Part 21

By LORD CAMPBELL--It is a question on which toxicologists have entertained a different opinion?--I believe they have.

Examination resumed--Have you studied the question sufficiently to be able to state reasons for thinking the minimum dose, after having done its work, continues in the system?--I believe the illustration given was that as food undergoes a change on being taken into the body, these substances also do.

By LORD CAMPBELL--It has been said that the decomposition of food affords an analogy?--It has. I believe not. The change in food takes place during digestion, consequently these elements are not found in the blood, or, if the change does not take place there, they remain unchanged in the blood. These alkaloids are absorbed without digestion, and may be obtained unchanged from the blood.

Cross-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL--About half of the experiments on the sixty animals I spoke of were made in conjunction with Mr. Morley, the gentleman who was called for the prosecution. A few of these experiments were made in connection with this case, but the great bulk certainly not.

You have not told us what may be material, the general dose given?--The general dose given in the experiments has been from half a grain to two grains. I have seen a cat and a dog die from half a grain, not always. There are varying degrees of susceptibility both in animals of different species and in individuals of the same species.

You say that the symptoms generally appear in from two to thirty minutes; Mr. Morley states two minutes to an hour; will you undertake to say there have not been cases in which the first appearances have been delayed an hour?--I do.

Have you not known instances in which you have had to repeat the doses of poison?--When the dose has not been sufficient to kill, but to produce symptoms, there is a wide difference. I have given it three times. The quantity I gave was half a grain. That in the solid state would be a small dose to kill an old strong cat; a small dose will suffice in the fluid form. Where the half-grain dose has been given three times the reason was that the cat did not swallow the doses.

[Sidenote: T. Nunneley]

With regard to the symptoms you have described to us, can you tell me whether the result of your observations is that these symptoms occur uniformly, or at uniform periods of time, or whether they vary occasionally?--They certainly do not occur at uniform periods of time. I have not observed considerable variation in the order, but I have in the time.

When the convulsions have once set in have you found considerable difference as to the periods at which they take place?--Some difference, with greater or less intervals.

Have you also found that one animal will have a succession of attacks before it dies, and another will die after a much less amount of convulsion?--Yes. An animal seldom dies after one convulsion, generally four or five, and often a great many more. I have known one or two instances in which the animals have died after one convulsion.

From a dose which in the same quantity has not produced the same effect in other instances?--Yes.

Does the order in which the muscles of the body are convulsed vary also?--To some extent it does. The convulsions are generally simultaneous in the muscles of the trunk and those of the extremities. I think the limbs are generally affected first; they may be simultaneous; but the limbs are more easily observed.

Have you known any instance in which rigidity greater than is due to the ordinary rigor-mortis has occurred after death?--I do not think there is any difference. I have known instances in which they were very rigid, but I have known instances in which the muscles were flaccid. I may state I do not think there is any peculiar rigidity produced by strychnia.

With regard to the lady whose case we do not name, was it not the fact that, although the muscles of the body were flexible, the hands were curved and the feet arched and muscles contracted?--Not more than is usual from ordinary causes. I have said the hands were curved and the feet arched by muscular contraction.

Do you mean to say that when you spoke of the feet being decidedly arched that you meant no more than is due to the ordinary rigidity of death?--I do; that is what I mean by muscular contraction.

Do you mean to say that when you signed this, “The hands were incurved and the feet decidedly arched by muscular contraction,” you meant no more than is due to the ordinary rigidity of death?--I do, and stated so at the time, not in the report I have signed, but in conversation with the parties engaged.

You made a report which did not include the whole?--It is stated in the former part of the report that the other muscles of the body were so; that there was a distinction between the two portions of the body--a statement of fact, but nothing more.

[Sidenote: T. Nunneley]

Mr. Morley stated here the other day that in the experiments he made with you on animals killed with the poison, that after death there was an interval of flaccidity, after this rigidity commenced, more than if it had been occasioned by the usual rigor-mortis; you do not agree with him as to the statement of the fact?--I do not; it is a difference of opinion entirely.

You say you generally found the heart full?--Yes, the right side. The fact of the heart having been found empty in this case, amongst other things, leads me to the conclusion that it was not a death by strychnia poison.

Did you hear the evidence given here the other day of the post-mortem?--I did. I also heard this stated, “that the heart was contracted and empty.” I believe I was in Court when the gentleman who conducted it gave his evidence of the post-mortem examination of Mrs. Smyth, who died from the unfortunate administration of strychnia.

