TIMARU MURDER CASE.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 7784, 31 January 1887, Page 3

TIMARU MURDER CASE.

SUPREME COURT,

CRIMINAL SESSIONS. Saturday, January 29.

(Before his Honor Mr Justice Williams and a Special Jury.) SIXTH DAY OP THE TRIAL.

I Thomas Hall was again placed in the dock upon the charge that he, on the 9th January 1886, did feloniously, wilfully, and with malice aforethought, kill and murder one Henry Cain. Mr B. C. Haggitt (Crown prosecutor at Dunedin), assisted by Mr White (Crown prosecutor at Timaru), appeared for the Crown; Mr F. R. Chapman, with him Mr J. E. Denniston (instructed by Mr Ptrry, of Timaru) for the defence. The case was resumed at 10 a.m. Mr Haggitt: Dr Ogston, I understand, has looked up the matter your Honor yesterday requested him to, and is now able to give the information your Honor requires. Dr Ogston, whose examination was resumed said: I have looked up so far as I could several' authorities, and have the books here I find several things to go upon as we wished. The farst I would refer to is "Carpenter's Pinsiologv." page 159, where he says *3 ' His Honor: Give us the conclusion you have framed from the books? .Witness: Certain substances easily soluble may appear m the urine 12 minutes after being taken if taken after a substantial meal. Another substance—fero-cyanide of potassium—if taken on an empty stomach, has been found in the bladder from one to two and a-half minutes •!? r i,br eL DS tl _5en' Then in a German book whioh I have here, speaking of arsenic, it says: it is round m urine even after five or six hours lhat means as soon as five or six hours. The more soluble compound of arsenic—arsenite of potash—has beeu found an hour afterwards. • _L IS?- on J 0, r: l UQderstand the antimony found m the bladder, therefore, may have been taken withm a short period of death ? ! „ Witness■' Yes-1 have a last reference here from laylor on poisons," with regard to antimony may fay when speaking of arsenic, the author says These remarks apply to antimony." J.aylor speaking of poisons, page 30, says "It may be found in the urine passed a few hours atterwards.' If your Honor would allow me, I would remark.on the great inconvenience I have been put to in this case by the want of a medical library at the University. I have had to borrow books trom my friends. I should like to state that publicly, because of the great inconvenience 1 have been put to. His Honor : In time, I hope, our resources will enable ns to have a sufiicient medical library a* the University. It is a question of money.

Mr Chapman : Wool is rising, your Honor.— (Laughter.) His Honor: It may be detected then, but it does not follow that it was administered within a few hours. Is it not possible that antimony found m the urine may be the elimination of a quantity of antimony administered a very considerable time before ?

Witness: Oh, yes. His Honor: _ Though it may have been administered a short time before, you cannot say that it was ? J Witness: I cannot. His Honor: The antimony found in the intestines had not teen absorbed, I understand ? Witness: That had not been absorbed. In certain conditions of the stomach it is thrown down as au insoluble compound. That would occur in cases where the patient was suffering trom wasting disease and not taking food •in cases where the appetite is destroyed. -Hw Honor: Could you tell how long before death this antimony so thrown down must have been taken ?

Witness: Well, if there were no digestion going on the antimony might remain any time. Antimony is soluble in acids, and there may be no antimony absorbed if there are no acids freed irom the stomach. In ordinary cases gastric juice is thrown out to meet any food that is thrown down. That acid acts upon the food and breaks it up, but where digestion is destroyed, or very greatly weakened, there would be no gastric juice thrown oat, and consequently the antimony would not be dissolved. .Eis Honor: I gather from what you say that you really caunot tell when this antimony that was_ m the intestines was administered; that it might have been administered the moment before death for all you know? Witness: Yes, some of it. His Honor: Or at any time before. You have nothing to guide you as to the period before death when it was administered ? Witness: No, I think not. His Honor: The antimony that was found in the intestines had not been acted upon by the gastric juice ?

