SAMPLES OF LEGAL EXPERIENCES
It was a good many years after my name had been before the public as an
official Consulting Entomologist that I began occasionally to receive
applications to furnish what is called “expert” evidence regarding
insect infestation of live crops, or of cargoes of flour. To work this
properly, and without risk of being confused under examination by the
host of questions, relevant or irrelevant, and, of course, made
purposely perplexing by the legal representatives of the opposing side
of the case, involved a most inconvenient amount of research and also of
mental strain. It was necessary to keep all points in any way likely to
be referred to, classed in order in the mind, and available
instantaneously without hurry or confusion; and sometimes also necessary
in helping non-entomological cross-examiners so to formulate their
questions as to admit of any answer being given.
My first experience of anything of this kind was in July, 1889, when I
received a copy of a letter written by myself on September 20th of the
previous year relative to a certain insect attack, of which specimens,
together with samples of the infested plants, had then been sent me.
This letter was accompanied by an enquiry whether I could swear to the
accuracy of my statements. This, of course, I had no doubts about. It
was a perfectly simple case, and I replied accordingly. The result was
that one morning before luncheon my sister came into my room in
perplexity, and announced that there was a “young man” in my study who
wanted to speak to me, but who he was, or where he came from, or
anything except that it was just for a minute that he wished to see me,
nobody had been able to make out. I believe I guessed pretty well the
nature of the mysterious business; but, as for explanation, the young
man was perfectly impenetrable, excepting on two points. One that he was
to give me a paper which I accepted, and next that he was to give me
some small amount of money, which I also accepted, not knowing whether
any other course was open to me. As this was the first (and also last)
case of a subpœna being served on me, I do not know whether the immense
reticence is part of the business, or whether the server is possibly in
danger of bad language or unpleasant treatment, but certainly the
visitor appeared very uneasy, and took himself off as soon as possible.
On examining the paper I found it called me to give evidence on the side
of the defendants, which was a little awkward, as after due
investigation of details I found that the entomological circumstances
would give the case for the plaintiffs. It ran as follows:—
“In the High Court of Justice between Thomas Wilkinson, Plaintiff, and
The Houghton Main Colliery Company, Limited, Defendants. Victoria, by
the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland,
Queen, Defender of the Faith, to Miss Eleanor A. Ormerod, of Torrington
House, St. Albans, in the County of Herts. Greeting.—We command you to
attend before our Justices assigned to take the assizes in and for the
West Riding Division of the County of York to be holden at Leeds on
Wednesday the 24th day of July, 1889, at the hour of ten in the forenoon
and so from day to day during the said assizes until the above cause is
tried to give evidence on behalf of the Defenders, &c.”
On the back of the document was inscribed (name and address given) that
the writ was issued by the London Agents of J. Parker Rhodes, of
Rotherham, Yorkshire, defendants’ solicitor. I felt myself very
unpleasantly situated, more particularly as one of my legal brothers
assured me that I should make myself (or be made) quite ridiculous in
Court, but I did not see the matter quite in this light, for I was sure
of my facts. I explained to the solicitor for the defendants that if put
in the witness box I must support the cause of the plaintiff. The case
was then withdrawn and costs allowed to the plaintiff.
Ten years afterwards I was employed by Messrs. Ross T. Smyth and Co.,
33, Mark Lane, London, E.C. The case was entered on March 9, 1899, and
the matter in question was alleged infestation of a cargo of flour,
transmitted from New York, U.S.A., to Durban, S. Africa. I gave evidence
on oath here, Torrington House, St. Albans, on October 20, 1899, before
Mr. E. K. Blyth (of Messrs. Blyth, Dutton, Hartley and Blyth), appointed
a Commissioner of the High Court of Natal, to take my evidence in the
cause of Smyth _v._ Findlay. On Tuesday the 24th following, Mr. E. K.
Blyth attended with depositions which I read and signed in his presence.
Subjoined is a copy of my “Report on Insect Presence,” and also an
extract from a confirmatory report made by Mr. Oliver Janson doubly
confirmed by the report of a representative of the Department of
Agriculture, Division of Entomology, Washington:—
“I have examined the contents of the box and bottle this day submitted
to me from yourselves, the bottle being under seal of Messrs. Randle
Brothers and Hudson, Durban, Natal, &c., &c. I made my examination
both with hand magnifiers and microscope and found that in the very
small amount of insect presence in the wheat flour and in the spirit
or preservative fluid, there were two kinds of beetles represented.
One of these was the _Tribolium ferrugineum_, popularly known as the
Rusty-red flour beetle (fig. 70). This is a small red-brown, or
yellowish-red-brown, beetle, about a sixth of an inch long, somewhat
parallel-sided and narrow in proportion to its length; the wing-cases
striated longitudinally, and the antennæ (or horns) with a
three-jointed club at the extremity. I found this beetle present in
all its stages of development; that is, as a comparatively long and
narrow larva (grub or maggot); in the chrysalis (pupa) state, in which
it resembles the beetle with its limbs folded beneath it until
development is complete; and the perfect beetles.