In those two cases does the fact of the heart having been found empty exercise any influence on your judgment?--Not unless I know how the post-mortem was made. If the post-mortem was commenced in the head, the explanation is given by Mr. Morley and myself in the case at Leeds. We had no doubt of the heart being full, the blood being fluid, but the head being first opened, and the large vessels cut, the consequence was that the blood by mere natural physical causes drains away.

Are you aware how the post-mortem was made in this particular case of Mr. Cook?--It is stated that the chest and abdomen were opened before the head.

What effect would that have?--If there were blood in the heart it ought to be there.

That would not make the difference. The head was not opened there in the first instance?--No; that is my explanation of it.

How do you account for the emptiness and contraction of the heart in Mr. Cook’s case?--The heart, if empty, is usually contracted. I cannot account, from the appearance of the body after death, for the emptiness of the heart, any more than it might be the usual effect of death. It varies very much, but, as a general rule in post-mortem examinations, we find, if the heart is empty, it is contracted.

If I understand you, the post-mortem appearance of Cook’s body, which you say differs materially from those you have seen after death from strychnia, were the emptiness of the heart, the state of the lungs, and the want of congestion in the brain. What do you say as to the state of the lungs?--The lungs are described as not being congested.

[Sidenote: T. Nunneley]

Do you attach any importance to the emphysema?--It is of two kinds. One consists in a dilatation of the cells, the other in a rupture by which the air, not being in the cells, passes amongst them.

I suppose you say it was not from the rupture of the cells here?--That I inferred from the description given.

Have you not found emphysema in the cases of the animals that have died?--Yes. It has always been from a rupture of the cells. It could be in no other way.

What is there in the statement of witnesses which makes you think there was emphysema of the other sort?--There was during life a diseased condition of the lungs.

I am speaking of the appearance of the lungs after death?--I must put the whole together.

Would it not have been desirable to know whether this emphysema was natural or whether it was from rupture? We heard the witnesses here who made the post-mortem examination?--If the question had been put to them.

But you were advising my friends throughout, while Dr. Harland was here, and you heard what he said. Did it occur to you it was proper to ask him what was the nature of those?--No, because I heard (which was sufficient to my mind) that disease had existed. The question was put, as to the disease, to Dr. Savage.

I am speaking of this emphysema?--It did not occur to me.

You have told us the various symptoms about this gentleman, from which you gather he was of a delicate constitution. To which do you ascribe these convulsions of which he died?--Not to any.

I understood you to say that the fact of his having syphilis was an important ingredient in your mind?--Yes, but you ask for convulsions.

You have no doubt he died of convulsions?--No.

You entered into a long detail of the various ailments under which this unfortunate man suffered, and you say that this would predispose him to convulsions. I ask you which of them?--The whole; the continuation of them.

Amongst others you mentioned excitement?--Yes, and depression of spirits.

What evidence is there, on which you rely, of his being a man subject to depression of spirits?--It is stated by Mr. Jones that he was subject to depression of spirits--mental depression. There was a good deal of mental depression at Rugeley.

Would you expect excitement to produce its effects recently in its existence, or after it was totally and entirely gone?--It may induce that state of brain in which convulsions will follow at some distance.

Did you find from the evidence that the brain was perfectly healthy?--No, not perfectly healthy. Mr. Bamford said it was not.

[Sidenote: T. Nunneley]

Do you mean, as against the reputed testimony, and the testimony here of Dr. Harland and Dr. Moncton, as well as Mr. Devonshire, to set up the testimony of that old gentleman, Mr. Bamford?--The evidence stated at the inquest itself is put in the depositions.

Do you mean to say, in your opinion, that excitement, producing disease of the brain, would bring on these convulsions?--I mean to say this, that in the condition of the brain, and the statement that has been made, I believe it to be quite probable that convulsions might come on and destroy a person, and leave no trace behind.

Do you believe that this man died of apoplexy?--I do not. You must bear in mind he had taken doses of morphia.

Do you ascribe his death to morphia?--No, except that it would assist in the convulsive attack, and it would affect the spinal marrow.

Brought about by the morphia?--No.

In your opinion was morphia right treatment or wrong?--I should think not very good in the state of excitement he was in then.