Witness: Quite so. His Honor: Is it possible that when a dose of antimony has been taken part of it may be acted upon by the gastric juices, be absorbed and go into the circulation, and that another part of it might remain in the intestines ? Witness .* Oh yes. His Honor: Is there anything to show the time and the amount of the doses ? Witness: Nothing at all. His Honor: Could you tell from the examination of the body whether there were any indications of uremic poisoning? Witness: I saw none. His Honor: Would you have seen them if any had been present ? _ Witness: I should have expected to find extensive disease of the kidneys, which even the decayed state of the body would have shown. His Honor: Supposing you had known nothing of Captain Cain during life, and just examined the body, what would you have said apart from finding antimony? Witness: I should have said that he died from valvular disease of the heart. His Honor: Is not this the case : that a man may have died of antimony poisoning and yet on post mortem examination you may not find a quantity enough to constitute a fatal dose? Witness: I might not find any poison. His Honor: A man might be poisoned by antimony and yet you find no antimony in

Witness: Many cases are recorded of persons who have died from poisoning and no poison found after death.

Mr Chapman : Of antimony ? Witness: Of arsenic. His Honor: Did you make any calculation of the quantity of antimony you found ? Witness: I did not.

To Mr Haggitt: All the blood I found in the body and in the heart was in a fluid state. That is not the case where death results from gradual failure of the vital parts. If it had been a case of death from gradual failure of the vital parts I should have expected to find clots. Fluidity of the blood is given as one of the signs of antimonial poisoning. We found a considerable quantity of. blood in the pleural cavity, and 1?-? ili / tbafc in every case of slow death. That blood was accumulating during the last few hours of life.

t^_l Ha Seifct: If sickness was caused by disease of the kidneys, what would be the particular cause of the sickness in such a case ?—lt would be what is called uremic poisoning. If uremic poisoning existed, would one expect to find a urinous odour in the breath which would be pretty well marked ? Witness: I believe that is always the case in uremic poisoning, and it would be very noticeable. With sickness the result of uremic poisoning you would probably have constant nausea A man who was suffering from uremic poisoning would not be likely to enjoy his breakfast. I think there was no uremic poisoning in Captain Cam s case. From what I have heard Captain Cain could eat food inthe morning, he had turns of appetite and was not squeamish all day, and the sickness came on after meals. These symptoms were inconsistent with uremic poisoning The dropsy I think was caused by heart disease I should say the symptoms described during the last hours of Captain Cain's life—drowsiness, feewere caused by the gradual failure of the system. At the post mortem the bronchial tubes appeared healthy, and I think the fluid in the pleura and the state of the heart accounted for the cough The defective heart action would lead to the accumulation of fluid in thelowerpart of the lungs, and this fluid would get into the bronchial tubes. There was no enlargement or disease of the glands of the bowel or belly. Cross-examined by Mr Chapman: The glands of the belly did not stand out as they would have done if diseased. I did not examine the kidneys microscopically. Ifc was impossible to do so; they were too soft. I did not examine the brain. I" did not open the head.because we should have found the brain ma state of fluidity. I have examined bodies after interment both in Prague and in Aberdeen. The only case I could recall without my notes was one child. In that case the body had beenbuned a few weeks. There was another case m which the body of a man laid under the mud at the bottom of a mill pond for four months. It did not pass through my mmd at the 2 }ost mortem that there had been uremic poisoning. I looked at the kidney and could not discover advanced disease of the kidney. So far as I could judge the kidneys appeared healthy. There would be no change to any material extent in the size of the kidney in the state it was in after death. A medical-legal examination in a case like this is a blank sheet to me; I have to find out what is written on it. The kidneys were of about the normal size; We do not find the kidneys contracted in all cases of disease. In some cases of Bright's disease they are larger than the normal size; in some smaller, and in some cases they are of normal size. I went to the post mortem without any idea of the cause of death, but mainly to search for a particular irritant poison. The object of the post mortem was to remove certain patts so as to search for poison and also to discover the cause of death. The body was only partly removed from the coffin. I think I had information as to the symptoms during life before making the 2>ost mortem ; but I should not note them down. We did not make notes at the post mortem. It hm been my practice to take notes at the }}OSt mortem table. I used generally to dictate my notes to some assistant. I noted the external appearances first, ahd then completed the whole of the internal examinations befcre taking notes, but made the notes before clotiug the bor'y. I did not dictate notes to anyone on this oca-sion. I followed the English system of not taking the notes. I found that a written formal report is not necessary in English courts, and therefore did not lake notes. My private opinion is that the Scotch system is the best. I suppose when a perse n comes to where loose customs aro adopted he follows them.

