Every legally qualified and registered medical practitioner in actual practice in or near the place where the death in question happened, by the Coroners Act, 1887, may be summoned by the Coroner to give medical evidence as to the cause of that death. Thus medical men may be compelled to practise medical jurisprudence if called upon so to do. With the growth of knowledge and exact observation, the weight which is attached to medical evidence has increased proportionately. It is still true, however, that “the exercise of a sound judgment, which is of far more value in medico-legal matters than all the substance of all the ancient medicina forensis, must be our guide.”
The Coroner’s Court differs from other tribunals in that, primarily, it conducts an enquiry to which there are no formal parties. The evidence received by this Court is on that account much less bound by technical rules.
The evidence of
I. Common witnesses of Facts which they have observed. They state the minor premiss of the forensic argument. Those who can describe technical matters which they have seen are skilled common witnesses: medical men usually appear in court as skilled witnesses. Job’s “I shall see for myself, and my own eyes shall behold, and not another,” indicates the correct attitude of a common witness of fact.
The testimony of
II. Expert witnesses concerning their Opinions. They state the major premiss of the syllogism, whose conclusion is found in the verdict of the jury. All expert witnesses should be skilled witnesses. Experts sometimes become common witnesses when examined as to exhibits produced in court. The weakness of expert testimony is, in practice, its ex parte nature. Medical men called to give evidence as to fact, must beware of being unconsciously drawn into offering expert testimony.