Although the phenomena by which we are enabled to discover the administration of poison, will be fully enumerated, and carefully examined, under the history of each particular substance, and will necessarily vary according to the chemical properties, and physiological action of each individual poison; yet there are some general points of evidence, and several questions of importance, upon which it is very essential to arrive at some definite conclusion, some fixed understanding, before we proceed to the consideration of the particular details, and subordinate ramifications, of this complicated subject.

The great constituents which form the medical proof of poisoning, are derived from Chemical, Anatomical, and Pathological researches; viz.—the existence of poison in the stomach or intestines; the morbid appearances, corresponding to such poison, upon dissection; and the characteristic symptoms which accompanied the action of it, previous to death. Where these circumstances occur in combination, the demonstration may be said to be complete, for we have arrived at absolute certainty.

But scientific evidence, short of such perfection, may be amply sufficient to lead to conviction. The fact of a poison having been found in the body may supersede the necessity of pathological testimony: thus Hoffman,^[153] “Si venenum adhuc intra ventriculum reperitur, res est clarissima, ubi vero, illud haud deprehenditur, res adhuc dubii plena est.” We shall hereafter find that the discovery of organic lesions, without the chemical proof (“experimentum crucis^[154]”) is often vague, and seldom satisfactory, and that even when sanctioned by the testimony of the pathologist, will frequently be deemed insufficient to sustain an indictment, unless indeed it be collaterally supported by a very strong chain of circumstantial evidence of a moral nature, especially such as relates to the character, conduct, and presumed object of the prisoner.

As the duty of the medical witness, upon such occasions, must always be anxious, and generally perplexing, it becomes our duty at least to clear away those adventitious difficulties with which ignorance on the one hand, and sophistry on the other, have obstructed a path of inquiry, which, from its very nature and direction, must necessarily be obscure and intricate.

We shall endeavour upon this, as we have upon similar occasions, to bring the more leading and popular points of controversy within the scope of a few prominent questions, assigning to each a share of attention, commensurate with our idea of its importance.

The problem therefore for solution, is the mode of distinguishing the two species from each other. Although the leading characters are, as we have said, the same in both, such as bilious vomiting, and purging, violent tormina of the bowels, cold sweats, cramps, faintings, and death, yet by a careful and circumstantial examination of the case, the intelligent practitioner will generally be enabled to arrive at a probable conjecture; the season of the year^[155], the prevailing epidemics, the age^[156] and constitutional predisposition of the patient, his habit with respect to diet, are circumstances which will greatly assist the diagnosis. The progress of cholera morbus is also rarely, or never, fatal in this climate, especially in so short a period as that in which death occurs from the operation of a violent, corrosive poison.^[157] There are besides in this latter case, very frequently other symptoms which do not attend cholera spontanea,^[158] such as sanguineous vomiting, extreme burnings in the æsophagus and region of the stomach, swollen countenance, great dryness and tumefaction of the fauces, peculiar fætor of the breath, ischuria, with discharges of bloody urine, and ulcerations about the fundament^[159]; this latter symptom was particularly remarkable in the case of Mr. Blandy, whose history, as related by his physician, Dr. Addington, will be found in our Appendix, p. 236, and well deserves the attentive consideration of the medical jurist. The matter voided will also sometimes lead to a just diagnosis; in the true cholera spontanea there is a discharge of almost pure bile by vomiting and stool, simultaneously or alternately; now, although the same vomiting and purging may arise from the action of a poison, yet it does not follow that the matter discharged is bilious. The evidence delivered on the extraordinary trial of Donnall, for the wilful murder of his mother-in-law, Mrs. Elizabeth Downing, has been also printed in the Appendix, as well illustrating those doubts with which the present question is naturally encompassed. An opinion has existed that the appearance of jaundice during, or after the severe symptoms of cholera, offers a satisfactory proof of its spontaneous origin. Upon this point we would observe, that by violent and protracted retching a person may sometimes become jaundiced, a circumstance not unlikely to occur in cases of poisoning. The stomach, diaphragm, and abdominal muscles are, under such repeated efforts, very apt to be rendered eminently irritable, so that at each effort of the former to discharge its contents, the latter will frequently be simultaneously thrown into strong spasmodic contractions, and the liver, together with the gall-bladder, will be suddenly caught, and, as it were, tightly squeezed in a powerful press, in consequence of which the bile will regurgitate, and be carried into the venæ cavæ; for Haller has shewn with what facility a subtle injection, when thrown into the hepatic duct, will escape by the hepatic veins; upon which Dr. Saunders has made the following remark, “I know this to be a fact, for I have ascertained by experiment, that water, injected in the same direction, will return by the veins in a full stream, although very little force is used.”

