The New York herald., 1872-09-02
Probable Cause OF Miss Stein
o ecke's Death.
UREMIC POISONING.
Professor Aiken Repeats His Prus-
sic Acid Statement.
His Tests Perfect and Colors Un-
tN mistakable.

xue SCuOeppe-StelneCke case lS Stll the 0u-aO.
sorbing topic in this thriving inland village. The
progress made to-day, considering the nature Of
the testimony, was remarkable. The testimony of
Or. Conrad on the part Of the State was closed
Professor Fl. O. Wood was thoroughly examined by
tho defence, and the examination in chief Of Pro-
Sess0r William e. A. Aiken was exhausted, and
gave some questions as to the admissibility of
tain portions OF his evidence The general features
Of the trial were the same on the former days.
The counsel for the prosecution displayed the
partisan spirit that mad cropped out at every pre-.
vious stage Of the trial, and were positively
indecerous in their treatment OF Professor
Wood an expert for the defence. He delivered bis
sss.t!9yi = e aasy. sfasI!9ss manner, SsHst!sg
hausttve knowledge Of that portion Of the science
Of fmedictne which bears on this case. His sledge.
hammer blows completely
ANNIHILATED THE TESTIMONY OF DIR. CONRAD
In all it's parts. The theory of that gentleman and
his scientific assertions seemed to dissolve before
DR.. Woods remorseess analysis, like the mist be-
fsre the clear light Of morning. The jury, who
rather ninched at the prospect OF another day Of
medical beleaguerment, became gradually inter-
ested in his testimony. and requested to have
1t read to them after he had left the
stand; but the Court Informed them that
counsel would do that when they summed up the
case. DuriHg Its delivery the counsel for the
prosecution INDUCED in winks and mods and made
some disparaging remarks, which, to say the least
were unbecoming the digniged and courteous mem.
bers Of the bar Professor william Z. 4. Aiken fol.
lowed Professor Wood and was permitted to road
his testimony. He made but few alterations from
his old story, but was checked at that portion
where he relied upon his medical knowledge, as it
was decided in the great Wharton case that he was
NOT competent as q medical expert. This point
win be argued on Monday and q decision rendered
BY us VIZ f
JUDGE JUNKM.
Some criticisms rather disparagfng to the last.
named ot1cer have been telegraphed from this city
press and it Is but simple justice to the Judge
to say that they are false in every particular He
is thorough and able lawyer possesses the conf
dence Of the people in an unusual degree, and has
conducted this trial with the utmost impartiaity
and fairness. The Court convened as usual at nine
O'Clock The prisoner with his guard Of honor
entered the court room in his usual nonchalant
manner, and took q seat with his counsel.
DR.. Nicholas G. Ridgley was called for the prose-
cution this morning, but did not respond. The
defence then stated that they had q witness who
was obliged to leave town, and. as they wished him
to refute DR.. Conrad's testimony, they moved that
he might be examined now. The Court ruled that
II the witness would say his oath that his public
admitted at this time.
TESTIMONY OF PROFESSOR WOOD.
DR.. Horatio 9. Wood Jr.. Of Philadelphia was then
affirmed and said:| am connected with the
Pennsylvania Hospital; my duties as an ofilcer Of
that hospital require my presence there. He was
then permitted to testify Am at present Professor
Of Botany in the Medical Department or the
University of Pennsylvania; am also clinical
lecturer on diseases Of the nervous
system In the same institution, having
under my charge all cases Of that nature which
come to the dispensary and hospital service Of the
institution; and further, Of the visiting phys-
clans to the Philadelphia Hospital and lecturer
chemical medicine there; lecturer on ordinary med
icine; have been resident physician to the Phila-
delpha Hospital the largest in the city; have also
been resident physician to the Pennsylvania Hos
pitai; during the war was physician in no less
than four or i've Of the largest government hospi-
ta. in New Jersey Philadelphia Warrington % &c,
noS Dost naUr morsems IN my 'esS oca psScs
y-i HAVE HEARD DR. CONRAD's EVIDENCE.
elimination Of Miss Steineckes body was sum
Cientiy complete and exhaustive to establish the
fact that death was not caused by natural disease
q State your reasons for that opinion, Ia the
requires thorough examination Of every organ Of
the body, and, according to DR.. Conrad's sworn
Testimony. mlCrOSCOplC6l
sequently, not . complete examination OF any
organ; further, some OF the most common causes OF
sudden death are to be found In the Kidneys and the
spinal cord, neither OF which organs was looked at
ct ALL further still, according to DR.. Conrads tes
mony be did not notice how much blood ran out OF
she brain on the table when he opened the skull,
and consequently, In my opinion, It is impossible
20 state whether there was or was not congestion
Of the brain during life the sS0
% Did you understand DR.. Conrad to state that
his reasons for denying the existence OF
CONTRACTED KIDNEYS
were the non-occurrence Of changes In the spleen
and liver similar to those seen In contracted Kid
neys, and the fact that the symptoms detailed were
not those Of that disease II so, Is he correctY A.
are not evidence Of the non.ex}stence Of granular
or contracted kidneys.
Q. DR.. Conrad stated that the heart was healthy,
put tnat ne dill not examine 1t mcrOscopically; is
or Is not his opinion Of value on this point A. in
my opinion, his opinion under that examination Is
q. WHY nots A. Because IL is impossible for the
best patho0gst In all cases to decide that the walls
aminations; some little time since made o post
morton In 2 case OF sudden death In the presence
OF Df. Da Costa, now Professor OF the Theory and
Practice Of Medicine in Jefferson College, and Ger
tsinly as high as any, Y not the highest authority In
opened and he took It to the window, examined Il
closely and pronounced u =. certainly hsaithy, and 4
determine; took it home, and under the micro
scope found the muscle In On advanced condition
OF granular degeneration. "a -..r -.
IN Miss Stenecke's case suf1cientIy carefully made
20 disprcvc IN any sense, the presence 0 lesion
diseased condition A. In my opinion u was moi
sufnctent to disprOve E4 .ttt
THE FoLLowIHa DISEASED CONDITIONS =
FIRST, as have already stated, simple conges
tIon; second, seriors apopexy; third, atheroma
tons degeneration OF the small vessels OF the brain
fourth, multiple or military aneurismB; fifth
tnromDusis OF the small vessels OF the brain lby
the term small I mean microscopic); sixth
localized s0fening from any cause the reasons for
my not believing In the disproof OF the first named
Dccn
me 10 say anything on the second head, because
Drf Conrad In his cross-exami1atiOn stated himself
that DIS examination was not complete enough
20 dispr0ve the presence of serous
ap0pexy; I make Similar answer In the
fourth case. The n"ctor admitted that