The Montgomery advertiser., 1902-03-12
EVIDENCE FOR DEFENSE
RICE DID NOT DIE OF CHLoRo-
 FORM POISONING.
Professor James Ewing of the Med ical Department of Cornell University Testifes for Lawyer Patrick.

New York, March 1f.-Professor James Ewing of the Medical Department of Cornell University. who testified yester- day for the defense in the trial of Albert T. Patrick. who is accused of the murder of William M. Rice, was on the stand again today. His cross-examination was continued by Assistant District Attorney Osborne, who put long hypothetical question that included all the history Of Mfr. Rice's illness as related by Jones And by Dr. Walker Curry. and asked Dr. Ewing if he could find anything be- tween II o'clock on the morning of Sun day and o'clock in the evening when Rice died. which could have caused death.
 E Mfr Moore objected on the ground that the question did not contain fair state ment of testimony in the case. Recorder Con overruIed the objection.
 Dr. Ewing said the question was so full of contradictions that he could not answer if. Asked to detail the coutradic- tiots. he said Mir. Rice's lungs could not have been normal when the autopsy showed an area of congestion that indi- cated pneumonia; that he could not have been thoroughly examined by compe- tent physician If the person making the exami nation found no Indication of lung trouble, and attributed the diniculty In breathing to mental worry Mir. Osborne a antended the question and Dr. Ewing said there was no need for anything to intervene to cause death beyond the rymptorns described and disregarded by Dr. Curry.
 Df. EwIns said that taking into consid-
 eration the consolidation or patch in Rice's lung shown by the autopsy. to- gether with the congestion and other con ditions found. he thought there was suf- ficient 10 account for the death of pa- tient s4 years of age. The pneumonia might have killed Rice in two hours. or 1t might have taken longer. On redirect examination, Dr. Ewing said he thought pneumonia. 'oedma and congestion of the lungs were present Tn Rice's case.
 pr. John Gardner was the next witness. He said he was the author of work on chloroform. Mir. Moore described the ad- ministration of chloroform as Jones said
 he gave itNto Mfr Rice. and asked Dr. Gardner if 1t could he done that way. lin my opinion" Dr. Gardner replied,
 fit could not. The shock of placing the
  the face of a patient would awaken the
 patient. Chioroform, to he effective. must be administered slowly" Dr. Gardner said choloroforn- atu- rated rag would not burn as Jones de- scribed the burning of the towel he took from Mfr. Rice's face. He said he had
 made 8 number of experiments. and bas-
 d his reply upon the results of those ex- periments.
 Recorder Golf would not let him de- scribe those experiments.
 Mir. Moore put the same hypothetical
 question as to the cause of death that he had put to pr. Ewing, and Dr. Gardner replied: "I answer your question as a
 physician, nor as a pathologist. From
 the picture you have drawn. I form the opinion that the patient died of oedma or dropsy of the lungs. and that a remote cause of death was nephrytis.' Did the patient die of chloroform poi soning?"
 There is no evidence of chioroform
 poisoning in anything you have said."
 Court adjourned until tomorrow.