Do you mean that there has been anything to show any excitement at Rugeley?--You will not allow me to furnish an answer. There was no excitement at Rugeley, but morphia, when there is sickness, will sometimes disagree with a patient when there is an irritable state of the brain.

The stomach was irritated, I will allow, but where is the evidence that there was any excitement at Rugeley?--There is none.

Then why was morphia a wrong treatment?--Because it is after sickness, and there is evidence of there being an irritable state of the brain. From what he said himself, he must either have been delirious on the Sunday night, or he must have had some attack similar to what he had on the Monday night.

Do you mean the attack of the Sunday night was similar to that on the Monday night?--Less intensity, but I think very probably of the same character.

You do believe there were convulsions on the Sunday night, then?--No, I do not.

He died of convulsions?--Yes, but I say of the same character.

Then you do believe he had convulsions?--To a certain extent, but less in intensity. There was a great deal of mental and bodily excitement.

On the Monday night?--I have stated to you that he was in that condition which very often precedes convulsions.

Will you admit if a man so under the influence of morphia and he is suddenly disturbed by a noise, it is likely to have a depressing effect upon him?--I will; but there is no proof of a noise.

[Sidenote: T. Nunneley]

There is no proof, except his own statement, of any illness?--Precisely; that is part of my opinion--that he did not state what had occurred accurately.

Do you mean to say that he did not state that thing?--No; that he was mistaken. That is one of the symptoms. I believe the man to have been delirious then.

Now, be so good as to tell me what are the convulsions of which you gave some statement to my friend which will produce convulsions of a tetanic form?--Any irritation will produce it.

Ending in death?--It may end in death.

Will you tell me of any convulsions which you have known end in death accompanied with what my friend calls tetanic symptoms?--I have known them in children. I have never had such a case in an adult.

Has your reading furnished you with any?--The general statement of all writers is that such cases do occur.

Have you ever known or read of a case in which the patient was conscious to the last?--No, I have not. I have seen it stated so, but I have never met with it.

In epilepsy you have these tetanic symptoms?--Yes, but before death consciousness is gone.

You have had considerable experience in idiopathic tetanus, and some five or six, perhaps, of traumatic. (An extract from the evidence of Mr. Jones was read.) I have read to you the description of Cook’s symptoms as witnessed by Mr. Jones. I ask you to point out any distinction between those symptoms and the symptoms of tetanus?--Do you mean the one paroxysm or the disease which is called tetanus?

I am speaking of the paroxysm of tetanus?--It is very like.

By LORD CAMPBELL--You say this is not tetanus at all?--It is not. I never saw a case of tetanus in which the rigidity continued at the time of death and afterwards.

Cross-examination resumed--I am asking you as to symptoms of the paroxysms. I understand you to say the symptoms of the paroxysms are not distinguishable from those of tetanus?--Some of them are at the moment of death.

Give me any of them?

By LORD CAMPBELL--This is not tetanus, but, as far as they go, they coincide with the symptoms of tetanus at the moment of death?--Yes.

Cross-examination resumed--Observe, you have here consciousness to the last. That before the man dies he says, “Turn me over,” and as soon as they turn him over he dies. Tell me of any case you know of in which death has ensued from convulsions, where the death was not from tetanus, in which the patient was conscious?--I have already said I do not know of such a case.

Let me call your attention to strychnia tetanus. Would you call the symptoms tetanic?--They are called so very properly.

[Sidenote: T. Nunneley]

Do you agree with Sir Benjamin Brodie that while the paroxysms of tetanic convulsions last there is no difference between those which arise from strychnia and those which arise from tetanus properly so called, but the difference is in the course of them?--I think there is. I think that the hands are less violently contracted and affected in ordinary tetanus, and that the whole effect of the spasms is less in ordinary tetanus.

You would expect to find the hands more firmly and tightly closed in tetanus from strychnia than in ordinary tetanus?--I think it is so. There is another difference, that in tetanus the convulsions never entirely pass away.

That is one of the reasons Sir Benjamin Brodie gave for distinguishing the course?--In the case at Leeds it was the same.

I believe you felt perfectly prepared in that case, on the description of the symptoms, to come to the determination that it was a death from strychnia?--I thought it possible and probable. I did not come to a determined opinion. I expressed an opinion. I did not say I had no doubt as to the cause of death. We had ascertained at that time that there was strychnia.

After the opinion you expressed in that case, is it possible that you can represent this case of Mr. Cook as one of idiopathic tetanus?--I never did, and you have not heard from me that I infer that.