The fact of the bile becoming, under certain circumstances, highly acrid and deleterious, has been seized by the humoral pathologist as a powerful argument in support of his doctrines. Amongst the more distinguished authors who have fully treated this subject, and maintained that our secretions may thus become acrid poisons, we have Galen^[160], Aretæus^[161], Fernelius^[162], Morgagni^[163], Hebenstreit^[164], Hilchen^[165], Hoffman^[166], Baumer^[167], Belloc^[168], Alibert^[169], Foderé^[170], Mahon^[171], De la Mettrie^[172], and Tronchin^[173]. Some of the authors above enumerated have expressed their opinions in the strongest terms; thus Morgagni (loco citato) “Facile agnosco a prava ipsa corporis dispositione internum aliquando posse venenum gigni;” and Hebenstreit observes, “Possunt omnino in corpore venena nasci, atque ipsi humores vitales vim vasa sua destruendi sæpe acquirunt.^[174]” Hilchen, after attempting to establish a diagnosis between the effects of poison, and those arising from a morbid degeneracy of the fluids, exclaims, apparently in despair, “Inquilinos corruptosque humani corporis humores, eum acrimoniæ gradum, eamque corrodendi vim acquirere posse, quæ eosdem edat effectus, quos venena corrosiva sistunt, eamdem sordium vomitu rejectarum putrilaginem, fætorem, haud dissimilem, et acerrimam, et pelves arrodentem acrimoniam certum est.” And Plouquet, after describing all the phenomena of poisoning, concludes by acknowledging “Probe autem notandum hæc omnia etiam ex aliis statibus morbosis nasci posse.” De la Mettrie also has observed upon this question, “Il est prouvé que la bile se peut changer dans nos corps en espece d’Arsenic!” Our own countryman, Dr. Currie^[175], has furnished the public with an opinion upon the subject under discussion, and he states his belief that, under a peculiar state of irritation, the biliary organs may secrete a bile of so very acrid a nature as to excite an almost immediately fatal impression upon the alimentary canal, especially when suddenly effused, and in a highly concentrated form.

We have deemed it right to adduce these various authorities, in relation to the important question before us, still, however, reserving our opinion, that the physician will on such occasions, by means of the subsidiary sources of discrimination above enumerated, generally be enabled to form a diagnosis^[176] which, although it may not amount to certainty, must be considered as capable of increasing the weight of the general mass of circumstantial evidence.

As the medical treatment to be adopted in cases of acute disease, or poisoning, can hardly be considered a subject of Medical Jurisprudence, we should have passed it over in silence, did not the evidence delivered upon the trial of Donnall imperiously call upon us for some animadversion; and we feel it our painful duty upon this occasion to observe, that the whole tenor of the medical defence displayed a very unbecoming contest; the witnesses conducted themselves like advocates, raising doubts, and defending their positions with a pertinacity that belongs to those who seek triumph rather than truth.

In the cure of cholera the experience of the physicians of all ages wholly concurs. In the commencement of the disease the evacuation of the redundant bile is to be favoured by the plentiful exhibition of mild diluents, and after the redundant bile has been thus eliminated, or when the spasmodic affections of the alimentary canal become dangerously violent, opiates, in sufficiently large doses, but in small bulk, may be administered. To employ evacuants, as Sydenham quaintly observes, “is to increase the disturbance, and as it were, to endeavour to quench fire by oil; and on the other hand, to commence with opiates is shutting up the enemy in the bowels.” Under such authority, we presume, one of the witnesses in the defence of Donnall, felt justified in condemning the practice of the respectable physician who attended the deceased (Appendix, p. 304); but we here see a witness assuming as a fact, what was never proved in evidence, and then deducing conclusions from it. Dr. Edwards informed the court that “there were no symptoms of cholera morbus when he saw Mrs. Downing; but from what he heard of her complaint, he imagined that there was something offensive either in the stomach or bowels, which ought to be evacuated.” (Ibid. p. 286.)

Nor are the symptoms produced by the operation of narcotic poisons so distinct as to escape the possibility of being confounded with those of spontaneous disease. They may, for instance, simulate those of apoplexy, or epilepsy; but the history of the case, the odour of the breath, and the subsequent examination of the body after death, will generally clear up the difficulties which may at first present themselves. But we shall have occasion to consider this subject hereafter; the difficulties of the case are well illustrated by the evidence on the trial of Donellan, for the murder of Sir Theodosius Boughton, with laurel water, for which see Appendix, p. 243.

Before we quit the subject which involves the consideration of our fluids degenerating, under particular circumstances, into poisons, we may just notice the opinion of some foreign chemists, that in certain diseases the Prussic acid^[177] is generated in some of the fluids of the animal body. We are not inclined to accede to this proposition, because during life we do not think the chemical decompositions, known to be necessary for the production of this substance, can ever take place. At all events, it must be preceded by a state of the system which would necessarily prevent the chance of any medico-judicial fallacy.

Q. II. Whether organic lesions, similar to those produced by poisoning, may not occasionally result from natural causes?

In entertaining this question, we are prepared to meet with numerous alleged difficulties; but as many of them appear to have arisen, rather from the ignorance or carelessness of the operator, than from the natural obscurity of the subject itself, we are inclined to hope that by getting rid of the former source of fallacy, we shall be enabled to examine with some satisfaction and advantage, those which, in a greater or less degree, will be liable to baffle the researches of the more experienced anatomist.

