night. In the cases of four out of five rabbits the rigidity was continued at the time of death and after death. In the other the animal was flaccid at the time of death.”

Question.—“Are you acquainted with this opinion of Dr. Christison, that in these cases rigidity does not come on at the time of death, but comes on shortly afterwards?”

Answer.—“Dr. Christison speaks from his experience, and I from mine.”

Question.—“Did you hear that Dr. Bamford said that when he arrived he found the body of Cook quite straight in bed?”

Answer.—“Yes.”

Question.—“Can that have been a case of ophisthotonos?”

Answer.—“It may have been.”

Question.—“Are not the colour tests of strychnia so uncertain and fallacious that they cannot be depended upon?”

Answer.—“Yes, unless you first get the strychnia in a visible and tangible form.”

Question.—“Is it not impossible to get it so from the stomach?”

Answer.—“It is not impossible; it depends upon the quantity which remains there.”

Question.—“You do not agree that the fiftieth part of a grain might be discovered?”

Answer.—“I think not.”

Question.—“Nor even half a grain?”

Answer.—“That might be. It would depend upon the quantity of food in the stomach with which it was mixed.”

Re-examined by the Attorney-General.—“In cases of death from strychnia the heart is sometimes found empty after death. That is the case of human subjects. There are three such cases on record. I think that emptiness results from spasmodic affection of the heart. I know of no reason why that should rather occur in the case of man than in that of a small animal like a rabbit. The heart is generally more filled when the paroxysms are frequent. When the paroxysm is short and violent, and causes death in a few moments, I should expect to find the heart empty. The rigidity after death always affects the same muscles; those of the limbs and back. In the case of the rabbit, in which the rigidity was relaxed at the time of death, it returned while the body was warm. In ordinary death it only occurs when the body is cold, or nearly so. I never knew a case of tetanus in which the rigidity lasted two months after death; but such a fact would give me the impression that there were very violent spasms. It would indicate great violence of the spasms from which the person died. The time which elapses between the taking of strychnia and the commencement of the paroxysms depends on the constitution and strength of the individual. A feeling of suffocation is one of the earliest symptoms of poisoning by strychnia, and that would lead the patient to beat the bedclothes. I have no doubt that the substances I used for the purpose of analysis were pure. I had tested them. The fact that three distinct processes each gave the same result was strong confirmation of each. I have no doubt that what we found was antimony. The quantity found does not enable me to say how much was taken. It might be the residue of either large or small doses. Sickness would throw off some portion of the antimony which had been administered. We did not analyse the bones and tissues. I suggested questions to the coroner because he did not put such as enabled me to form an opinion. I think that arose rather from want of knowledge than intention. There was an omission to take down the answers. At the time I wrote to Mr. Gardiner I had not learnt the symptoms which attended the attack and death of Cook. I had only the information that he was well seven days before he died, and had died in convulsions. I had not information to lead me to suppose that strychnia had been the cause of death, except that Palmer had purchased strychnia. Failing to find opium, prussic acid, or strychnia, I referred to antimony as the only substance found in the body. Before writing to the Lancet, I had been made the subject of a great many attacks. What I had said as to the possibility or impossibility of discovering strychnia after death had been misrepresented. In various newspapers it had been represented that I had said strychnia could never be detected—that it was destroyed by putrefaction. What I had said was, that when absorbed in the blood it could not be separated as strychnia. I wrote the letter in my own vindication.”

Dr. Rees and Professor Brande briefly but decidedly confirmed the statements, and coincided with the opinions expressed by Dr. Taylor, the latter witness speaking as to an experiment made by him to test the accuracy of the previous one, with reference to the supposed presence of antimony, which enabled him to state positively that that poison was isolated by it. Professor Christison, of the University of Edinburgh, author of the well-known treatise on poisons, was then called, and gave the following evidence:—

Professor Christison said:—“I am a fellow of the Royal College of Physicians and Professor of Materia Medica to the University of Edinburgh; I am also the author of a work on the subject of poisons, and I have directed a good deal of attention to strychnia. In my opinion it acts by absorption into the blood, and through that upon the nervous system. I have seen its effects upon a human subject, but not a fatal case. I have seen it tried upon pigs, rabbits, cats, and one wild boar. (A laugh.) I first directed my attention to this poison in 1820, in Paris. It had been discovered two years before in Paris. In most of my experiments upon animals I gave very small doses—a sixth of a grain; but I once administered a grain. I cannot say how small a dose would cause the death of an animal by administration into the stomach. I generally applied it by injection through an incision in the cavity of the chest. A sixth part of a grain so administered killed a dog in two minutes. I once administered to a rabbit, through the stomach, a dose of a grain. I saw Dr. Taylor administer three-quarters of a grain to a rabbit, and it was all swallowed except a very small quantity. The symptoms are nearly the same in rabbits, cats, and dogs. The first is a slight tremor and unwillingness to move; then frequently the animal jerks its head back slightly; soon after that all the symptoms of tetanus come on which have been so often described by the previous witnesses. When the poison is administered by the stomach death generally takes place between a period of five minutes and five and twenty minutes after the symptoms first make their appearance. I have frequently opened the bodies of animals thus killed, and have never been able to trace any effect of the poison upon the stomach or intestines, or upon the spinal cord or brain, that I could attribute satisfactorily to the poison. The heart of the animal generally contained blood in all the cases in which I have been concerned. In the case of the wild boar the poison was injected into the chest. A third of a grain was all that was used, and in ten minutes the symptoms began to show themselves. If strychnia was administered in the form of a pill it might be mixed with other ingredients that would protract the period of its operation. This would be the case if it were mixed with resinous materials, or any materials that were difficult of digestion, and such materials would be within the knowledge of any medical men, and they are frequently used for the purpose of making ordinary pills. Absorption in such a case would not commence until the pill was broken down by the process of digestion. In the present state of our knowledge of the subject I do not think it is possible to fix the precise time when the operation of the poison commences on a human subject. In the case of an animal we take care that it is fasting, and we mix the poison with ingredients that are readily soluble, and in every circumstance favourable for the development of the poison. I have seen many cases of tetanus arising from wounds and other causes. The general symptoms of the disorder very nearly resemble each other, and in all the natural forms of tetanus the symptoms begin and advance much more slowly, and they prove fatal much more slowly, and there is no intermission in certain forms of natural tetanus. In tetanus from strychnia there are short intermissions. I have heard the evidence of what took place at the ‘Talbot Arms’ on the Monday and Tuesday, and the result of my experience induces me to come to the conclusion that the symptoms exhibited by the deceased were only attributable to strychnia, or the four poisons containing it: namely, nux vomica, St. Ignatius’s bean, snakewood, and a draught poison called “exhetwick.”[52] There is no natural disease of any description that I am acquainted with to which I could refer these symptoms. In cases of tetanus consciousness remains to the very last moment. When death takes place in a human subject by spasm it tends to empty the heart of blood. When death is the consequence of the administration of strychnia, if the quantity is small, I should not expect to find any trace in the body after death. If there was an excess of quantity more than was required to cause the death by absorption, I should expect to find that excess in the stomach. The colour tests for the detection of the presence of strychnia are uncertain. Vegetable poisons are more difficult of detection than mineral ones, and there is one poison with which I am acquainted for which no known test has been discovered. The stomach of the deceased was sent in a very unsatisfactory state for examination, and there must have been a considerable quantity of strychnia in the stomach to have enabled any one to detect its presence under such circumstances.”

