Millett v. Edmonds : explanatory statement of the defendant.

  • Edmonds, Frederic.
Date:
1865
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Millett v. Edmonds : explanatory statement of the defendant. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by The Royal College of Surgeons of England. The original may be consulted at The Royal College of Surgeons of England.

    75/80
    Dr. Geoghegan's case, the evidence of poisoning was very clear from other circumstances. A man who came in and ate some of the greens very nearly lost his life, but in the present case the circum- stances were very different. I am not in the least aware of having adopted his views in the present case. I should never have under- taken the analysis at all but for an order tliat I received from the Secretary of State, calling upon me to do so, because all of the parties concerned were unknown to me. If death had been accele- rated by chloroform, it would have produced congestion of the lungs. Defendant wrote me one or two letters, which I answered. Cross-examined by Mr. Karslake : I received the order from the Secretary of State the same day as I saw Superintendent Miller. It was at my own suggestion that the depositions were sent to me. I had not before me the certificate given by the medical men, but I read it in the newspaper. I founded my opinion partly upon the newspapers and partly upon the depositions. I do not like making suggestions upon newspaper reports generally. Such case of death as the present of chronic hydrocephalus, terminating with apoplexy, are very rare, but serous apoplexy is common enough. Chronic hydrocephalus is very rare, because nearly all who suffer from water on the brain die early. Out of fifteen or sixteen cases not more than one reaches the age of twenty. A person with water on the brain is alw^iys in peril. In cases of apoplexy insensibility or unconsciousness is generally very rapid. I have known it to be immediate. I have had no evidence of giddiness—simply of headache. In cases of narcotic poisoning I have not found headache to be a substitute for giddiness. Headache would be the result of a small dose of narcotic poison administered medicinally. In larger doses it would produce drowsiness and numbness, and so would deaden pain. Then stupor intervened. I should say in this case it was coma at once. I have heard this day—and it has come upon me for the first time—that something like snoring began when the deceased fell back upon the sofa. That would be a clear indication of pressure on the brain. I should not give up the search for narcotic poison because I had not found congestion of the brain. If I were looking for the cause of death I should look at the brain before coming to a conclusion about narcotic poisoning. In some cases convictions have been obtained without any alkaloidal poisons being found in the body. The deceased went upstairs immediately after dinner, and was there for an hour as usual, and I can find