“I also found one specimen of what is called the _Cadelle_ in larval
(grub or maggot) state. This is a pitchy-coloured beetle, _Trogosita
mauritanica_ or _Tenebrioides mauritanicus_, rather larger than the kind
above named, being about four times longer. I examined the whole amount
of insect infestation sifted in my presence from the wheat flour under
consideration or taken out of the bottle of preservative fluid, and in
the very small amount of insect presence observable, I found nothing
else to which the slightest degree of importance could be attached. In
reply to the inquiry submitted to me, as to the possibility of the bags
of wheat flour under consideration having been infested when they were
shipped from New York, on or about July the 5th, 1898; I can state that
I fully believe the flour could not then have been infested, as in such
case—consequent on the well-known exceedingly favourable conditions for
multiplication of insect presence, through which the bags of flour would
pass during the voyage—there would certainly by the date of arrival at
Durban, on or about September 14th, have been so great an amount of
infestation in all stages, that it could not have been overlooked. And
by the further dates named, in the following October and November, it
would have been overwhelming. The exceedingly high temperatures through
which the shipment would pass are known to be very favourable to rapid
propagation of successive generations of _Tribolium_. It is to be borne
in mind that the infestation does not lie in a torpid state, but after
hatching from the egg (sometimes inaccurately called the “germ”), which
soon occurs in high temperatures, it passes through the changes from
larva (or grub) to chrysalis, and beetle condition more or less quickly
according to warmth of locality; and then the male and female beetles
pair, and in the ordinary course die, in the case of the female after
egg-laying. Examination of the condition of the flour, had infestation
been present, would have shown not only the living infestation, but also
the dead bodies of the previous generations of beetles, which being of a
hard and horny nature externally, would not have decayed in the flour.
“Further, not only is great warmth favourable to increase of
_Tribolium_, but also the conditions, when flour is placed in bags and
left unopened for any length of time, are especially suited to their
propagation. I can also state that the effect of _Tribolium_ infestation
on flour is such that its presence even to a small amount could not be
unobserved, and these characteristics were wholly absent in the flour
submitted to me. To the best of my knowledge and belief I consider it to
be absolutely and demonstrably impossible that the infestation regarding
which the inquiry is now before me could have been shipped from New
York, and after the most careful examination and investigation which I
am able to make, I consider that the infestation took place after the
arrival of the flour at Durban.
“May I, in addition to the above opinion, be permitted to suggest to you
that as this investigation is one of great importance, it might be
satisfactory to yourselves if you were also to submit the samples, which
I have re-secured under my own seal, to Mr. Oliver E. Janson, F.E.S., as
being a skilled entomologist, and so well qualified by personal
observation and scientific knowledge of the _Coleoptera_ (beetles), to
give ma correct opinion in the present matter, that I should consider
him to be the most thoroughly trustworthy English referee.”
* * * * *
Mr. Janson’s report was as follows:—
“Having carefully examined the specimens of insects submitted to me
under seal of Miss E. A. Ormerod, and stated to have been found in the
accompanying sample of flour, named ‘Radiant,’ ‘Strathness,’ also the
specimens of insects, &c. &c., I identify them as the coleopterous
insect, known scientifically as _Tribolium ferrugineum_, in its various
stages of larva (grub), pupa (chrysalis), and imago (beetle). I also
find a single specimen of _Trogosita mauritanica_.... In considering the
important question as to origin of the infestation, I am of opinion that
the evidence afforded clearly indicates the origin of the infestation to
have been subsequent to the arrival of the flour at Durban.”
[The case never came to trial, but the unanimity of the expert opinion
enabled Messrs. Ross T. Smith & Co. to effect a compromise on terms they
were willing to accept.]
* * * * *
The following letter addressed to us by Mr. Wm. Simpson of Messrs. R. &
H. Hall, Limited, of Cork, Dublin, Belfast and Waterford, shows a
similar satisfactory termination to a case in which granary weevils had
done serious damage to a cargo of flour from San Francisco.
“WESTPORT, _Feb. 6, 1900_. DEAR MADAM,—Perhaps you have not quite
forgotten my visit to you in early summer of last year when I submitted
for your inspection a sample of flour with weevil infestation from a
cargo landed here. It will I am sure interest you to know that we have
just settled the case out of Court by the owners of the vessel paying us
£900 and our costs. We are pleased that the matter is thus ended, but I
cannot forbear from again thanking you for all the attention and help
you gave us in the case and which was to us of the greatest value. Yours
very truly, (Sgd) WM. SIMPSON.”
------------------------------------------------------------------------