Cross-examined by Mr. Grove.—“The experiments I refer to were made many years ago. In one instance I tried one of the colour tests in the case of a man who was poisoned by strychnia, but I failed to discover the presence of the poison in the stomach. I tried the test for the development of the violet colour by means of sulphuric acid and oxide of lead. From my own observation I should say that animals destroyed by strychnia die of asphyxia, but in my work, which has been referred to, it will be seen that I have left the question open.”

Some further questions were put to the witness by the learned counsel for the prisoner in reference to opinions expressed by him in his work, and he explained that this work was written twelve years ago, and that the experience he had since obtained had modified some of the opinions he then entertained.

Cross-examination continued.—“I have not noticed that in cases where a patient is suffering from strychnia the slightest touch appears to bring on the paroxysm. It is very remarkable in the case of animals, unless you touch them very gently indeed. Strychnia has a most intensely bitter taste. It is said on the authority of a French chemist that a grain will give a taste to more than a gallon of water. If resinous substances were used in the formation of a pill it does not follow that they would necessarily be found in the stomach; they might be passed off.”

By the Attorney-General.—“One of the cases quoted in the work that has been referred to was that of a gamekeeper, who was found dead; his head was thrown back, his hands were clenched, and his limbs were rigid. A paper containing strychnia was found in his pocket, and upon a post-mortem examination, there were indications which, under the circumstances, satisfied me of the existence of strychnia. There was a substance in the body of an intensely bitter taste, which was tested by the colour test, and it succeeded in one instance, but failed in another. It appears that colour tests are not to be relied upon in the case of strychnia in an impure condition: in the first place, you may not find indication of strychnia: and, secondly, they are subject to fallacy even if the strychnia is pure from other substances not containing strychnia presenting similar appearances.”

With the examination of this witness, the medical and scientific evidence for the prosecution was closed.

MEDICO-SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE FOR THE DEFENCE.

The conflict in the testimony given by scientific experts in this case, will be more clearly shown if, instead of deferring it to its original position, after the speech for the defence, the evidence of the eminent medical men and analysts is at once contrasted with that of those called for the prosecution. The two points mainly in contest were, (1.) Were the symptoms in Cook’s case such as could only be produced by strychnia, or could they have arisen from other diseases, and especially from one of the forms of ordinary tetanus? (2.) If strychnia had been given, could it not have been discovered by chemical analysis?[53] Under the first head came the consideration of Cook’s mode of life and general state of health, and his excitement at the victory of his horse at such a critical period of his fortunes, as predisposing causes to one or other of the various diseases to which the witnesses for the defence were prepared to attribute the symptoms and the result. Under the second, the success that uniformly attended such analysts as Mr. Herapath in detecting, even twenty times less than the fiftieth part of a grain of strychnia, and the inference that as it was not discovered by such eminent analysts as Dr. Taylor and Dr. Rees, that none had been given. If this inference was fair, it would follow that, however mysterious the causes of the death of Cook might have been, and the symptoms of his attacks difficult of being referred to any known form of disease, yet it was not proved that he died of strychnia, and that therefore Palmer was entitled to an acquittal. “According to the witnesses for the Crown,” said Serjeant Shee, “the poison of strychnia is of that nature, that when it has done its fatal work, and become absorbed into the system, it ceases to be the thing it was when it was taken into the system; it becomes decomposed, its elements separated from each other, and, therefore, no longer capable of responding to the tests which, according to Taylor, would certainly detect the presence of undecomposed strychnia. They account for the fact that it is not detected, and for their still believing that it destroyed Mr. Cook, by this hypothesis. Now it is only an hypothesis: there is no foundation for it in experiment: it is not supported by the evidence of any eminent toxicologists but themselves; it was the theory of Dr. Taylor, which he propounds in his book—but he propounds it as a theory of his own; he does not vouch, as I remember, any eminent toxicologist in support of it.”