Amongst the signs of the action of poison on the human body, disclosed by the light of dissection, the separation of the villous coat of the stomach has been generally considered the most certain criterion. Hebenstreit, whose opinion has been adopted by Mahon, and many other forensic physicians, has delivered his unreserved judgment upon the question, in the following emphatic sentence. “Præterea sola atque infallibilis deglutiti veneni nota est, separata et veluti decorticata simulque cruenta interna ventriculi tunica: nam separatio ista supponit applicatam superficiei internæ ventriculi materiam fervidam, igni similem, quæ tunicam istam a substrata solvit vasculari nervea.”^[178] In opposition to such an opinion, it is our duty to state that several cases stand recorded^[179] in which the detachment of the villous coat of the stomach and intestines has taken place, without the slightest ground to suspect the administration of poison, while many vegetable poisons destroy life without occasioning any inflammation in the primæ viæ, and consequently leave no traces of disorganization. But there still remains another source of fallacy connected with the present question which demands a full and impartial inquiry, viz. that the gastric juice, by its action upon the dead stomach, can occasion such changes in structure, as may be mistaken for the effects of a corrosive poison; these changes are according to circumstances liable to vary in every possible degree of intensity, from the slight erosion of the interior villous coat of the stomach, as displayed by the smooth, thin, and more transparent condition of that viscus, to the destruction of all its membranes, and the production of large perforations in its great extremity. This phenomenon, the nature of which was first explained by Mr. John Hunter^[180], depends upon the gastric juice, which the stomach secreted during life, becoming its solvent after death. Amongst the endless proofs which the history of the animal economy affords of that universal law by which chemical and vital forces are wisely preserved in a state of perpetual hostility, there is no illustration more striking and satisfactory, than that which is furnished by the phenomenon in question. If animals, or parts of animals, while possessed of the living principle, be taken into the stomach, they are not in the least affected by the solvent powers of its juices; thence it is that we so constantly find animals of various kinds living in the stomach, or even being hatched and bred there; but no sooner do these animals lose the living principle, than they become subject to the digestive powers of the stomach, and are accordingly dissolved, and assimilated. If it were possible, says Mr. Hunter, for a man’s hand to be introduced into the stomach of a living animal, and kept there for some considerable time, it would be found that the dissolvent powers of the stomach could produce no impression upon it; but if the same hand were separated from the body, and introduced into the same stomach, we should then find that this organ would immediately act upon it. Spallanzani, with a patience that almost wearies his readers, made many attempts at dissolving the stomach by its own juice, but succeeded satisfactorily in none; he proved, however, two important facts, first, that the process of digestion, or more correctly speaking, of solution, continues after death; and secondly, that the stomach itself is digestible. The truth of the first he demonstrated by introducing food into the stomach, after he had killed his animal; and that of the second, by giving the stomach of one dog to be devoured by another. The fact then is clearly established, that the stomach, after death, may be dissolved by its own juice^[181]; and this may exist in its cavity, or be retained in the vessels which had secreted it. It remains for us then to examine the circumstances under which it is likely to occur, and the appearance by which it may be distinguished; and we may here be allowed to observe with an ingenious writer,^[182] that were these points merely of a speculative nature, or were their decision a matter of mere curiosity, it would be idle to consume so much valuable time in their discussion; but when we remember that they are questions upon which the medical practitioner may be called upon to deliver a solemn opinion, in order to determine the fate of a criminal, they undoubtedly demand the highest attention of those who profess to aid the administration of Justice, by the lights of science. We have, therefore, first to inquire into the circumstances under which this natural erosion of the stomach is known to take place. Mr. John Hunter^[183] details the history of three examples, in which the stomach was considerably perforated. Two of the men had died shortly after having their skulls fractured, and the third was a man who had been hanged, so that in each of these cases the person had been deprived of life by violence; whence Dr. Adams^[184] inferred, that Mr. Hunter limited the action of the gastric juice on the stomach to such as died from violent and sudden causes; and many physiologists have, accordingly, supposed that solution of the coats of the stomach never takes place, except where the person has died suddenly; this, however, is an inference, as Mr. Burns^[185] has very justly observed, “by no means warranted by the general tenour of Mr. Hunter’s essay,” indeed he expressly states, that “there are few dead bodies in which the stomach is not, at its great end, in some degree digested;” “and any one,” continues Mr. Hunter, “who is acquainted with the art of dissection, can easily trace the gradations from the smallest to the greatest.” The consideration of the vast importance of this fact, and frequent opportunities of investigating the subject, induced Mr. Burns to collect the observations which he had made during the dissection of those bodies in which he found the stomach digested; and these observations, he informs us, have led him to conclude, that the phenomenon in question is neither so rare in its occurrence as some have imagined, nor confined to such subjects as had been, previous to death, in a healthy condition; they have also convinced him, that other parts of the stomach, besides the large end, may be occasionally acted on by the gastric juice. “That the digestion of the coats of the stomach after death is not a very rare occurrence, I think myself authorised to infer, from my having examined nine bodies in which the solution had proceeded to such an extent as to have made holes of considerable size through that viscus; and, besides these nine instances in which the digestion of part of the stomach was complete, I have had occasion to see, in opening this viscus, various degrees of dissolution of its villous coat.”^[186]

