The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1902-03-11

permitted to answer a question as TO
whether DR.. Donlin said at the end Of the
post mortem, ''the old mans time had
come. He died of old age, and that's all
there is to it."
The defense then asked permission to
recall DR.. Donlin to ask the question Of
him, and Prosecuting Attorney Osborne
asked time to decide whether he should
object to the request.
DIR. Z. A. Lee, a surgeon, who said he
had administered chloroform about 5000
times, was then called. The odor of chloro-
form, he said, was a lasting one. and
should be noticeable for more than an hour
after its use. The tendency Of the drug
was to excite the person to whom it was
given. In the circumstances described by
Charles +. Jones on the witness stand he
would expect the patient to struggle and
knock off the bedclothes. Jones said Rice
did not move.
Mr.. Moore, of Patrick's counsel, described
to DR.. Lee in a hypothetical question Of
great length the condition shown by the
autopsy of Mr.. Rice's body. and asked
what. in his opinion, was the cause OF
death. The witness replied that he would
say it was due to congestion of the lungs
oAA NAoNoGt0 hAAAiNgos Al y hABhyiho oH
described to him. he said. did not show
that the heart was a factor in the cause of
death. DR.. Lee said c~oextensive congestion
of the lungs would be caused by pneu-
monia. Replying TO a question, he said
that chloroform was not combustible.
Cross-eXamined by DR.. Osborne, the wit
ness told the component parts of chloro-
form, and said that a cloth saturated with
the drug would burn in fifteen minutes or
so when all the parts but the alcohol had
evaporated. The vapor Of chloroform, he
said. was not an active irritant. He held
a bottle Of the anaesthetic close to his
tongue for a few moments and then placed
Ii close 10 his eye to show that there was
no irritation caused by the vapor.
The examination of DR.. Lee was con-
tinued after recess, and the matter OF ex-
periments was dropped. In answer 10 Mr..
Osborne the witness said in case of death
by chlorOform poisoning he would expect
to find congestion of the other organs
where there was congestion OF the lungs
He had found congestion OF the lungs after
death by chloroform. but did not know If
it was due to the poison.
In redirect examination, in reply TO a long
hypothetical question by Mr.. Moore, DR..
Lee said that in his opinion Rice's death
was not caused by chloroform-
Prof. james Ewing, Of the medical de-
partment of Cornell University, told OF his
qualifications as an expert in pathology,
and said he had performed about 5000 au-
tOpsies. The same causes. DR.. Ewing said,
that reduced the dropsy Of the lower limbs
from which Mr.. Rice had suffered would
tend to produce an o~edemateous condition
of the lungs.
Mr.. Moore asked a hypothetical question
as to the cause Of death, and DR.. Ewing
said that, in his opinion, under the con-
ditions prescribed, death was due TO con-
gestion Of the lungs. brought on by pneu-
monia. To a second question he said the
conditions described could not have been
brought about by chloroform.
VIVA did you regard, from the condition
as revealed, as the chief factor of death?'
asked Mr.. Moore
The congestion and oedema Of the
lungs"
tiOning on the ground that no evidence OF
had been submitted. The re-
corder allowed the questions. after DIR.
Ewing had said that the report OF the
autopsy showed cOnclusively that a form
Of pneumonia was present in the lungs.
The doctors stated that chlOrOfOrm kills
in two ways; by asphyxiation or by paral-
ysis Of the heart. When death followed
way of determining the cause of death.
Mr.. Osborne c~rOSs-eXamined DIT. Ewing
The witnesses testimony differed so much
from that given by Or. II. +. LOOMS. who
was called by the State. that Mr.. Osborne
asked: do you consider DR.. LOOMS an
authority in pathology
NO" replied the witness. His father
was DIR. LOOMS. a medical authority"
Mr.. Osborne quoted 10 him some OF the
deductions drawn by DR.. LOOMS, ana
asked what he had 10 say TO them.
Il should say" replied the witness, that
a pathologfst who could make such deduc-
tiOns does not know his business.
'.What right have you TO say thatg'
The authority OF every pathologist who
ever has written on the subject"
DIR. ewing was still on the stand when
! court adjourned.