Page:Medical jurisprudence (IA medicaljurisprud03pari).pdf/507

 observation on what you took away and examined afterwards?—From the appearance of the stomach and the examination of its contents, I have not the least doubt that it was produced by poison.

Independently of that appearance to be arsenic, what is your opinion of the general appearance, so as to judge of the cause of the death?—I have no doubt that the death was produced by the effects of arsenic.

Could you have formed any judgment independently of the analysis, or is this latter part necessary to your judgment?—I should have believed, from the examination of the stomach and intestines only, that the death had been produced by some corrosive substance.

Should you have been of opinion, without any analysis, but from the general appearance of the stomach, that she had died of poison?—I should certainly have been of that opinion.

But not arsenic in particular?—No; but some corrosive substance.

Could that corrosive substance have been produced in the body itself, or must it have been administered from without?—It is not possible that it should have been produced internally; it must have been introduced from without.

(Cross-examined by Mr. Sergt. Pell.)

I think you said, that you found this lady's pulse frequent and fluttering?—Yes, Sir.

The medicine you prescribed for her was of a purgative nature?—Yes.

How often would she have had to take that medicine, between the time you gave that prescription and the time when she died?—I gave her the prescription for every four hours, but I left instructions to give it every three hours.

Is that the prescription? (shewing it)—Yes, Sir.

Be so good as to mention what are the materials—or first, what is the nature of that complaint, called Cholera Morbus?—It is generally produced in hot seasons, by bile