In three of the instances alluded to by Mr. Burns, the patients had been worn out by debilitating diseases; and they were emaciated and anasarcous. That the solution of the coats of the stomach in these cases was properly attributed to the gastric juice is very satisfactorily shewn by the relation of the following instructive dissection. “I had occasion,” says Mr. Burns, “two days after death, to open the body of a very emaciated and anasarcous young girl, who had died from scrofulous enlargement of the mesenteric glands. On raising the coverings of the abdomen, the stomach, which was empty, presented itself to view, with its front dissolved.^[187] The aperture was of an oblong shape, about two inches in its long diameter, and an inch in its short, with tender, flocculent, and pulpy edges. This I demonstrated to the pupils attending my class; and I especially called their attention to the fact, that the liver, which was in contact with the hole, had no impression made on it. Having proceeded thus far, I placed all the parts as they had been, stitched up the abdomen, and laid the body aside in a cold situation for two days. Then I opened it again, in presence of the same gentlemen, and we found that, now, the liver, where it lay over the dissolved part of the stomach, was pulpy; its peritoneal coat was completely dissolved, and its substance was tender to a considerable depth. At this time the other parts of the liver were equally solid as before, and as yet every part of the subject was free from putrefaction; the posterior face of the stomach, opposite to the hole, was dissolved, all except the peritoneal coat, at least the internal coats were rendered pulpy and glutinous; the peritoneal covering had become spongy and more transparent than it ought to have been.” These facts, in addition to the many other important conclusions to which they will give rise, admonish us, that in judicial investigations into the cause of dissolution of the coats of the stomach, the appearances will vary, according to the period after death at which the body is examined. But the most satisfactory case which has been reported, in proof that the post mortem solution of the stomach may occur after a lingering disease, is that just published by Dr. Haviland,^[188] where the patient died of fever after an illness of 22 days; when upon opening the body about 12 hours after death, the following appearances were noticed: “On raising the stomach and examining the little omentum, we were surprised by the appearance of a dark-coloured fluid, which seemed to escape from the former viscus. A most careful search was now made, and a large opening was perceived in the stomach on the upper and back part, near the cardia. The stomach was then detached, with a portion of the œsophagus and duodenum, when a large perforation of the diaphragm came into view, in the muscular part, corresponding precisely to, and communicating with, the hole in the stomach; so that a portion of the contents of the latter organ had escaped into the cavity of the chest. This part of the diaphragm was next removed. A careful examination of the other abdominal and thoracic viscera did not lead to the detection of the slightest diseased appearance. There was no where the smallest evidence of previous inflammation, no adhesions or ulcerations of any part of the viscera. The fluid which had escaped appeared to be nothing more than the contents of the stomach, of which the wine and water^[189] formed a part, and probably gave it its dark colour. The stomach, on being examined after its removal from the body, afforded the following observations. The mucous membrane appeared to be more red and vascular than usual throughout its whole extent, and, here and there, were small spots of what seemed to be extravasated blood, lying below the mucous coat—for these spots were not to be washed off, nor to be removed by the edge of the scalpel. There were two holes in the stomach, the larger very near to the cardiac end of the small curvature, and on the posterior surface: this was more than an inch in length, and about half that breadth; the other not far from the former, also on the posterior surface, about the size of a sixpence. The edges of these holes were smooth, well defined, and slightly elevated. The coats of the stomach were thin in many other spots, and in one in particular nothing was left but the peritoneum, the mucous and muscular coats being entirely destroyed. The hole in the diaphragm was through the muscular portion, where it is of considerable thickness, and was large enough to admit the end of the finger. There was no appearance of ulceration or of pus adhering to the edges of this perforation of the diaphragm.” We have extracted a full account of this dissection, as the case is in itself truly interesting. The symptoms of the patient had been carefully watched, and no pain, or uneasiness was ever heard of, throughout the whole course of the disease, except in the head.

The powers of the stomach, as it would appear from the report, had suddenly revived at about twelve hours before his death, for “he asked for food, and swallowed a few spoonsfull of calves’-foot jelly with apparent relish.” May we not then conclude by observing, that the facts above related very satisfactorily corroborate the truth of the corollary deduced by Mr. Burns, “that the digestion of the coats of the stomach may take place under two very different conditions of the body; that although such solution is most frequent in those who have been suddenly deprived of life, when in full health, that it is not confined to those alone, but does, under certain circumstances, occur in those who have died from lingering diseases.”

With respect to the appearances, which such erosions assume, some difference of opinion has also unfortunately existed. Mr. Hunter has asserted that “there are very few dead bodies, in which the stomach is not, at its great end, in some degree digested; and the anatomist,” says he, “who is acquainted with dissections can easily trace the gradations from the smallest to the greatest. To be sensible of this effect, nothing more is necessary than to compare the inner surface of the great end of the stomach, with any other part of the inner surface; what is sound will appear soft, spongy, and granulated, and without distinct blood-vessels, opaque, and thick, while the other will appear smooth, thin, and more transparent, and the vessels will be seen ramifying in its surface; and upon squeezing the blood which they contain, from the larger to the smaller branches, it will be found to pass out at the digested ends of the vessels, and appear like drops on the inner surface.” This condition, however, of the vessels does not invariably accompany such solution. In three of the subjects dissected by Mr. Burns, there was no appearance of vessels ramifying on the coats of the stomach. To account for the absence of this vascular appearance several explanations have been attempted; “but we are not,” says Mr. Burns, “to regard the cause of this deviation from Mr. Hunter’s description, as depending upon the particular part of the stomach acted on in the different cases; neither are we to imagine that the stage of the process at which we examine the body will assist us in this investigation; we are rather to obtain an explanation of this fact, from contemplating the difference of condition of the different individuals at the time of death; the subjects, whose cases are detailed by Mr. Hunter, were persons cut off by violence, in the plenitude of health, their stomachs at the time excited by the stimulus of food to vigorous action, and the process of digestion at the instant of death going on briskly, circumstances under which it is reasonable to infer that all the blood-vessels would be filled with blood, which it is evident, from the nature of the causes depriving them of life, would be detained in the veins. This being the state of his subjects at the moment of death, we shall not wonder that, when he afterwards opened the bodies, he could squeeze the blood from the digested ends of the vessels.” This is certainly an ingenious explanation, and receives considerable support from the important fact of the stomach presenting a very high degree of vascularity, in cases of sudden death, as exemplified by Dr. Yelloly^[190] in his account of the appearances found in the stomachs of several executed criminals soon after they had undergone the sentence of the law. So also has dissection disclosed the same phenomena, in those cases where life has been suddenly extinguished by a blow on the region of the stomach; inflammation, in such instances, is necessarily out of the question, for death is immediate; the red and inflamed appearance therefore of the stomach can alone be accounted for by regarding it as the effect of the sudden cessation of the heart, producing an accumulation of the blood in the extreme arterial branches. But what shall we say of Dr. Haviland’s case? so far from the patient dying suddenly, and in the plenitude of health, he expired after a lingering illness of three weeks, and yet, upon dissection, the stomach was found highly vascular. This is in direct opposition to the theory of Mr. Burns, and, we must confess, is not a little embarrassing. Where the gastric solution has proceeded so far as to produce perforations in its coats, Mr. Hunter states that, “the contents of the stomach are generally found loose in the cavity of the abdomen, about the spleen and diaphragm; and that in many subjects this digestive power extends much farther than through the stomach. I have often found,” says he, “that after it had dissolved the stomach at the usual place, the contents had come into contact with the spleen and diaphragm, and had partly dissolved the spleen, &c.” With respect to the appearance of the gastric perforations, Mr. Hunter characterises them as having “their edges apparently half dissolved, very much resembling that kind of dissolution which fleshy parts undergo when half digested in a living stomach, viz. pulpy, tender, and ragged.”