I have heard it said in this case that this may have been something arising from a syphilitic affection?--Idiopathic or traumatic tetanus was mentioned. I do not think it was a case of tetanus in any sense of the word.

Why not?--I have given the description. Because it differed from the course of tetanus from strychnia in the particulars I have already described.

Repeat them once more?--The very sudden acquisition of the convulsions after the first rousing of Mr. Jones; his power of talking.

Did you not know that Mrs. Smyth begged to have water thrown upon her, and talked throughout?--It did not occur to me.

Are you judging of the one incidental case, and coming here with conclusions founded on that?--I think it is an element, the time.

Then let me add the element, that the lady continues to the last conscious, and asks to have her legs stretched just before she died; does that shake your faith?--Yes.

Do you not know in that case her last words were to turn her over?--Not at the last moment. I do not dispute it if it is said so.

[Sidenote: T. Nunneley]

Were there not here the premonitory symptoms; the animals are affected about the jaws and the ears, and Mr. Cook has stiffness in his neck, and asks to have it rubbed?--It is a premonitory symptom.

Was it not a symptom of the convulsions, which are not distinguishable from tetanus?--I have said so. I have stated here that I believe in cases of poison from strychnia it is first developed in the legs and feet.

You have told us the animals began to feel twitching in the ears. This gentleman had, before the convulsions came on, stiffness in the muscles of the neck and jaw, and begged to have them rubbed?--That might be if it were anything else.

I ask you now, is not the difficulty of breathing one of the premonitory symptoms? He sat up in bed and complained of feeling suffocated?--Yes.

And felt a stiffness about the neck and asked to have it rubbed, and, as far as we know, this was the case in all the animals, though they could not ask to be rubbed. I ask you what were these but premonitory symptoms?--In no one single instance could the animal bear to be touched, and it evidently was most painful to it to be touched. I know that Mrs. Smyth asked to have her legs and arms straightened.

Let me ask you this, have you not often found that it was prior to the occurrence of the paroxysm, and not after the paroxysm?--No, I have seen a paroxysm brought on by it.

In all cases?--No, not in all cases. But in the other case, for two hours before she died, when she could speak, she begged them not to touch her.

Did she not ask to have her legs rubbed?--That was when the attack was slight, not during the fatal attack.

After the paroxysms had set in, did she not request to be rubbed?--She did before the convulsions came on; she liked to have her feet and legs rubbed.

Afterwards she could not bear it, because it caused a recurrence?--Yes.

That was in consequence of the twitchings, was it not?--I think not. It is stated by all the witnesses she begged she might not be touched.

But for that one thing, that the paroxysms came on so soon after the first premonitory symptom, is there one single point in which this differs from strychnia tetanus?--The power of swallowing so lately.

On what does it depend, the inability to swallow?--From the inability to move the jaw.

I ask you whether it is not a fact that, unlike as in natural tetanus, in tetanus from strychnia lockjaw is not the last symptom, and very often never sets in at all?--I have never seen an instance in which it does not make its appearance.

[Sidenote: T. Nunneley]

Is it the last?--I do not deny that it may be.

At what stage did it come on in the Leeds case?--Very early, more than two hours before death.

How long did the paroxysms continue before death took place?--Two hours and a half.

That was in a case in which very large doses of strychnia were administered?--We supposed four or five times repeatedly.

In the case of Leeds there were four animals killed afterwards from the contents of the stomach?--There were.

You state that you have succeeded in every case where you have tried in your experiments in finding the strychnia?--Yes.

Did not Mr. Morley differ from you in two cases?--In one he did. We divided the poison which we found in the stomach into two portions, and we adopted two different processes for extracting it, and by the one process we were both rather doubtful, but by the other we produced it.

Now, you thought you found it, and he thought you did not?--Not that I recollect.

Do not you know that Mr. Morley has been rather doubtful as to the results of these experiments?--No. Mr. Morley stated differently in his own examination.

In his examination here?--Yes; if you refer to it, except in one case, and that is the explanation I give of it.

Re-examined by Mr. SERJEANT SHEE--The Attorney-General directed your attention to your report on one of these cases that the hands were rigid and the feet incurved. In reports of this kind do you state only extraordinary appearances, or ordinary appearances as well?--Ordinary appearances also. It is a statement of a fact without anything more.

* * * * *

[Sidenote: W. Herepath]