Morning journal and courier., 1882-05-03

the stutfing was not cotton, it would test the accuracy of your memorandum, would 1t not ?
 Witness-I did not take out the cotton myself. Dr. Prudden removed jt in my 1 presence
 Mir. Case--On the hypothesis that Dr. | Prudden removed one third of the brain and l the other two-thirds was placed back in the l skull, then your calculation is erroneous, is it not provided it was there when you weighed it
 Witness-T hardly think SO.
 At this point-12:45-a recess was ordered until o'clock
 Afternoon. DR. CHITTENDEN's FURTHER CROSS -ExANI1NA-
 TIoN-THE QUESTION OF ARSENIC POISON
 ING.
 The court room was quickly filed many more being present at the opening of the doors than could be accommodated. James AIalley, ST., talked with his son few minutes before the cross examination of Professor Chittenden was resumed. For an hour or so before dinner Edward Malley had been in the court listening to the proceedings.
 Doctor, said Mir, Case in beginning for the afternoon, here is what is called 6 piece of excelsior. Do you recognize this as being in whole or in part like that which was placed in that body?
 The witness answered-It is my opinion that it was cotton that was used It did oc- cur to me that it was important to inquire whether the remainder of the brain was in the skull. I supposed that knew. Tho skull was not examined at this time The body was taken from the coffin, the clothes re- moved and the body placed upon the table. I saw the stitches running down the middle line of the body and knew that an autopsy had been made. I did not think to inquire whether there any stuffing inside. The body was opened to make an examina- ton and remove any further organs that remained This after the body had been first weighed. I went there with the determination of getting the dia- phragm. I can't tell at whose suggestion the body was opened. After the stitches were taken out the body was opened, the stufing taken out and also the diaphragm. I am pretty willing to sa, that the remaining DOT tion of the heart was not in the cavity which I examined. I did not touch the cavity, but 1 don't think it was because I saw nothing of it. I saw Dr. Whittemore there and saw him
 
 compared notes with him. When the portions were weighed announced the weights aloud I showed him my memoranda but don't re member whether I showed him the weights on my memoranda.
 Here MT. Case took Dr. Whittemores note book and asked the witness if it was not so that the board was first weighed and found to weigh sixteen pounds, then the body and board weighed and found to weigh seventy three pounds, then the body was opened and the stuffing removed, and the body again weighed and found to weigh sixty six pounds, and then deducting the board, the weight of the body was fifty pounds.
 Witness said no.
 And did you give these figures to Dr. Whit temore?
 I did not with emphasis.
 On the hypothesis that the bone and tissue of the body at the time of the elimination weighed only fifty pounds instead of fifty seven, your estimate is wrong, is it not The total amount of arsenic would be re- duced
 Upon that hypothesis it would.
 The witness said he took the weights of the board and of the body himself
 Mr. Case-You still insist that the body from which you took portions weighed y pounds?
 know it, sir.
 From your failure to find arsenic in the right thigh bone do you draw the deduction that there was no arsenic in the bones of that body?
 I have not so stated I expected that if there was arsenic in any of the bones I should find 1t in this bone.
 Why did you analyze that bone separate ly?
 Because in careful work it is customary to do this to trace the absorption of the arsenic. In this case 1t was to determine whether ar- senic had entered into the bones of the body,
 What proportion of the weight of the body did the bones form?
 They might weigh ten pounds. I would not undertake to say very closely.
 Mir. Case-You find arsenic in various parts of the body. You make up your calculation of the whole quantity on the basis that the portions of the body you have not examined contain as much arsenic as those that you did And yet the deductions being that the bones contained no arsenic why do you in- clude their weight in estimating the arsenic for the whole body?
 The witness-Some of the heaviest bones I analysed, the pelvic and some of the other bones.
 MT. Case-That's very well as far as it in- cluded the bones you analysed, but DO fur ther. And yet you state that it is the natural deduction that because the thigh bone con- tained no arsenic none of the other bones did. Why did you not eliminate the weight of the bone altogether in making up your estimate for the total?
 Witness-Simply because in my analysis I used and weighed in an average portion of the bone. The transverse section, for exam pie, was about nine-tenths bone, having been selected for that purpose so as to maintain the average.
 Is it the fairness of chemical analysis to put in such undue proportion of bone when it contains arsenic whatever?
 It is when done for the purpose did it.
 No doubt of it (sarcastically).
 MT. Case announced that this closed the cross examination.
 MT. Doolittle began the redirect by re- beating, in the form of question, what the witness had stated in regard to including fair proportion of bony tissue in the sample mixture, thus making the estimate he had given fair one.
 The witness continued; At the time of the exhumation I did not examine the head for the remainder of the brain as l under stood it had been removed
 The witness then told how he knew what part of the weight of the heart had been given him from the structure of the piece The heart was divided into four parts by two auricles and two ventricles. He had been given one of the small ventricles. That part of the liver g given him weighed little more than Q pound and half. The average weight or 8 human liver IS rom three to nVe pounds. He took the smallest of these fig ures for his estimate, calculating that the pound and 8 half was only one-half the or gan.
 The witness described his experiments with dogs to show the effects of soluble as compared with insoluble arsenic.
 Prof. Chittenden-I tried large number of experiments to compare the influence and effects of soluble with those of insoluble doses. I took two dogs-coach dogs. One gave 10O4 grains of white oxide of arsenic, which is the more insoluble form. I gave it in divided doses during period of seven days; gave it under circumstances the most favorable for the absorbing of the arsenic. took another dog of the same size and treated him with six grains of arsenic in the form of Fowlers solution. The next morning gave him II grains of arsenic acid, another soluble solution. In 20 minutes he vomited up some of it. After 24 hours he was killed and the brain removed for the analysis. The other dog having 10O3 grains of the more insoluble form, taking it during seven days, had been killed at the end of the seven days. Both brains were carefully analysed. The brain of the dog which had the smaller quantity of arsenic of the more soluble, dissolvable form contained more than double the quantity of arsenic than the brain of the dog that had the 100 grains in the more insoluble form. This simply corroborated the experiments of Scol-