As certain corrosive poisons will occasionally produce such organic lesions in the stomach, as lead to perforations in its membranes, a question naturally arises, how are we to distinguish such disorganizations, produced by causes acting during life, from those which result from solution after death? To this we may at once return a general answer, that in a judicial investigation, we ought not to attribute erosion of the stomach to poison, except it be accompanied by evident marks of previous inflammation and reaction, or with gangrenous appearances; unless indeed the poisonous substance be found in the stomach, or the symptoms, previous to death, be characteristic and satisfactory. It has been stated that the edges of the natural perforation are “pulpy, tender, and ragged,” whereas those produced by the caustic action of a poison will generally be found well defined, and of the same thickness as any other part of the stomach. But let it be remembered, that, after all, it is upon the detection of poisonous matter in the stomach, that the prudent physician will place his great reliance. We have thus offered a review of the different opinions which have been entertained upon this important question, and in conclusion we may observe, that there will necessarily exist in each particular case, circumstances which no general views can comprehend, and upon which the practitioner must exercise his judgment and discretion. It is not our intention at present to enter fully into the several questions which were raised on the memorable trial of Charles Angus for the murder of Margaret Burns, but as we have already very frequently alluded to the medical evidence delivered on this occasion, and as we shall hereafter be called upon to notice some of its more striking features, we have subjoined a report of the trial, and of the unhappy and ill-conducted controversy to which it has given origin.^[191] Whether the holes in the stomach were the effects of corrosive poison or of that solvent action after death, which we have just endeavoured to explain, must remain a matter of doubt, for the erosion in this case was so considerable, and the inflammation so slight, that it is impossible to assert that they both depended on the same cause.

With respect to the possibility of confounding the appearances of gangrene, in the stomach, with those of putrefaction, some notice is necessary in this place; and we cannot better illustrate the subject, than by introducing the marks of discrimination which are considered by Mahon^[192] as decisive upon such occasions. The spots in the stomach, resulting from putrefaction, says he, may be distinguished from those which have resulted from violent causes, during life, in the following manner. If the stomach retain its natural colour, and the spots are mixed with a red hue, or the ulcers have pale, or bright red edges, such have been the effect of some violent impression upon the living membrane; whereas, on the contrary, if the stomach be pale, livid, or green, and exhibit spots of the same colour, but of rather a deeper hue, we may safely conclude that they are the genuine phenomena of putrefaction. See the interesting account of the dissection of William Mitchell, p. 191.

There are few opinions more popular than that which considers the speedy putrefaction of the body as the universal and never failing consequence of poisoning. To appreciate, however, the true value of such an indication, and to avoid the fallacies with which it is surrounded, it is essential to remember that the body of a person dying suddenly, and in what may be called full health, is very liable to run rapidly into a state of decomposition. As far, however, as our observations enable us to deduce any conclusion, certain vegetable poisons appear to accelerate such a change; for, very shortly after death, the body, under such circumstances, will frequently swell, become highly offensive, assume a black^[193] appearance, and exhibit gangrenous spots on its surface. No such appearances, however, it is said, usually follow as the specific consequence of the fatal operation of mineral poisons; Dr. Jaeger in an Inaugural dissertation,^[194] which deserves to be better known, states, as the result of numerous experiments, that the putrefaction of animal bodies, poisoned by arsenic, whether buried or not, does not appear to be either unusually accelerated or retarded; and he moreover found that the generation of infusory animals, the production of larvæ and subterraneous vegetation, in and about the bodies of poisoned animals, took place as usual; and he remarked that “the immediate contact of an arsenical solution seemed, in several instances, to retard, in some degree, the putrefaction of the part to which it was applied in sufficient quantity.” In the extraordinary case examined by Metzger, in which the largest quantity of arsenic ever, perhaps, taken into the stomach, was found after death, the body was not opened until eighteen days after dissolution, and yet, says the anatomist, “cadaver, quod mireris, sine ullo fœtore aut putredinis signo erat, ut et absque maculis lividis, si digitorum apices excipias.” A case is also related by Dr. Yelloly,^[195] in which death was occasioned by arsenic, but where not the slightest appearance of putrefaction was visible at the time of examination, which did not take place until forty-nine hours after death.

On the other hand, Morgagni^[196] states that, on dissecting a female who died from Arsenic, “facies corporis posterior, ne suris quidem et calcibus exceptis, tota erat nigra.” And in the interesting case of William Mitchell, as hereafter related, the appearance of the body appears to have indicated that decomposition had proceeded with more than ordinary celerity.

