New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1893-12-14

that II was arsenic and each test told the same
story--lt arsenic and nothing bu, arsenic
PROFESSOR CmTrENDEy FINE WITNESS.
Professor Chitterden produced set OF the tubes In
which those tests had occurred and. Professor Dore-
mus had previously done, he explained TO the jury
the contents OF each tube and the processes ana re-
kidney developed IL trace OF anthony. and his
conclusions were that the organs submitted 10 his
examinations furnished undoubted evidence " the
presence Of arsenic In large quantities and un-
doubted evidence OF the presence or anthony IN
small quantities.
Dr. chlttenden made an extremely clear wit
ners He was not an expert Win a police instinct met
noticeably present In the manner OF Professor Dore
mus he gave his testimony, but 1t was wholly alb
sent from that OF Professor Chttenden. The Yale
professor presented the facts in the manner Of a
man who neither knew nor cared what conolu-
under cross-examinaion this Circumstances rendered
his testimony partcula rly effective. Here are some
O. IL there Inference. Doctor to be drawn
from the way In which the antimony and asenic
were distributed throughout the body? A. I think
Professor Chlttenden said that he was here at the
District Attorneys command and without n fee
He had not seen human being suffer from the
toxic effects OF antmony or arsenic put he could
had never conducted experiments as to the post
Mr. osulIivan read to Professor Chittendcn the
views Of other eminent men and asked him II he
added that they not applicable to the
dtlons OF the organs OF Baum.
crsmer =" were YOU not? A."Yes ''''''e
Q-And you testified that you found arsenic in
her body. didn't you? Ayes. ! so testified. and
] did find the arsenic.
Q-The defendants were acquitted were they
Q-iy MIR NicoIl: But it was not their defence
A-Not AZ ALL Il couldn't have been. for | found
the arsenic There was no question about the
arsenic being there. found 1t Just az have found
1t here.
Q-What are they? Alt Is clear to my mind
that the anthony and arsenic could not have been
administered absorbed after death. The ex-
ternal portion Of the body contained a very small
amount OF either poison.
(Which of the two poisons passed into
the body FIRST? A-The anthony first. the arsenic
last.
Q.--why do you think so? A-Because the
elimination of anthony Is rapid. by further in>
designations | discovered the amount of arsenic In
the brain compared with the amount In the body
as small and that indicates that the arsenic must
have been taken In some comparatively insoiube
form
Q.-Is II possible that this body might have alb.
sorbcd these poisons? A.-That Is very improbable.
II IL did, they travelled from the outside soil ana
reached the inside portions Of the body without
leaving any trace.
Professor Chttenden was permitted to 60
There too much mathematical exactness about
his testimony TO serve the purposes OF the defence
DR. George l.. Peabody Of Columbia College was
on the stand when the court adjourned. Mr.. Nico,l
submitted DR.. Peabody n pa biologist his hypo-
thctlcal question but Mr. Brooke objected to its
form In a great many particulars, and success
fully that Mr.. Nicoll finally withdrew the question
FOR amendment and declared that he would submit
another at the opening OF court to-day. on the
mere fact. however, OF the contents OF Baunl's