Against this theory, among other eminent men, the defence called Mr. Nunneley, of Leeds, who had assisted Mr. Morley (previously called for the prosecution) in the case of Mrs. Dove, Dr. Letheby, the medical officer of health of the city of London, and Mr. William Herapath. Of these three experts it will be advisable to give the evidence at some length, contenting oneself with summarising that of the other scientific witnesses who agreed with them in rejecting, as a scientific heresy, the hypothesis of Dr. Taylor.

The evidence of Mr. Nunneley covered both points—the character of Cook’s symptoms and the discovery of strychnia. “He had been, he said, in large practice for more than twenty-five years, and had seen four cases of idiopathic tetanus, all of which did not commence with lockjaw; in one of them lockjaw not becoming so marked as to prevent the person from swallowing once during the disease.”

“I assume,” said the witness, “that Cook was a man of very delicate constitution; that for a long time he had felt himself ailing, for which indisposition he had been under medical treatment; that he had suffered from syphilis; that he had disease of the lungs, and an old standing disease of the throat; that he led an irregular life; that he was subject to mental depression and excitement, and that after death appearances were found in his body to show this to have been the case. There was an unusual appearance in the stomach. The throat was in an unnatural condition. The back of the tongue showed similar indications. The air vessels of the lungs were dilated. In the lining of the aorta there was an unnatural deposit, and there was an unusual appearance in the membranes of the spinal marrow. One of the witnesses also said there was a loss of substance from the penis. That scar on it could only have resulted from an ulcer. A chancre is an ulcer, but an ulcer is not necessarily a chancre. The symptoms at the root of the tongue and throat I should ascribe to syphilitic inflammation of the throat. Supposing these symptoms to be correct” (which they were not), “I should infer that Cook’s health had not for a long time been good, and that his constitution was delicate. His father and mother died young. Supposing that to have been his state of health, it would make him liable to nervous irritation. That might be excited by moral causes. Any excitement or depression might produce that effect. A person of such health and constitution would be more susceptible of the injurious influence of wet and cold than one of a stronger one. Upon such a constitution convulsive disease is more likely to supervene. I understand he had three attacks on succeeding nights, occurring about the same hour. As a medical man I should infer from this that they were of a convulsive character—in the absence of other causes to account for them. Convulsive attacks are as various as possible in their forms and degrees of violence: it is not possible to give a definite name to every convulsive symptom. There are some forms of convulsion in which the patient retains consciousness. Those are forms of hysteria, sometimes found in the male sex. It is also stated that there are forms of epilepsy in which the patient retains consciousness.”

To Lord Campbell.—“I cannot mention a case in which consciousness has been retained during the fit. No such case has come under my notice.”

