A manual of medical jurisprudence / by Alfred Swaine Taylor.

Date:
1886
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: A manual of medical jurisprudence / by Alfred Swaine Taylor. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh. The original may be consulted at the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh.

    40/872 (page 26)
    MEDICAL WITNESSES. EXAMINATION-IN-CIIIEF. of arsenic. In another case, strychnine was found in some cocoa of which a lady had partaken. The fact was communicated by the medical attendant to a magistrate; and thus the medical man was relieved of further responsibility. In a third case a woman was seen by three medical men in consultation; and two of them were of opinion that she was being slowly poisoned by antimony. The third was of a contrary opinion. Some urine from the patient was forthwith sent for analysis. No antimony was found; and the patient died very shortly afterwards from cancer of the abdominal viscera. Each case must be treated on its own merits. The error committed by medical men is on these occasions, not in claiming a privilege of con- cealment, but in allowing a doubt upon so serious a question to remain in their minds for days or weeks. This question was brought into prominence at the trial of Dr. Pritchard at Edinburgh (July, 1865), on the charge of poisoning his wife with antimony. One of the medical witnesses, who saw3 the deceased a fortnight before her death, and at other times, stated in his evidence at the trial that he suspected she was suffering from the effects of antimony when he first saw her, but it seems that there the matter was allowed to remain. No one was accused, but no step was taken to prevent the continuance of the poisoning, the suspicion of which turned out to be well-founded. Lord Justice Clerk, who tried this case, is reported to have said that no notions of medical etiquette should he permitted to interfere with those higher duties which every right-minded man owes to his neighbour, and which are to be expected in a tenfold degree from every medical man, because his life is solemnly devoted to the preservation of life and the prevention of its destruction. Examination-in-chief.—The ordinary course of proceeding in a criminal case is thus concisely stated by Stephen, J. After opening the case, the counsel for the Crown calls the witnesses, and examines them according to the rules of evidence—that is, he brings out, by questions which do not suggest their answers, the facts relevant to the issue to be tried which are within his personal knowledge. Those questions which do suggest the answers, are called leading’ questions. With one exception it is not the practice to allow these to be put in this part of the examination. The exception is : ‘ When the judge is satisfied, either by a witness’s demeanour or by con- tradictions between the evidence and the depositions, that he is trying to keep back the truth and favour the prisoner, he may, in his discretion, allow the counsel for the Crown to ask leading questions and, as the phrase is, to treat the witness as hostile.’ When the examination-in-chief is closed, the next step is the cross- examination. Cross-examination.—In this, the second stage, the counsel for the prisoner extracts from the medical witness, by questions which may suggest the answers in the strongest form, any facts that may appear to be favourable to his client, and which he believes to be within the witness’s knowledge. Leading questions are not only allowable in