Mr Chapman: Is that the kind of dc ctrin* you propose to inculcate here?—l find the custom prevalent in English legal foi ms, and I cannot alter it; at least I am not awa.e that I can.

You admit that the English practice Is a loose one?— Yes.

Are you aware of the actual practice of the best men in making post mortem, iv England and in New Zealand?—l do not know anything about New Zealaud. I know that it is not the practice in England to make notes at a post mortem.

| Do you say you know it is not the practice of careful investigators to make notes as they proceed at a post mortem?— lt is not the usual practice among English medical men. But you say it is in Scotland ?—Tes, and in Prague the notes are taken in duplicate. I have been in America. The law there is much the same as it is in England and the colonies. « w7* Chapman: Do you agree with this caution: These examinations (post mortem examinations) should be made with more than usual care. The external inspection of the body and the examination of all the viscera should be thorough and detailed. Every appearance should be noted at the time, aud nothing left to the memory"?—So far I agree with him, if the body is fresh, and if there is any object for examining minutely; but every medical jurist is accustomed to take his own way. I have never failed to remember for month's afterwards any case I have seen. I can trust my memory as to details, and it is not necessary'for me to take notes. |

You think that confidence supersedes a direction of this kind?—l do. In Scotland you were of a different opinion ?— I followed the practice there. Considering I had been working from half-past 7 until halfpast 1 the following morning, I think I was quite excusable for leaving my notes that night, and_ besides there were no conveniences for taking notes there. I have looked over tht.» to make 6ure they were all there. I never found yet thst my memory failed me in a case of this sort. I made notes three or four days ago and gave them to the Crown prosecutor. I have not seen them since. Dr Hogg looked over them and he concurred. The phrase " The notes which I have used I made only a few days ago " must mean the notes which have been used by Mr Haggitt, were made two or three days ago. Dr Hogg looked over the notes, and there were one or two poinls which he thought had not been described perhaps fully enough, and we made one or two trifling additions. My examination yesterday was made wider than my notes. The examination this morning proceded on the notes Dr Hogg and I had signed. I.was examined this morning on a supplemental note. Had you asked for the same notes I would have given them. Mr Chapman: Would you in the middle of your examination be prepared to give notes to the defence in order that you might be examined upon them?—l see no reason why I should not. An .expert is not here to give evidence for a particular side, but to bring out the facts of the case. - ' < Were these notes asked for or were they given voluntarily ?—They were asked for. Witness continued: For my description of these post mortem appearances, I rely on my memory for four montbs. In natural death from failure of the heart I should expect to find clots in every case of slow death. I did not form an absolute opinion from that that death was unnatural, but there was something unusual about it; it was suspicious. Uremic poisoning ends in coma. The smell of urine from the breath would probably be noticed by the patient and complained of. I have seen a case in which antimony has been used with benefit for asthma, but never heard of it being used with cigarettes. The druggist know 6 nothing about disease, and is incompetent to advise. Both doctors and druggist sometimes make experiments. A cigarette containing antimony might poison by contact with the lips. We did not search for vegetable poisons. They were mentioned to us, but I said decay was so far advanced, the body had been so long there, that I, put it to him, "Is it any use looking for them?" That was after forming my own opinion that it was useless to look for vegetable poisons. Mr Chapman: That is the position you takeone of extreme modesty ?—No; one of. courtesy.

You did not intend to follow Dr Hogg's opinion ?—lf Dr Hogg had said we must look for it we would have looked for it.

' Witness continued: I do not say with regard to all alkaloids that I would not search for them. My opinion is that it would be of no use looking for them after death, but we did not finally abandon the idea of searching for these poisons until we found antimony. If we had not found antimony we should have sought for other poisons. It was our duty to find a deadly poison, and also to seek for the cause of death. I should not expect to find colchicum or atropia a long time after death. It would surprise me to find that experts had found those poisons a considerable period after death. If you get a perfectly fresh body you might find those poisons.

(Continued on Page //.)