Examination continued.—“I know from reading that, though rarely, it does sometimes occur. The degree of consciousness in epilepsy varies very much. In some attacks it is wholly lost for a long time. Convulsive attacks are sometimes accompanied by violent spasms and rigidity of the limbs—they sometimes assume tetanic complexion. I agree with Dr. Copland that convulsions arise from almost any cause. Affections of the spinal cord, or eating indigestible food, will produce them. I know of no case in which they resulted from retching and vomiting. I agree with Dr. Copland that they sometimes end immediately in death. The immediate proximate cause of death is frequently asphyxia. Death from spasm of the heart is often described as death by asphyxia. I have seen convulsions recurring—in various cases. The time at which a patient recovers his ease after a violent attack of convulsions varies very much. It may be a few minutes, it may be hours. From an interval between one convulsion and another I should infer that the convulsions arose from slight irritation in the brain or the spinal cord. When death takes place in such paroxysms there is sometimes no trace of organic disease to be found by a post-mortem examination. Granules between the DURA MATER and the ARACHNOID are not common at any age. I should not draw any particular inference from their appearance. They might or might not lead to a conjecture as to their cause and effect. I do not form any opinion upon these points. They might produce an effect upon the spinal cord. There are three preparations in museums where granules are exhibited in the spinal cord, in which the patients are said to have died from tetanus. Those are at St. Thomas’s Hospital.[54] To ascertain the nature and effect of such granules the spinal cord ought to be examined immediately after death. Not the most remote opinion could be formed upon an examination made two months after death, more especially if the brain had been previously opened. Independently of the appearance of granules, it would not after that period be possible to form a satisfactory opinion upon the general condition of the spinal cord. If there were a large tumour, or some similar change, it might be exhibited; but neither softening nor induration of the structure could be perceived. The nervous structure changes within two days of death. To ascertain minutely its condition it is necessary to use a lens or microscope. That is required in an examination made immediately after death. I have attended cases of traumatic tetanus. That disease commonly begins with an attack upon the jaw. One of the cases of idiopathic tetanus that I have seen was my own child. In three of those cases the disease began with lockjaw. The fourth case commenced in the body, the facility of swallowing remaining. I have within the last twelve months made post-mortem examinations of two persons who had died from strychnia. I did not see the patients before death. In both cases I ascertained by chemical analysis that death had been caused by strychnia. In both I found the strychnia. In one case—that of a lady aged twenty-eight years—I made my examination forty-two hours after death, and in the other thirty hours. In the former case the body had not been opened before I commenced my examination.” [The witness read a report of this examination, in which it was stated that the eyelids were partially open, the globes flaccid, and the pupils dilated. The muscles of the trunk were not in the least rigid; indeed, they were so soft that the body might be bent in any direction. The muscles at the hip and shoulder joints were not quite so flaccid, but they allowed these joints to be easily moved; while those of the head and neck, forearms, &c., were rigid. The fingers were curved, and the feet somewhat arched. All the muscles, when cut into, were found soft and dark in colour. The membranes of the liver were exceedingly vascular. The membrane of the spinal cord was much congested. There was bloody serum in the pericardium; the lungs were distended, and some of the air cells were ruptured. The lining membrane of the trachea and bronchial tubes was covered with a layer of dark bloody mucus of a dark chocolate colour. The thoracic vessels and membranes were much congested, and the blood was everywhere dark and fluid.] After reading this report the witness continued:—“In the second case I made my examination thirty hours after death. I first saw the body about twelve hours after death. It was a woman somewhere near twenty years of age.” [The witness also read the report of the examination in this case. The appearances of the body were substantially similar to those presented in the previous case.] “In two other cases I have seen a patient suffering from over doses of strychnia. Neither of those cases was fatal. In one case I had prescribed the twelfth of a grain, and the patient took one-sixth. That was for a man of middle age. Strychnia had been given in solution. In a few minutes the symptoms appeared. They were a want of power to control the muscles, manifested by twitchings, rigidity, and cramp, more violent in the legs than in any other part of the body. The spasms were not very violent. They continued six hours before they entirely disappeared. During that time they were intermittent at various intervals. As the attack passed off the length of the intervals increased. At first their length was but a few seconds. The spasms were not combated by medical treatment. The other case was a very similar one. The quantity taken was the same—double what I had prescribed. I have experimented upon upwards of sixty animals with strychnia. Those animals were dogs, cats, rats, mice, guinea pigs, frogs, and toads. The symptoms of the attack in all animals present great resemblances. Some animals are, however, much more susceptible of its influence than others are. The period elapsing between the injection of the poison and the commencement of the symptoms has been from two minutes to thirty,—more generally five or six. I administered the poison occasionally in solution, but more generally in its solid state. It was sometimes placed dry upon the back of the tongue, and some fluid poured down the throat; sometimes it was enclosed between two portions of meat; sometimes mixed up with butter or suet, and sometimes rolled up in a small piece of gut. To frogs and toads it was administered by putting them into a solution of strychnia. I have also applied it direct to the spinal cord, and in other cases to the brain. The first symptom has been a desire to be quite still; then hurried breathing; then slavering at the mouth (when the poison had been given through that organ); then twitching of the ears, trembling of the muscles, inability to walk, convulsions of all the muscles of the body, the jaws being generally firmly closed; the convulsions attended by a total want of power in the muscles, which on the least touch were thrown into violent spasms with a galvanic-like shock. Spasms also come on if the animal voluntarily attempts to move; that is usually the case, but occasionally the animal is able to move without inducing a recurrence of the spasms. These spasms recur at various periods, but do not always increase in violence. The animals die after periods varying from three hours to three hours and a half. In the cases where the animals live longest, the paroxysms occur at the longest intervals. In all cases in the interval before death the rigidity ceases (I know no exception to this) and the muscles become quite soft, powerless, and flaccid. The limbs may be put in any position whatever. There is but little difference from ordinary cases of convulsive death in the time at which the rigor mortis comes on. I have destroyed animals with other poisons, and there is very little difference between the rigidity in their cases and that in the cases of death from strychnia. In the two women I have mentioned the rigor mortis was much less than is usual in cases of death from natural disease. I have known fatal cases of poisoning animals by strychnia in which there has between the first and the second paroxysm been an interval of about half-an-hour, but that is not common. I have examined the bodies of upwards of forty animals killed by strychnia. I have invariably found the heart full on the right side; very generally the left ventricle firmly contracted, and the blood usually dark, and often fluid. There is no particular appearance about the spine. I have experimented with other poisons upon upwards of 3000 animals, and have written upon this subject. It very often happens that in the case of animals dying suddenly from poisoning the blood is fluid after death. That also happens in cases of sudden death from other causes. I have attended to the evidence as to the symptoms exhibited by Cook on the Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday nights. The symptoms on Sunday night I assume to have been from great excitement. Cook described himself as having been very ill, and in such a state that he considered himself mad for a few minutes. He stated that the cause of this was a noise in the street. These symptoms in the three nights I have mentioned, do not resemble those which I have seen follow the administration of strychnia. Cook had more power of voluntary motion than I have observed in animals under the influence of this poison. He sat up in bed, and moved his hands about freely, swallowed, talked, and asked to be rubbed and moved, none of which, if poisoned by strychnia, could he have done. The sudden accession of the convulsions is another reason for believing that they were not produced by strychnia. Other reasons for believing that the convulsions were not produced by strychnia are their sudden accession without the usual premonitory symptoms, the length of time which had elapsed between their commencement and the taking of the pills which are supposed to have contained poison, and the screaming and vomiting. I never knew an animal which had been poisoned with strychnia to vomit or scream voluntarily. I apprehend that where there is so much spasm of the heart there must be inability to vomit. In the cases related in which attempts were made to produce vomiting they did not succeed. There is such a case in the 10th volume of the Journal de Pharmacie, in which an emetic was given without success. The symptoms exhibited after death by animals poisoned by strychnia differ materially from those presented by the body of Cook. In his case the heart is stated to have been empty and uncontracted.”

Lord Campbell.—“I do not remember that. I think it was said that it was contracted.”

Mr. Baron Alderson.-”According to my note, Dr. Harland said that the heart was contracted, and contained no blood.”

Examination continued.—“The lungs were not congested, nor was the brain. In the case of animals which have recovered the paroxysms have subsided gradually. I never knew a severe paroxysm followed by a long interval of repose. I have experimented upon the discovery of strychnia in the bodies of animals in various stages of decomposition, from a few hours after death up to the forty-third day, in which latter case the body was quite putrid. It has never happened to me to fail to discover the poison. I have experimented in about fifteen cases.”

Question.—“Supposing a person to have died under the influence of strychnia poison in the first paroxysm, and his stomach to have been taken out and put into a jar on the sixth day after death, must strychnia have, by a proper analysis, been found in the body?”

