The Sun. — 1856-02-07 (London, England)

PROFESSOR OF MEDICAL JURISPRUDENCE AT GUY'S HOSPITAL.) (To the Editor of The Lancet.) Sir,—l have great pleasure in replying to the inquiries contained in your leading article of Jan. 19th. 1. I stated that I had never known antimonial powder, when given in medicinal doses, (i.e., from five to eight grains at a dose), to produce violent vomiting and purging. I am aware that experience differs on this point ; that some have found this substance inert, while others have found it very active. From some recent experiments on antimonial preparations, I think it not unlikely that the powder may sometimes contain arseniate of lime. Dr. Pereira mentions that in the large dose of half a teaspoonful it, on one occasion, produced violent vomiting, purging, and sweating ; while in still larger doses (120 grains at a dose), prescribed by Dr. Elliotson, it occasioned in some instances only nausea. I have never met with any case in which serious symptoms could be referred to its operation ; and, in the case of Ann Palmer, this medicinal preparation would not account for the antimony found in her body, 2. My statement as to the cause of death was, that the deceased died from the effects of tartar emetic' and from no other cause. That is the opinion which Dr. Rees and I formed from the result of our examinatior, and from the description of the symptoms under which the deceased laboured during the eight days which preceded her death. It is an opinion which I believe is now equally shared by the two medical attendants of the deceased. We are quite prepared to maintain this opinion on the trial, You will excuse me from entering into our reasons for this opinion on the present occasion, as this may form a very fair and proper subject for cross-examination at the trial. Possibly the defence may bo that tartar emetic in small doses is not a poison ; that it cannot, under any circumstances, destroy life, and that it was the very best remedy for the disease (English cholera) under which it was stated the deceased was labouring,.  One other point connected with this inquiry may be here •adverted to. The examination of the organs was made fifteen months, not "fifteen weeks," after death. and the viscera examined were as well preserved as I have seen them in many cases of arsenical poisoning. They were in a better state of preservation than the viscera of Walter Palmer, whose body had been buried for a period of three months only, in a leadqa' coffin. The viscera in Ann Palmer's case were in such-a state of preservation as to allow us to form an opinion of their condition.  3. This inquiry refers to the elimination of antimony from the body. According to my experience, antimony. is analogous to arsenic in the rapidity with which it enters into the blood and passes out of the system. These two metals are wholly different in this respect from mer`eury and lead, and probably from copper. I shall be most happy after the trial to furnish you with facts and authorities, as far as I can, in reference to these interesting points. In aie meantime, as this question may also form a fair subject for cross-examination, a detailed answer to it n a r be for the present reserved. 4. Tho fourth inquiry involves, as you have justly suspected, an error of the press. What I said was to the effect, that if there were symptoms of fever antimonial medicines might be fairly prescribed. In concluding this letter, I would observe that during a quarter of a century, which I have now specially devoted to toxicological inquiries, I have never met with any cases like these suspected cases of poisoning at Rugeley. The mode in which they will affect the person accused is of minor importance compared with their probable influence on society. I have no hesitation in saying that the futuro security of life in this country will mainly depend on the judge, the jury, and the counsel, who may have to dispose of the charges of murder which have arisen out of these investigations.—l am, Sir, your obedient servant,