the other witnesses, seven or eight in number, agreed that he was sober. His wife thought him insane for six months before, because "he used to go about the house with fewer clothes on him than he ought to have;" but no other evidence was adduced to this effect. It is apparent that the medical and moral evidence are so interwoven in the case now stated, as to render their separation very difficult. In the following remarks, we shall keep them as much apart as possible. 1. Was poison given in the bolus? This question, we apprehend, will be answered in the affirmative by every person who takes an extended view of the symptoms of poisoning and of natural disease. No natural disease could produce a sense of burning from the throat to the epigastrium, so very sudden and so very acute : And that it arose from some acrid substance being swallowed, is rendered even more distinct by its being aggravated by each pill, and by its occurring immediately on their administration. We say immediately, not in the vague sense in which the word is used by witnesses even of the medical profession,-but in its most decided signification; for it is probable that but a few seconds would intervene betwixt the swallowing of each pill.-Several of the witnesses allowed that bile might have caused the sense of burning. But this was out of the question in the present case, as Dr Brown very properly mentioned. Bile would not cause a sense of burning so very acute; and besides, the sensation existed before the patient began to vomit. This appears, therefore, to be an instance in which, contrary to the opinion of Orfila and other medical jurists, a witness might swear to the fact of general poisoning from the symptoms only. [See our Number for last April. xxi. 411.] 2. Was poison given in the first draught prepared and administered by the prisoner? It caused immediate vomiting; but this is no proof of its having contained poison, and no other was adduced. 3. What was the poison in the bolus? In answering this question, it is requisite to pay some regard to the moral evidence. Suspicions being entertained, the answer must be given, if possible, with a view to these suspicions.-It appears highly probable, if not almost certain, that the poison was corrosive sublimate, and that it composed the greater part of the bolus or pills. This is shown by the violent sense of burning suddenly produced, such as scarcely any other solid poison could produce; by the speedy relief derived from the white of eggs; by the subsequent ptyalism; by the taste of the stuff on the marble slab where the bolus was compounded, or re-compounded; and by the fact that this poison was very nearly given a short while afterwards,-whether by accident or design, we do not at present inquire. Most of these grounds of opinion, especially the ptyalism, are singly equivocal, we admit; but, taken conjunctly with each other, and with the fact of general poisoning being already proved, they form a basis sufficiently substantial. When the case was first stated to us, we were disposed to think, that decisive evidence might be procured of the nature of the bolus, by learning whether the patient did or did not perceive the horrible and undisguisable taste of corrosive sublimate. But we must change that opinion. Our correspondent, to whom we applied for information on the subject, says, that she was so completely engrossed by the exquisite sufferings of the moment, that her physician could never get a clear answer from her concerning the taste of the pills. We shall assume that she did not perceive in them the powerful, acrid taste of the poison suspected. Had she been taking any article of food, or any thing but medicine, then we should most probably have said that corrosive sublimate could not have been taken. But many persons either purposely or involuntarily use means for preventing the taste of medicines being perceived. This may be effected either by holding the nose, or by bringing the velum pendulum palati over the internal opening of the nostrils. The latter mode, if prac tised dexterously, will enable one, as we have often personally experienced, to swallow untasted the most disgusting compost a physician could invent. Indeed, we have sufficient practical proof of the possibility of tastes being not perceived, in the frequent accidents arising from oxalic acid being mistaken for Epsom salt. No one would drain a bowl of strong oxalic acid if he perceived its taste. 4. But was there sufficient evidence that the third draught contained corrosive sublimate? The precipitates were indistinct in colour, as was to be anticipated from the draught containing a little laudanum; still they approached in appearance to their characteristic colours; and the inference that they indicated corrosive sublimate, was rendered good by the effects on gold, with the aid of galvanism. But why did not the experimenters evaporate a little of the solution, and use the test of sublimation? Why did they not try the sulphureous test? Why did they not prove the existence of hydrochloric acid, and thus show that the mercurial preparation could be nothing but corrosive sublimate? As their experiments stood, it might have been any other soluble salt of mercury as well as corrosive sublimate. These, to be sure, are also poisonous; but we must reprobate every appearance of want of precision in medico-legal inquiries. 