Answer.—“Yes. If the strychnia be pure, such as is almost invariably found among medical men and druggists, the test is nitric acid, which gives a red colour, which in a great measure disappears on the addition of protochloride of tin.[55] If the strychnia be pure, it does not undergo any change on the addition of sulphuric acid, but on the addition of a mixture of bichromate of potash, with several other substances it produces a beautiful purple, which changes to varying shades until it gets to be a dirty red. There are several other tests. In this case the stomach was not, in my opinion, in an unfavourable condition for examination. The circumstances attending its position in the jar and its removal to London would give a little more trouble, but would not otherwise affect the result. If the deceased had died from strychnia poison it ought to have been found in the liver, spleen, and kidneys. I have seen this poison found in similar portions of animals which had been killed by it. I have also seen it found in the blood; that was by Mr. Herapath, of Bristol.”

Question.—“Could the analyses be defeated or confused by the existence in the stomach of any other substance which would produce the same colours?”

Answer.—“No. Supposing that pyroxanthine and salicine were in the parts examined, their existence would not defeat the analysis. Pyroxanthine is very unlikely to be found in the stomach. It is one of the rarest and most difficult to be obtained. The distinction between pyroxanthine and strychnia is quite evident. Pyroxanthine changes to a deep purple on the addition of sulphuric acid alone, and the bichromate of potash spoils the colour. In strychnia no change is produced by sulphuric acid. It requires the addition of the bichromate to produce the colour.”

Question.—“Supposing the death to have been caused by a dose of strychnia, not more than sufficient to destroy the animal, would it be so diffused by the process of absorption that you would not be able by these tests to detect it in any portion of the system?”

Answer.—“No; I believe it would not. That question had occupied my attention before I was called upon to give evidence in this trial. My reason for stating that strychnia when it has done its work continues as strychnia in the system is, that those who say some change takes place, argue, that as food undergoes a change, so does poison; it becomes decomposed. But the change in food takes place in digestion; consequently its traces are not found in the blood. Substances like strychnia are absorbed without digestion, and may be obtained unchanged from the blood. They may be administered in various ways.”

Question.—“In your judgment, will any amount of putrefaction prevent the discovery of strychnia?”

Answer.—“To say that it is absolutely indestructible would be absurd, but within ordinary limits, no. I have found it at the end of forty days. The emptier the stomach, the quicker the action of strychnia.”

On cross-examination by the Attorney-General, the witness, who, to judge from the expressions that passed between them, assumed an antagonistic position to the prosecution, after admitting that perhaps half of his sixty experiments had been made in conjunction with Mr. Morley, and spread over thirty years; that some had been made after the Leeds case, and some in reference to the present, and that he had been in consultation with the prisoner’s attorney since the case at Leeds, to whom he had transmitted its details, he thus continued:—

“The general dose in these experiments was from half a grain to two grains; half a grain is sufficient to destroy life in larger animals. I have seen both a dog and a cat die of this dose, but not always. Some animals as a species are more susceptible than those of a different species, and among animals of the same species some are more susceptible than others. The symptoms in the experiments I have mentioned did not occur after so long a period as an hour. We have had to repeat the dose in some instances when half a grain was given. In the case of a cat, symptoms of spasm were produced, but the cat did not die; she had not swallowed the whole dose. I think I have known animals of the cat species killed with half a grain.”

Question.—“Have you any doubt of it?”

Answer.—“Yes. I think it would be the minimum dose in an old strong cat. If given in a fluid state I think a smaller dose would suffice. Hurried breathing is one of the first symptoms, afterwards there are twitchings and trembling of the muscles and then convulsions.”

Question.—“Is there any diversity in the intervals and order of the symptoms in animals of the same species?”

Answer.—“They certainly do not occur after the same intervals of time, but I should say they generally occur in the order I have described. There is some difference in the periods at which the convulsions take place. Some will die after less convulsions than others, but generally after four or five. In one or two instances an animal has died after one convulsion. In those instances a dose has been given equal in amount to another which has not produced the same effect. The order in which the muscles are convulsed varies to some extent. The muscles of the limbs are generally affected first. The convulsions generally occur simultaneously.”

Question.—“Do you know of any case of strychnia in which rigidity after death was greater than the usual rigor mortis?”

Answer.—“I think not. I don’t think there is any peculiar rigidity produced by strychnia.”

Question.—“Have you never found undue rigidity in a human subject after death by strychnia?”

Answer.—“Considerably less.”

Question.-”In the anonymous case (the Leeds), were not the hands curved and the feet arched by muscular contraction?”

Answer.—“Not more than is usual in cases of death from ordinary causes. The limbs were rigid, but not more than usual.”

Question.—“In the face of the medical profession I ask you whether you signed a report stating that ‘the hands were curved and the feet decidedly arched by muscular contraction,’ and whether you meant by those words that there was no more than the ordinary rigidity of death?”

Answer.—“Certainly; I stated so at the time.”

Question.—“Where? In the report?”

Answer.—“No; in conversation. Allow me to explain that a distinction was drawn between the muscles of the different parts of the body. I heard Mr. Morley’s evidence with regard to experiments on animals, and his statement that ‘after death there was an interval of flaccidity, after which rigidity commenced more than if it had been occasioned by the usual rigor mortis.’”

Question.—“You don’t agree with that statement?”

Answer.—“I do not. I generally found the right side of the heart full.”

Question.—“Does the fact of the heart in Cook’s case having been found empty lead you to the conclusion that death was not caused by strychnia?”

Answer.—“Among other things, it does. I heard the evidence of Dr. Watson as to the case of Agnes Sennett, in which the heart was found distended and empty: also of Dr. Taylor, as to the post-mortem of Mrs. Smyth. No doubt he stated that the heart in that case was also empty.”

