Part 11 (2/2)
”No. There was evidence of the existence of Bright's disease, but not sufficient to adjudge it a cause of death.”
”But you are certain that she had Bright's disease?”
”Yes, sir.”
”That is all.”
Professor Orton then took the stand for the prosecution. Under the questioning of Mr. Munson, he described himself to be an expert a.n.a.lytical chemist and toxicologist. He said that he was a lecturing professor connected with the University Medical College, and clinical chemist for two other schools, besides being president of several societies, and member or honorary member in a dozen others. Then, proceeding to a description of his work on this particular case, he explained in almost tedious detail his methods of searching for morphine in the organs taken from the body of the deceased. Some of these tests he repeated in the presence of the court, showing how, by the reaction of his testing agents upon the matter under examination, the presence or absence of morphine could be detected. Having thus paved the way towards the special evidence which he was expected to give, his examination was continued as follows:
”Now then, Professor,” said Mr. Munson, ”you have proven to us very clearly that you can detect the presence of morphine in the tissues.
Please state whether you examined the organs of the deceased, and with what result?”
”I made a most thorough examination and I found morphine present, especially in the stomach and in the intestines.”
”Did you find it in poisonous quant.i.ties?”
”The actual quant.i.ty which I found, would not have been a lethal dose, but such a dose must have been administered for me to have found as much as I did find.”
”Well, from what you did find, can you state what quant.i.ty must have been administered?”
”I cannot state positively, but I should guess----”
”No! No! I object!” cried Mr. Bliss, jumping up. ”You are here to give expert testimony. We do not want any guess-work!”
”Professor,” said the Recorder, ”can you not state what was the minimum quant.i.ty which must have been administered, judged by what you found?”
”It is difficult, your Honor. The drug acts variably upon different individuals. Then again, much would depend upon the length of time which elapsed between the administration, and the death of the individual.”
”Then in this case your opinion would be a mere speculation and not competent,” said the Recorder, and Mr. Bliss seated himself, satisfied that he had scored another point. But he was soon on his feet again, for Mr. Munson would not yield so easily.
”Professor,” said he, ”you said in reply to his Honor, that you could not answer without knowing how long before death the drug had been administered. Now with that knowledge would you be able to give us a definite answer?”
”A definite answer? Yes! But not an exact one. The drug is absorbed more rapidly in some, than in others, so that one person might take two or three times as much as another, and I would find the same residuum. But I could tell you what was the minimum dose that must have been administered.”
”Well, then, supposing that the drug had been administered about three hours before death, how large must the dose have been, or what was the minimum quant.i.ty that could have been given, judging by what you found?”
”I must object to that, your Honor!” said Mr. Bliss.
”Your Honor,” said Mr. Munson, ”this is a hypothetical question, and perfectly competent.”
”It is a hypothetical question, your Honor,” replied Mr. Bliss, ”but it contains a hypothesis which is not based upon the evidence in this case. There has been absolutely no testimony to show that morphine was administered to this woman about three hours before death.”
”We have a witness who will testify to that later,” replied Mr.
Munson, and this announcement created no little sensation, for here was promised some direct evidence.
”Upon the understanding,” said the Recorder, ”that you will produce a witness who will testify that morphine was administered three hours before death, I will admit your question.”
<script>