The fact of accelerated, or retarded putrefaction, therefore, cannot be received with any confidence as a collateral indication of poisoning. Dr. Carson, however, in the trial of Charles Angus, adduced the circumstance of its absence, as a negative proof that the deceased had not been poisoned; and in the celebrated Scotch trial of Patrick Ogilvy, and Catharine Nairne,^[197] the same fact was forcibly urged in their defence.

Gaspard à Reies,^[198] and other writers, have maintained that the discovery of living worms in the intestines of a person, suspected to have died from poison, ought to be received as a direct refutation of the charge. We are, however, not disposed to concur in such an opinion. With respect to the value of the indication supposed to be afforded by the circumstance of froth issuing from the mouth of the corpse, soon after death, Mr. Hunter has given a very satisfactory opinion, and to which we must refer the reader, see Appendix, p. 273.

Q. IV. How far the absence of poison, or the inability of the chemist to detect it, in the body, or in the fluids ejected from it, is to be received as a negative to an accusation of poisoning?

We have already stated, that of all the proofs which can be adduced by the physician, in support of a charge of murder by poison, no one can be put in competition with that which arises from the discovery of the poisonous substance itself, in the stomach, or in the contents of the matter ejected by vomiting or purging. The law expects, therefore, that the professional witness should be prepared to state, that every experiment, calculated to detect the presence of poison, has been scrupulously and faithfully performed; and we may take this occasion to observe, that the circumstance of advanced putrefaction can rarely, in the present state of our chemical knowledge, be admitted as a satisfactory plea for not having proceeded to an anatomical inspection, as preliminary to chemical inquiry; and, as to the danger of such dissections, Dr. Gordon Smith has very truly observed, “that much is placed to this account which belongs merely to disgust.” Had an examination of the body taken place in the case of Ogilvy and Nairne, how many doubts would have been cleared away; indeed, this omission afforded the prisoners a strong ground of defence; they complained that the informer had intentionally prevented the dissection of the body, being conscious that the suspicions he had raised, and the project he had formed for their ruin, would, by such a measure, have been totally removed and defeated. To this it was answered, that when the informer (a younger brother of the deceased) arrived, he did insist on the body being opened and examined, as soon as a physician of eminence could be present, which the prisoners did not then oppose; but that when the physician arrived on the ensuing day, he declared the body to be in such a putrid state, that no certain conclusions could be drawn from outward appearances, nor even from a dissection of the body, which, besides, could not be performed with safety to the surgeon and attendants, and that he therefore thought proper to decline the investigation. Fortunately for the ends of justice, the circumstantial evidence of guilt was too strong to be affected by this culpable defect in the medical testimony, although it has been often asserted that the prisoners should have received the benefit of the omission by an acquittal. See Donellan’s case in the Appendix, p. 243.

With respect to the mode of conducting a chemical analysis upon these occasions, we have reserved our directions, until we shall enter on the discussion of poisons individually. We have, however, in this place some remarks of a general nature to offer, to which we are desirous of drawing the attention of those, who, without much experience, may be called upon to conduct such investigations. In the first place, we are desirous of convincing him, that the processes which he must institute, for the detection of a mineral body, are by no means so elaborate and embarrassing, as a superficial view of the subject may lead him to conclude. During the progress of the present work the author has repeatedly felt the truth of the opinion which he is now expressing; for, like Becher, he has laid down his pen, and taken up his tests, and, by the most simple modes of manipulation, has satisfied his own mind of the extreme delicacy of the different processes which are recommended for the detection of a poisonous mineral; in short, it is very difficult to convince those whose chemical knowledge is wholly theoretical, with how little trouble, and with how much pleasure and profit, such experiments may be conducted. If such then be the perfect state at which our analytical knowledge has arrived, the reader may perhaps conclude, that in every case of mineral poisoning the deleterious substance should be found, and that the inability of the chemist to detect its presence, should go far to negative the charge. Such an inference, however, is neither correct, nor philosophical, for the poison may have been absorbed, or eliminated, during life, it may have undergone chemical changes, or it may have entered into combinations, by which its characters are masked, or wholly changed. To Dr. Bostock the judicial physician is under many obligations, but there is no discovery for which he is more deeply indebted to him, than for that which has resulted from his satisfactory experiments, in elucidation of the present question. He has shewn, in the instance of Corrosive Sublimate,^[199] that an animal may be suddenly killed by receiving a metallic poison into the stomach, and yet that the most delicate chemical re-agents may not be able to detect any portion of such poison, after death, in the contents of that viscus. Dr. Henry, in a letter to Dr. Duncan,^[200] communicates the case of Hannah Tomlinson, aged twenty, who died, under the care of Dr. Holme, on the sixth day after a dose of Corrosive Sublimate. In this case, although an ounce of the mercurial salt had been swallowed, and the fluid ejected from the stomach was examined, only twelve hours afterwards, by Drs. Henry and Roget, yet not the slightest trace of the poison could be detected! More recently we have received from the pen of Mr. Alexander Murray,^[201] surgeon of Alford, some highly interesting cases of poisoning by Arsenic, and which are so illustrative of the present question, as well as several others that have fallen under consideration, that no apology can be necessary for introducing some account of them in this place. A family of the name of Mitchell, and which consisted of William, a robust man, aged 45, James, æt: 52, Mary, æt: 50, and Helen, æt: 48, breakfasted together on Sunday morning, (August 19, 1821) on porridge, consisting of milk, salt, and meal. William partook largely, but James, who perceived “a sickening taste,” took less than common, while the sisters had their usual quantity. William was seized with sickness shortly afterwards, about 10 a. m., on his way to church, and then with thirst and headache; and, on his return home, between three and four in the afternoon, he was seized with vomiting, which recurred often during the next four or five days, especially on his attempting to quench his thirst. In the early part of the week, he was heard to complain of pain in his stomach, eyes, throat, breast, and arms; he was observed to void his urine frequently; and about this time, he pointed out to one of his sisters a hollow^[202] between his breast and belly, into which according to her expression, “she could have laid her arm.”