Question.—“And do those facts exercise no influence on your judgment?”

Answer.—“They would not unless I knew how the post-mortem examination had been made. If it was commenced at the head, the blood being fluid, the large drains would be opened, and the blood, from natural causes, would drain away.”

Question.—“Do you know how the post-mortem examination was made in this case?”

Answer.—“No. Excuse me, I do. The chest and the abdomen, not the head, were first opened.”

Question.—“The heart, then, was not emptied in the first instance?”

Answer.—“No.”

Question.—“Then what occasioned the contraction of the heart?”

Answer.—“When the heart is emptied it is usually contracted.”

Question.—“But how do you account for its contraction and emptiness?”

Answer.—“I cannot account for it.”

Lord Campbell.—“ Would the heart contract if there was blood in it?”

Answer.—“No.”

Lord Campbell.—“When you find the heart contracted, you know, then, that it was contracted at the moment of death?”

Answer.—“It is necessary to draw a distinction between the two cavities. It is very common to find the left ventricle contracted and hard, while the right is uncontracted.”

Lord Campbell.—“That is death by asphyxia?”

Answer.—“Precisely.”[56]

By the Attorney-General.—“In Cook’s case the lungs were described as not congested. Entosthema is of two kinds; one of them consists of dilation of the cells, the other of a rupture of the cells. When animals die from strychnine, entosthema occurs. I do not know the character of the entosthema in Cook’s case. It did not occur to me to have the question put to the witnesses who described the post-mortem examination.”

Question.—“To what constitutional symptoms about Cook do you ascribe the convulsions from which he died?”

Answer.—“Not to any.”

Question.—“Was not the fact of his having syphilis an important ingredient in your judgment upon his case?”

Answer.—“It was. I judge that he died from convulsions, by the combination of symptoms.”

Question.—“What evidence have you to suppose that he was liable to excitement and depression of spirits?”

Answer.—“The fact that after winning the race he could not speak for three minutes.”

Question.—“Anything else?”

Answer.—“Mr. Jones stated that he was subject to mental depression. Excitement will produce a state of brain which will be followed, at some distance, by convulsions. I think Dr. Bamford made a mistake when he said the brain was perfectly healthy.”

Question.—“Do you mean to set up that opinion against that of Dr. Devonshire and Dr. Harland, who were present at the post-mortem?”

Answer.—“My opinion is founded in part on the evidence taken at the inquest, in part on the depositions. With the brain and the system in the condition in which Cook’s were, I believe it is quite possible for convulsions to come on and destroy a person. I do not believe that he died from apoplexy. He was under the influence of morphia. I don’t ascribe his death to morphia, except that it might assist in producing a convulsive attack. I should think morphia was not very good treatment, considering the state of excitement he was in.”

Question.—“Do you mean to say, on your oath, that you think he was in a state of excitement at Rugeley?”

Answer.—“I wish to give my evidence honestly. Morphia, when given in an injured state of the brain, often disagrees with the patient.”

Question.—“But what evidence have you as to the injured state of the brain?”

Answer.—“Sickness often indicates it. I can’t say whether the attack of Sunday night was an attack of convulsions. I think that the Sunday attack was one of a similar character, but not so intense, as the attack of Tuesday, in which he died. I don’t think he had convulsions on the Sunday, but he was in that condition which often precedes convulsions. I think he was mistaken when he stated that he was awoke by a noise. I believe he was delirious. That is one of the symptoms on which I found my opinion. Any intestinal irritation will produce convulsions in a tetanic form. I have known instances in children. I have not seen an instance in an animal. Medical writers state that such cases do occur. I know no name for convulsions of that kind.”

Question.—“Have you ever known a case of convulsions of that kind, terminating in death, in which the patient remained conscious to the last?”

Answer.—“I have not. Where epilepsy terminates in death consciousness is gone. I have known four cases of traumatic, and five or six of idiopathic tetanus.”

Question.—“You heard Mr. Jones make this statement of the symptoms of Cook after the commencement of the paroxysms:—‘After he swallowed the pills he uttered loud screams, threw himself back in the bed, and was dreadfully convulsed. He said, “Raise me up! I shall be suffocated.” The convulsions affected every muscle of the body, and were accompanied by stiffening of the limbs. I endeavoured to raise Cook with the assistance of Palmer, but found it quite impossible owing to the rigidity of the limbs. When Cook found we could not raise him up, he asked me to turn him over. He was then quite sensible. I turned him on to his side. I listened to the action of his heart. I found that it gradually weakened, and asked Palmer to fetch some spirits of ammonia, to be used as a stimulant. When he returned, the pulsations of the heart were gradually ceasing, and life was almost extinct. Cook died very quietly a very short time afterwards. When he threw himself back in bed he clinched his hands, and they remained clinched after death. When I was rubbing his neck, his head and neck were unnaturally bent back by the spasmodic action of the muscles. After death his body was so twisted or bowed that if I had placed it upon the back it would have rested upon the head and feet!’ Now, I ask you to distinguish in any one particular between those symptoms and the symptoms of tetanic convulsions.”

Answer.—“It is not tetanus at all; not idiopathic tetanus.”

Question.—“I quite agree with you that it was not idiopathic tetanus. But point out any distinction that you can see between these symptoms and real tetanus?”

Answer.—“I do not know that there is any distinction, except that in a case of tetanus I never saw rigidity continue till death and afterwards.”

Question.—“Can you tell me of any case of death from convulsions in which the patient was conscious to the last?”

Answer.—“I do not know any. Convulsions occurring after poison has been taken are properly called tetanic.”

