- ceedings did not go farther. In the former instance the evidence in
favour of the flesh of poisoned animals being sometimes poisonous is strong; and the history of the woman's case, although death seems to have been caused directly by apoplexy, renders it probable that even dangerous results might accrue.
The preceding remarks will enable the medical witness to know under what circumstances accidental observations or intentional experiments on animals furnish satisfactory proof.
Before quitting the subject, however, I have to add, that there is another purpose, besides procuring direct evidence, to which experiments with animals may be applied with great propriety;—namely, the settling disputed questions regarding the physiological and pathological properties of a particular poison. The science of toxicology is not yet by any means so perfect, but in particular cases topics may arise, which have not hitherto been investigated, and which it may be necessary to determine by experiment. Experiments on animals instituted for such purposes by a skilful toxicologist are not liable to any important objection. On the trial of Charles Angus at Liverpool in 1808, for procuring abortion and murder by poison, a trial of great interest, which will be referred to more particularly afterwards, it appeared from the evidence of the crown witnesses, that the poison suspected, corrosive sublimate, could not be discovered in the stomach by certain methods of analysis; and that, although corrosive sublimate is a powerful irritant, the villous coat of the stomach was not inflamed. But then it was proved by experiments made by one of their number, Dr. Bostock, that animals might be killed with corrosive sublimate without the stomach being inflamed, and without the poison being discoverable after death by the tests he used in the case.[1] An attempt was made on the side of the prisoner to throw out this line of evidence as incompetent, on the ground of the discrepant effects of poisons on man and on the lower animals. But it was admitted by the judge, on the plea that it was only to illustrate a general physiological fact, and not to infer proof of poisoning. The importance of experiments on animals to settle incidental physiological questions has lately been again acknowledged in a very pointed manner in an English court of law: for a set of experiments, to settle the question of the rapidity with which hydrocyanic acid acts, was instituted before the trial by the medical witnesses, at the request of the judge who was to try the case.[2]
Section V.—Of the Moral Evidence.
It is not my object to treat under this head of the moral evidence generally, which is required to establish a charge of poisoning. But as it is well known that in criminal trials medical witnesses have for
- ↑ Trial.—This is a good illustration. Nevertheless, it will be seen under the head of morbid appearances caused by the irritant class of poisons, that Dr. Bostock's experiments, though conclusive as to the statement in the text, did not affect the real questions in the case.
- ↑ See trial of Freeman—article Hydrocyanic Acid.