His illness had scarcely at any time confined him to bed. On the evening of Friday, the 24th of August, he rode six miles, for the purpose of consulting Mr. Murray, the surgeon, and reporter of the cases; on Wednesday the 22d he had taken a dose of Epsom salts which operated, and at the time Mr. Murray first saw him he complained of the following symptoms:—pain and heat in the region of the stomach and lower part of the chest; occasional uneasiness in the abdomen, and sometimes ineffectual efforts to go to stool; thirst; difficulty of breathing; heat and uneasiness of throat, with hoarseness; soreness of eyes, which had the common appearance of inflammation; shifting pains in his extremities, particularly the arms, which had not their usual strength; great restlessness; anxious expression of countenance; pulse frequent, 100-110, not strong.

A blister was applied over the stomach and lower part of the chest, and he took an opiate at bed time. On the following day, (Saturday 25th) Mr. Murray visited him at his own house, and found him nearly as before, except that his countenance more strongly exhibited a disturbed and anxious expression, and the redness of the eyes, and the hoarseness were increased. Mr. Murray also observed small roundish white accuminated prominences, on the palate and uvula, apparently as if the membrane covering the palate bones and velum pendulum, was detached at the parts by a whitish liquid. This day he took an ounce of castor oil, which operated in the afternoon, his illness was not observed to change during the evening, and he retired at about eight o’clock to rest. At a little past two in the morning, he rose in search of water to drink, and on returning to bed he was heard to utter a deep groan; after which he lay motionless and quiet, and very soon was found to have expired. The surgeon who saw the body, about 10 a. m., states that “many bluish spots were observed on the inferior extremities.” James, Mary, and Helen Mitchell were attacked the same forenoon with their brother William, and with nearly similar symptoms; they were all, however, fortunate enough to recover, although a considerable period elapsed before their usual strength returned, and in all of them a numbness of the arms, or legs, occurred, together with a loss of muscular power.

The body of William Mitchell was, owing to particular circumstances, not opened until the 29th of August, (3 days 8 hours after death) when the following appearances presented themselves. “The face had a natural, composed appearance; and the rigidity of the body did not appear to be different from what is common. The right ear, and corresponding side of the face, as well as the scalp, exhibited a deep clay-blue colour. On the chest and belly, several spots and streaks, some green, others blue, were observed; and the back, upon which the body lay, was from head to foot of a livid colour; while several roundish spots, of a still deeper hue, gave to the shoulders and neck a mottled appearance. The penis was much swollen and red. The scrotum also was enlarged, and of a dark blue colour.

Upon opening the abdomen, the smell was not unusually offensive, and its contents did not appear to have undergone alteration after death, but several ounces of a highly-coloured liquid were found in the cavity. The surface of the jejunum and ilium presented many purple spots, some of which were several inches in circumference. The peritoneal surface of the stomach, in a tract which extended from the cardia, and occupied, for some distance downwards, the whole circumference of that viscus, except the small curvature, was of a clear, dark red colour; and through this space dark lines, apparently veins, were observed to ramify. This appearance, perhaps, from 20 to 30 square inches in extent, was strongly marked in contrast with the natural state of the inferior extremity and small curvature. The substance connecting the stomach to the spleen, was, as well as a small part of the transverse colon, of a red colour. The spleen was gorged with blood; the liver healthy. The duodenum, from a small distance below the pylorus, almost to its inferior extremity, and round nearly the whole intestine, was of a very dark purple colour. Upon opening the stomach, the internal surface of that part where the outward appearance, already described, existed, was found of a bright red colour, and over this lighter dots were thickly scattered^[203], making such an appearance as might be produced by a red colour being dashed from a painter’s pencil, upon a somewhat darker ground.

The internal coats of the duodenum were very dark coloured, with a slightly reddish hue, pulpy, thickened, and easily separated from the peritoneal covering, while in one roundish spot, of the size of a crown piece, the villous and muscular coats were entirely wanting. Red patches were observed on the inner surface of the jejunum and ilium, the shape, size, and situation of which were the same as those of the appearances already noted as occurring on the outside of these intestines. The stomach and duodenum contained about a quart of a brown, semi-opaque, thickish liquid; the jejunum and ilium were empty, and coated with a yellow viscid matter. The lungs and heart were quite healthy; but in the cavity of the thorax were ten ounces of a reddish turbid liquid, and about half that quantity in the pericardium. The pharynx was of an unusually red colour. The whole of the brain was healthy, and of firm consistence.”

