A vindication of character, and an examination of the accusations contained in Dr. T. Reyburn's supplement to the "St. Louis Medical and Surgical Journal" / by F. Knox.

  • Knox, F. (Franklin)
Date:
[1846]
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: A vindication of character, and an examination of the accusations contained in Dr. T. Reyburn's supplement to the "St. Louis Medical and Surgical Journal" / by F. Knox. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by the National Library of Medicine (U.S.), through the Medical Heritage Library. The original may be consulted at the National Library of Medicine (U.S.)

    16/28
    currences were ;; then about three years old. But, I have already shown that the description of the case did not enable me to decide that it was a case of which I had any knowledge. And now, as I am forced into it by gross charges, founded on implications'' drawn from im- pressions, I must go one step further, and show that the whole article, now that the case to which it applies is identified, is a tissue of false- hoods. It was not for me to say so, while I knew nothing about it ; for I do not charge gross delinquency on the strength of impressions and implications founded thereon. Hence, when Dr. Adreon said he had such a ca-e as was described, it was not for me to deny it; for how could I know he had not ? But, when I am to be convicted of gross charges, because I did not respond to an attack made on somebody, which is now asserted to have been me, it becomes my duty to show the utter falsehood of the whole story. I here, inasmuch as Dr. R. has proved Mrs. Dugan guilty of perjury, by a reference to his own testimony before the Court, (See page fci of his '' Supplement,) hope he will excuse me for alluding to a fact proved by myself, in conjunction with two other witnesses. It was proved by the testimony of Dr. White and myself, and the note of Rev. Mr. Light, that the only visit I made Mrs.D., in 1840, was made on the 25th April. I had personal knowledge, by the appearance of the edges of the opening, that the cut could not have been made less than about three days previous to that time. But what does the report say ? Why, that the tumor was opened on the 27th. I never visited or saw Mrs. Dugan, in 1840, after the 25th day of April; yet the charge of interference is on the 29th or 30th April. Rather considerate in giving two days for it, as it increased the probability of hitting the right one. I also knew, from the appearance of the skin around the opening, that there had been no perforations, and no '' state approach • ing to sphacelus. previous to my visit. That such symptoms may have appeared afterwards, as described by the consulting physicians, and indicated by her present aspearance, I do not say. I make no assertions, but of things that I know. In what the falsehood consisted and just what the truth would be, cannot, probably, be ascertained. The con- sulting physician, on the trial, could not speak of dates, as he had no written memoranda to guide him. The only writings to be relied on, are, it seems, Mr. Light's note and Dr. Adreon's case-look. Here, then, I had personal knowledge that the most striking and fun- damental points in the whole case were utter falsehoods — on the sup- position that, as is now proved, it related to Mrs. Dugan. The dates.