Question.—“Sir B. Brodie tells us that while paroxysms of tetanic convulsion last there is no difference between those that arise from strychnia and those from tetanus properly so called, but only in the course the symptoms take. What do you say is the difference?”

Answer.—“The hands are less violently contracted; the effect of the spasm is less in ordinary tetanus; the convulsion, too, never entirely passes away. I have stated that tetanus is a disease of days, strychnia of hours and minutes; that convulsive twitchings are in strychnia the first symptoms, the last in tetanus; that in tetanus the hands, feet, and legs are usually the last affected, while in strychnia they are the first. I gave that opinion after the symptoms in the case of the lady at Leeds which were described by the witness Witham, and I still adhere to it. I never said that Cook’s was a case of idiopathic tetanus in any sense of the word. It differed from the course of tetanus from strychnine in the particulars I have already mentioned.”

The Attorney-General.—“Repeat them.”

Answer.—“There was a sudden accession of the convulsions.”

Question.—“Sudden—after what?”

Answer.—“After the rousing by Jones. There was also the power of talking.”

Question.—“Don’t you know that Mrs. Smyth talked and retained her consciousness to the end: that her last words were, ‘Turn me over’?”

Answer.—“She did say something of that kind. No doubt those were the words she used. I believe that in poison tetanus the symptoms are first observed in the legs and feet. In the animals upon which I have experimented twitchings in the ears and difficulty of breathing have been premonitory symptoms.”

Question.—“When Cook felt a stiffness and difficulty of breathing, and said that he should be suffocated on the first night, what were they but premonitory symptoms?” (question evaded).

Answer.—“Well, he asked to be rubbed; but as far as my experience goes with regard to animals——.”

The Attorney-General.—“They can’t ask to have their ears rubbed, of course.”

Mr. Serjeant Shee.—“The witness was about to explain the effect of being rubbed upon animals.”

Witness.—“In no single instance could the animals bear to be touched.”

Question.—“Did not Mrs. Smyth ask to have her arms and legs rubbed?”

Answer.—“In the Leeds case the lady asked to be rubbed before the convulsions came on, but afterwards she could not bear it, and begged not to be touched.”

Question.—“Can you point out any one point, after the premonitory symptoms, in which the symptoms in this case differ from those of strychnia tetanus?”

Answer.—“There is the power of swallowing, which is taken away by inability to move the jaw.”

Question.—“But have you not stated that lockjaw is the last symptom in strychnia tetanus?”

Answer.—“I have. I don’t deny that it may be. I am speaking of the general rule. In the Leeds case it came on very early, more than two hours before death, the paroxysms having continued for two and a half hours. In that case we believed the dose was four times repeated. Poison might probably be extracted by chemical process from the tissues, but I never tried it except in the case of one animal. I am not sure whether poison was in that case given through the mouth. We killed four animals in reference to the Leeds case, and in every instance we found strychnia in the contents of the stomach. In one case we administered it by two processes—one failed, and the other succeeded.”

Re-examined.—“In making reports on cases such as that referred to (Leeds) we state ordinary appearances as well as extraordinary—facts without anything more.”

Mr. William Herapath, examined by Mr. Grove, Q. C.—“I am a professor of chemistry and toxicology at the Bristol Medical School—have studied chemistry for more than forty years—toxicology for thirty. Have experimented on strychnia; have seen no case of a human subject during life, but have examined a human body after death. In one case I examined the contents of the stomach, and found strychnia three days after death. I obtained evidence of strychnia by the colour tests in that case. I have experimented on animals for strychnia in eight or nine cases, and analysed the bodies in two cases where I destroyed the animals myself—both cats. I gave the first one grain of strychnia in a solid form. The animal took the poison at night, and I found it dead in the morning. It was dreadfully contorted and rigid, the limbs extended, the head turned round—not to the back, to the side—the eyes protruding and staring, the iris expanded so as to be almost invisible. I found strychnia in the urine which had been ejected, and also in the stomach, by the test I mentioned. I administered the same quantity of strychnia in a solid form to another cat. It remained very quiet for fifteen or twenty minutes, but seemed a little restless in the eyes and its breathing. In thirty-five minutes it had a terrible spasm, the extremities and the head being drawn together and the feet extended. I watched it for three hours. The first spasm lasted a minute or two. The saliva dropped from its mouth, and it forcibly ejected its urine. It had a second spasm a few minutes afterwards. It soon recovered and remained still, with the exception of a trembling all over. It continued in that state three hours. During two hours and a half it was in a very peculiar state. It appeared to be electrified all through; blowing upon it or touching the basket in which it was placed produced a kind of electric jump like a galvanic shock. I left it in three hours, thinking it would recover, but in the morning I found it dead, in the same indurated and contorted condition as the former animal. I examined the body thirty-six hours after death and found strychnia in the urine, in the stomach and in the upper intestine, in the liver, and in the blood of the heart. I have discovered strychnia in all other cases by the same tests, but I took extraordinary means to get rid of organic matter. In all cases in which strychnia has been given I have been able to find it, but not only strychnia, but the nux vomica from which it is taken. I have found nux vomica in a fox and other animals. The detection of nux vomica is more complicated than that of strychnia. In one case the animal had been buried two months. I have experimented with strychnia mixed purposely with organic putrefying matter. I have found it in all cases, whatever was the state of decomposition of the matter.”

Question.—“Are you of opinion that where strychnia has been taken in a sufficient dose to poison it can and ought to be discovered?”

Answer.—“Yes; unless the body has been completely decomposed—that is, unless decomposition had reduced it to a dry powder. I am of opinion, from the accounts given by Dr. Taylor and the other witnesses, that if it had existed in the body of Cook it ought to have been discovered. I am aware of no cause of error in the analysis, if the organic matter had been properly got rid of. The experiments I made were in Bristol. I have made experiments in London, and found strychnia in the stomach, liver, and blood of an animal.”