It has from time immemorial been generally believed, that no proof of poisoning is more satisfactory than that which is furnished by the effects produced upon dogs, by their swallowing the contents of the stomach of persons who are supposed to have died from poison. Writers on Forensic medicine have, however, adduced several objections to the validity of such a test; some of which are undoubtedly worthy of consideration, while others are the deductions of a theory which receives no support from experience. In the first place it has been stated, that substances poisonous to man, will not always occasion deleterious effects upon animals^[204]; this, to a certain extent, is undoubtedly true; some of the Ruminantia appear to be less sensible to the operation of narcotic plants, than carnivorous animals. Aloes are injurious to dogs and foxes. Oxen are said to eat the Philandria Palustris, which is pernicious to horses; but we are very much inclined to believe that a poison sufficiently powerful to destroy the life of a man, would if administered in the same state of concentration, destroy that also of an inferior animal. It is in smaller doses only that the difference in the action of such bodies upon various animals becomes evident and appreciable. This opinion is confirmed by numerous experiments. Mr. John Hunter, in his evidence^[205] on the trial of Donellan, in answer to the question, whether any certain conclusion can be drawn respecting the poisonous operation of a substance upon man, from its effects upon an animal of the brute creation, replied, “As far as my experience goes, which is not a very confined one, because I have poisoned some thousands of animals, they are very nearly the same; opium, for instance, will poison a dog similar to a man; arsenic will have very near the same effect upon a dog, as it would have, I take it for granted, upon a man; I know something of the effects of them, and I believe their operations will be nearly similar.” If any farther confirmation of this opinion were required, how extensively and satisfactorily has it been afforded by the late experiments of M. Orfila.^[206] Mr. Hunter also, on the memorable trial above mentioned, explained a source of fallacy which attends such experiments upon animals; he is asked “whether there are not many things which kill animals almost instantaneously, that will have no detrimental or noxious effect upon a human subject, such, for instance, as spirits?” He replies that a great deal depends upon the manner of conducting the experiment, and that by forcing an animal to drink, the liquor often passes into the lungs. See Appendix, p. 272. Orfila, in his valuable work on poisons, instituted a series of experiments upon this subject, with the intention of determining the value of an experiment so generally accredited; from which he is led to conclude, 1st. That the practitioner should never attempt by force to make an animal swallow the suspected substance, nor should he put it into his food; for by such a proceeding he would not only run the hazard of losing the greatest part of it, because the animal would reject it, but the food with which it is combined might exert upon it some chemical action, or so envelope it as to protect the coats of the stomach from its contact; besides which it would, says he, happen, at least six times in ten, that a part of it would flow through the larynx into the lungs, and the animal will die of Asphyxia. 2d. The best method that can be employed, consists in detaching the œsophagus, perforating it with a small hole, introducing into it a glass funnel, and pouring the liquid into the stomach; that being done, the œsophagus is to be tied below the opening. It would, observes M. Orfila, be imprudent to prefer to this method, the use of an elastic gum tube adapted to a syringe, for many bite the tube, pierce it with holes, and the fluid then flows out of the mouth; besides which, syringes of tin might decompose certain poisonous fluids. The obvious objection to such a mode of administration is anticipated by this laborious experimenter with much ingenuity. It may be asserted, says he, that the animal perished from the operation of tying the œsophagus, and not from the action of the poison thus introduced into the stomach, but such an objection has no foundation in truth, for either the suspected substance is in quantity sufficient to destroy the animal, or it is not; in the first case death will take place during the first forty-eight hours, and will be preceded by symptoms more or less severe, a phenomenon never observed in the simple ligature of the œsophagus; in the second case, the experiment will not be more conclusive, than if the œsophagus had not been tied: and the author asserts, that the operation of tying the œsophagus would not, of itself, produce during the first forty-eight hours any other symptom than a slight dejection, and that consequently all other morbid phenomena that may be observed, upon such trials, ought to be attributed to the poisonous substance. To all this we reply, that we believe, in the hands of Orfila who has made a thousand experiments, that such results may be satisfactory, but we feel no hesitation in declaring, that we should not place the smallest reliance upon such an experiment when conducted by a person unaccustomed to the operations of experimental physiology. If there be no other mode of employing an animal as a test for poison, but by tying his œsophagus, we must, in a judicial point of view, reject it altogether.

But there still remains another source of fallacy connected with these experiments, to which considerable importance has been attached. It has been said that the acrid humours ejected from the stomach of a person labouring under a spontaneous disease, may kill an animal. Morgagni^[207] relates a very remarkable instance, in illustration of this fact. A child having died of a fever was opened, when a quantity of green bile was found in the stomach, which changed the colour of the scalpel to violet; having dipped the point of the knife into this bile, two pigeons were wounded with it, and they soon died in convulsions. The bile was then mixed with some bread, and given to a cock, which also died in the same manner. From this general view of the subject before us, the forensic physician will be enabled to appreciate its just value, and to apply the indications it may furnish, in each particular case, without the risk of error. In some instances such experiments may prove nothing, in others they may afford only equivocal results, but which may add something to the general weight of circumstantial evidence; while others, again, may furnish proofs so unquestionable, as to leave no doubt upon the subject; such was the case in the instance of Michael Whiting^[208], who was convicted of administering corrosive sublimate to his brothers-in-law, when it appeared in evidence that a portion of the poisoned dumpling was given to a sow, who in consequence became sick, and remained ill for several days.

We have now disposed of the several questions connected with the subject of poisoning, which must be regarded, in their forensic relations, as being of the highest importance. In considering the subjects, generally, there must necessarily remain doubts, many of which will be considerably diminished, or entirely removed, upon their application to particular cases; still, however, the nature of medical evidence upon such occasions must be frequently regarded as only sustaining high probabilities, and the professional witness may exclaim with Hoffman^[209] “Ardua sane provincia ei imponitur cui determinandæ ejusmodi quæstiones exhibentur.”