5. Could the corrosive sublimate have been administered by mistake? This is properly a question which the jury alone should answer; but in this particular case it is one which requires much medical knowledge to answer correctly; at least a great deal more than either the jury could or the judge did possess. We shall therefore offer a few remarks upon it. If a mistake did exist, it must have been a systematic one, since the same substance was used twice. Hence the prisoner must have first mistaken corrosive sublimate in the crystalline, or powdered state, for calomel, or powdered opium; and then he must have mistaken a strong solution of sublimate for water. Dr Brown shows, that the first was an unlikely error. Mistaking corrosive sublimate for powdered opium was out of the question; and mistaking it for calomel was unlikely, as the former was in crystals and the latter in powder; and, besides, they were not so placed in the shop as to render a mistake probable. The second mistake was not dwelt on very fully at the trial: at least no circumstances regarding it were pressed for, except such as favoured the prisoner. Thus the medical witnesses agreed, that Mr Hodgson, being a man of information, must have known, that the draught he brought would strike the physician as differing in quantity, and perhaps even in appearance, from the one ordered; and likewise, that it was such as would be at once vomited by the patient, and consequently do little harm. We need not offer any remark on these statements; they are evidently of no weight, and cannot lead to any sound conclusion as to the prisoner's motives. But it is singular, that no attempt was made to prove the possibility or impossibility of the solution of corrosive sublimate being mistaken for water. Did the prisoner keep a solution in his shop? It appears not; for when he attempted to explain the supposed accident, he said, " He had prepared one for an injection for a sailor. " Could he have taken part of that injection? No. It was not strong enough. It contained but five grains to the ounce; and that which his wife was on the point of taking, supposing it to have been even thrice, (instead of " more than twice"), as much as what Dr Brown ordered, must have contained about 18 grains and a half per ounce. Mr Justice Bayley, following the humane practice among the English Judges of acting as counsel for the prisoner, suggested in his charge to the jury, (as we are informed by our Correspondent), that the corrosive sublimate might have got into the draught by having been accidentally dissolved in the laudanum. The absurdity of this conjecture may be forgiven in consideration of the principle which prompted him to hazard it. Of late, however, we have observed many parallel occurrences. It would be desirable, that when the Judge undertakes to make the physical sciences square with his ideas of the case, he would use more mercifully his privilege of infallibility. On the question of the prisoner's motive, we do not consider it necessary to offer any farther remarks. We have noticed it, because it hangs partly on medical evidence; and to this view of it we have confined ourselves. The prisoner was found Not Guilty; and therefore it would be equally indelicate and unnecessary to view the question with a reference to the other grounds of judgment. We recommend the case to the careful consideration of every student in legal medicine. The evidence, we repeat, is, on the whole, admirably correct; and we are assured it has been faithfully reported. The report we have followed is in the London Courier for August 21st. Medical Graduations at Edinburgh. On the 1st August, the Senatus Academicus of the University of Edinburgh, conferred the degree of Doctor in Medicine on the following Gentlemen (110 in number), after they had gone through the appointed examinations, and publicly defended their respective Inaugural Dissertations: Of Scotland. John Agnew, De Hepatitide. - Acuto. William Bogie, Hugh Donaldson, Gilb. Finlay Girdwood Ja. Craufurd Gregory, John McKenzie, J. Mainwaring Brander, De Sanguinis Dis Hydrocephalo Robert Chaffey, Scarlatina. Wm. Ross Chapman, Respiratione. Thomas Dowler, Remediis in Henry Gaulter, John McLaren, Alexander M'Queen, John McRae, William Malcom, - Apoplexia San-William Haslewood, Rheumatismo. Thomas Hingston, Pneumonia. John B. James, Corpus Humanum. John O'Donnell, Corde Ampli-G. Deare Meadows, Carcinomate. John Overend, Homines vel literis vel negotiis nimium dediti frequenter plectuntur. ato. Charles Philips, Uterina. - Phthisi Pul Alex. John Ralph, monali. Tetano. Volvulo. Rheumatismo. densi Legionem Reginæ Edmund Rendle, Nupera Febris T. Welbank Robinson, Continuæ Disciplina. James George Sim,. Thomas Spens, . Hepatitide John Savery, Scirrho Ven triculi. Febre Barba 11. 1816, 1817, -Vitalitate Sanguinis. Acido Muriatico et Chlorino. Acuta. Geo. Augustus Starling, Neuralgia. Geo, Fordyce Story, Glandula Thy roidea. Scarlatina. Robert J. N. Streeten, Quibusdam John Thompson, Plantis Medicinalibus. Charles Timm, John Taylor, William Thomson, James Thomson, Adam Turnbull, Nervorum Febre. Dyspepsia. Hydrocephalo Acuto. Delirio Trementi. Febre Typho. Ligatura Ar- Stethoscopio. - Hæmoptysi. From Berwick. Erysipelate Endemico. Febre Hecti ca. Alexander C. Young, - Epilepsia. Of England. Gervase Alexander, Calculis Urinariis. VOL. XXII. No. 81. Ff From Guernsey. tinuis generatim, sed præcipue de Typo. Peter Frederic De Jersey, Vitiis Huma Charles Curtin, Patrick Daly, Gilbert Elliot, Patrick Fitzpatrick, Robert Foley, Henry Fulton, Ophthalmia. Harpur Gamble, Auditus in Moribis Pectoris distingu endis. ositate Exorto. Cuthbert Finch, William John Geary, Usu Purgan- Henry Harington, - tium Mercurialium ampliori in Morbis John Brathwait Taylor, quibusdam sub nomine Febrium cog-| nitis. Thomas Godfrey, From Jamaica. per Venas. Hæmorrhagia Richard Bainbridge, . Rebus Obste- William M. Hawthorne,- Sanguinis Mis-James Lee Brodbelt, The Medical Lectures of the University of Edinburgh for the ensuing Session, commence on Wednesday the 28th of October. Dietetics, Materia Medica and Pharmacy, by Dr Duncan, Junior, at 8, a. m. Practice of Medicine, Dr Home, 9, a. m. Chemistry and Chemical Pharmacy, Dr Hope, 10, a. m. Institutes of Medicine, Dr Duncan, Senior, and Dr Alison, 11, a. m. Hospital, 12, noon. Anatomy and Pathology, Dr Monro, 1, p. m. Military Surgery, Dr Ballingall, 2, p. m. Midwifery and Diseases of Women and Children, Dr Hamilton, 3, p. m. Principles and Practice of Surgery, Dr Monro, 4, p. m. Clinical Medicine, Dr Home and Dr Duncan, junior, 4, p. m. Clinical Surgery, Mr Russell and Mr Alison, 5, p. m. During the Summer Session, Lectures will be given on the following |