Cross-examined by the Attorney-General.—“I don’t profess to be a toxicologist. I have principally experimented on the stomach till lately. I tried my chemical process on the 8th of this month with a view to the present case. The experiment here was on a dog. I experimented on the tissues of a cat at Bristol, and a dog in London. I found strychnia in the blood, the heart, and the urine of the cat, besides the stomach. One grain was given to the dog. It was a large dog. I have seen a cat killed with a quarter of a grain.”

Question.—“Have you not said, that you had no doubt strychnia had been taken, but that Dr. Taylor had not gone the right way to find it?”

Answer.—“No; certainly not.”

Question.—“Have you not said it to the present Mayor of Bristol?”

Answer.—“I have said, if it was there Dr. Taylor ought to have found it.”

Question.—“Have you not said several times in his presence that you had no doubt strychnia had been given, but that Dr. Taylor had not found it?”

Answer.—“I had a strong opinion from the reports in the newspapers; it is very likely I might. I don’t deny it.”

To Lord Campbell.—“From the statements I saw in the newspapers: I was not engaged in the case, and I conceived I had a right to express an opinion, the same as others. I dare say I have frequently said so in conversation. Hundreds of persons spoke to me, knowing I had made toxicology a study, and it is possible I may have said something like what you ask me about.”[57]

Re-examined by Mr. Grove.—“What is the smallest quantity of strychnia that your process is capable of detecting?”

Answer.—“I am perfectly sure I could detect the 50,000th part of a grain if it was unmixed with organic matter. If I put ten grains in a gallon, or 70,000 grains of water, I could discover its presence in the tenth part of a grain of that water. It is more difficult to detect when mixed with organic matter. If a person had taken a grain, a very small quantity would be found in the heart, but no doubt it could be found. I made four experiments with a large dog to which I had given the one-eighth part of a grain. I have discovered it by change of colour in the thirty-second part of the liver of a dog.”

In reply to a request by Mr. Grove, Lord Campbell intimated that in the opinion of the Court experiments could not now be shown. This defect of evidence has been cured by the Vivisection Act, before referred to.

Dr. Henry Letheby, examined by Mr. Kenealy.—“I am a bachelor of medicine, professor of chemistry and toxicology in the London Hospital of Medicine, and Medical Officer of Health to the City of London. I have been engaged for a considerable time in the study of poisons and their action on the living animal economy. I have also been frequently engaged on behalf of the Crown in prosecutions in cases of this nature during the last fourteen years. I have been present during the examination of the medical witnesses, and have attended to the evidence as to the symptoms which have been described as attending the death of Cook. I have witnessed many cases of animals poisoned by strychnia, and many cases of poisoning by nux vomica in the human body, one of which was fatal. The symptoms described in this case do not accord with the symptoms I have witnessed in the case of those animals. They differ in this respect:—In the first place I never witnessed the long interval between the administration of the poison and the commencement of the symptoms which is said to have elapsed in this case. The longest interval I have known has been three-quarters of an hour, and then the poison was administered under most disadvantageous circumstances. It was given on a very full stomach and in a form uneasy of solution. I have seen the symptoms begin in five minutes. The average time in which they begin is a quarter of an hour. In all cases I have seen the system has been in that irritable state that the very lightest excitement, such as an effort to move, a touch, a noise, a breath of air, would send the patient off in convulsions. It is not at all probable that a person, after taking strychnia, could pull a bell violently. Any movement would excite the nervous system, and bring on spasms. It is not likely that a person in that state could bear to have his neck rubbed. When a case of strychnia does not end fatally, the first paroxysm is succeeded by others, gradually shaded off, the paroxysms becoming less violent every time, and I agree with Dr. Christison that they would subside in twelve or sixteen hours. I have no hesitation in saying that strychnia is, of all poisons, either mineral or vegetable, the most easy of detection. I have detected it in the stomach of animals in numerous instances, also in the blood and in the tissues. The longest period after death in which I have detected it is about a month. The animal was then in a state of decomposition. I have detected very minute portions of strychnia. When it is pure, the 20,000th part of a grain can be detected. I can detect the tenth part of a grain most easily in a pint of any liquid, whether pure or putrid. I gave one animal half a grain, and I have the strychnia here now within a very small trifle. I never failed to detect strychnia where it had been administered. I have made post-mortem examinations on various animals killed by it. I have always found the right side of the heart full. The reason is that the death takes place from the fixing of the muscles of the chest by spasms, so that the blood is unable to pass through the lungs, and the heart cannot relieve itself from the blood flowing to it, and therefore becomes gorged. The lungs are congested and filled with blood. I have administered strychnia in a liquid and a solid form; I agree with Dr. Taylor that it may kill in six or eleven minutes when taken in a solid state in the form of a pill or bolus. I also agree with him that the first symptom is that the animal falls on its side, the jaws are spasmodically closed, and the slightest touch produces another paroxysm. But I do not agree with him that the colour tests are fallacious. I do not agree that it is changed when it is absorbed into the blood, but I agree with its absorption. I think it is not changed when the body is decomposed. The shaking about of the contents of the stomach with the intestines in a jar, would not prevent the discovery of strychnia, if it had been administered. Even if the contents of the stomach were lost, the mucous membrane would, in the ordinary course of things, exhibit traces of strychnia. I have studied the poison of antimony. If a quantity had been introduced into brandy-and-water, and swallowed at a gulp, the effect would not be to burn the throat. Antimony does not possess any such quality as that of immediate burning. I have turned my attention to the subject of poison for seventeen or eighteen years.”