THE TIMARU.

Auckland Star, Volume XVII, Issue 245, 18 October 1886, Page 2

THE TIMARU.

POISONING CASE.

(BY TELEGRAPH.— OWS CORRESPONDENT )

This Day's Proceedings.

Christchurch, this day. Tins jury wore drivon to Sumner vest* day, and looked all the bettor forth •' outing. Hall, on the other hand, eee S depressed, and appeared to feel hi 3 poeiti^ more keenly than ho did laet week Th trial was resumed on this, the seventh d a y at 10 a.m., when tho Crown called theM lowing new witnesses: — I'eter Schoronp, photographer, Christ church, said he had been engaged in photo graphy 20years, and wasnot awarooftheusa of antimony or any preparation of antimony in the business. A large number of chemi cals were used, many of which were deadly poisons. When you toll ~„ that antimony is not ui-ed in photography that is a matter of export knowledge? Yes. If you were not a photographer, yZ would not be likely to know that?-No. Eden .George, photographer, also gava evidence that antimony was not used.

Dv Syme, surgeon at the Chriatchurch Hospita', testified ih.t antimony waa a poison. He should define poison as a sabstance which when introduced into tie system endangered lifo by its chemical or physiological action on the organs of tlio body. Antimony acted on . the "■' syetem by causing great irritation to the organs of excretion, principally and the exhaustion and depression incidental to such execution. In searching f ot antimony, if administered, I ehould expect to tind it it tho liver, kidneys, stomach vomit, urine and execreta. Antimony may ba introduced into tho system by any method but however introduced its effects ' are more or leas tho same. Tao essential features are tho same. Tartar emetic as a poisonous n^ielent ha° antiirony. If a person died from taking tartar emetic, wit. noss should cay hu had beou poisoned by antimony. This would be the correct phrase to ute. A person might swallow a considerable quantity of mercury in its fluid state without harm, and it might pu» through the body without injury. People aro sometimes poisoned by mercury but to produce that result it must ba sub- " divided sufficiently to enter into the ; circulation. Load is a poison. The definiticn of poi?on as given is based chiefly on Dr. Losby. .-• g i To Mr Joynt: As a rule ho was retaih&i by the Crown to assist the prosecution in theso medico-lego,! cafe 3. Witness": knew that Professor Black had a groat^ reputation as a chemist, -'but had -not heard his reputation as a toxicologiet.-n Witness did not agree with him that poison was a non-scientific term. The definition. witness gave represents the usual acceptance of the term. If the vapour of antimony ■* were inhaled it would be poisonous. H& J believed that the vapour of antimony was: capable of being inhaled from a vacuum from which air was excluded. He did~ not profess to be an expert toxicolbgiffc ■ chemist, and had never discovered in what r form antimony had been introduced into the syetem. acoU Mr Joynt: I ask you now a3 an educated ' parson and a medical man, and a man who come 3 here to "give us a definition in toxicology and chemis-try, suppose a person were poisoned by nitrate of silver, would you consider you spoke correctly if you said1, that person was poisoned by a poison called silver ?—No.

Is silver a sub3tance]froin which a poitonoua solution can be produced by chemical combination ?— Yes.

To His Honor: Tartar emetic without antimony would leave a substance, viz., , Crfam of Tartar, which would be poisonous in large quantities, but by no meani poisonous in small quantities. All the poisons produced must necessarily cause death by phieiological action, al- : though perhaps not in the first instance. He had never been present at an analysis of organic substances for poison, , To the Attorney-General: If a person;:' died from taking tartar emetic witneei | should say ho had boen poisoned by ant!-1 mony. This cloEed the caaofor the Crown.