guinea pigs, rabbits, frogs, and toads. After the ingestion of the
poison the symptoms appear from two minutes to thirty, more generally
about five or six. The symptoms in their order are--a desire to be quite
still; hurried breathing; slavering at the mouth when given at the
mouth; twitching of the ears; trembling of the muscles; inability to
walk; convulsion of all the muscles of the body; the jaws generally
being firmly closed during convulsions; these convulsions followed by a
total want of power in the muscles, which, in the last attacks, were
thrown into violent spasms with a galvanic-like shock running through
them. Spasms come on if the animal is either touched or attempts to
move. These spasms occur at various periods. The animals die at various
periods up to three and a half hours. In every case before death the
rigidity ceases, and the muscles are quite soft and powerless. The
longest intervals between the violent convulsions in the animals to
which strychnia has been administered has been about half an hour, but
that is not common. After death the hearts of the animals have been
invariably full on the right side, very generally the left ventricle
firmly contracted, and the blood usually dark and often fluid. There is
no particular appearance attached to the spine. I have attended to the
evidence as to the symptoms of Mr. Cook on the Monday and Tuesday
nights.
By LORD CAMPBELL--What do you assume the symptoms to have been on the
Saturday night?--A state of great excitement in a less severe form; that
Mr. Cook described himself to have been very ill.
[Sidenote: T. Nunneley]
Examination resumed--What else?--In a condition that he considered
himself mad for two minutes, caused, he stated, through some noise in
the street.
Now, adverting to the symptoms described on these three occasions here
in the Court, is it your opinion that they could have been produced by
the poison of strychnia?--They did not resemble what I have seen to
follow it. He had more power of voluntary motion--sitting up in bed,
moving his hands about, freely swallowing, and asking to be rubbed and
moved, and a greater length of time occurred from the taking of the
pills supposed to contain strychnia and the occurrence of the symptoms,
much greater than any period that has occurred in my experience.
Does any observation occur to you on the screaming?--The screaming
foreran the vomiting. I have never seen an animal vomit after taking
strychnia, nor scream as an expression of voluntary exercise. Where
there is so much spasm there is an inability on the part of the patient
to vomit. I have a case, which is related in the 10th volume of the
_Journal de Pharmacie_, in which attempts were made to give emetics
without success.
With reference to the post-mortem observations of animals poisoned by
strychnia, could you form any opinion on the post-mortem examination of
Mr. Cook whether he had been under the influence of poison?--They differ
materially in the particulars I have mentioned. The heart is stated to
be empty and contracted, the state of the lungs not congested, the state
of the brain not congested.
In the case of the paroxysms of the animals what has been the course of
the subsiding of the paroxysm?--Gradual. I have never known a case of a
severe paroxysm return, and then a long interval of complete repose for
several hours. I have known it for half an hour.
I have experimented on the bodies of animals poisoned by strychnia with
a view of discovering the strychnia poison from a few hours up to the
forty-third day, the body being perfectly putrid in the latter case. In
no one case have I failed to discover the poison.
Suppose a person to have died under the immediate effects of strychnia
poison, in the first paroxysm after its administration, and his stomach
to have been taken out and put into a jar on the sixth day after death,
in your opinion must strychnia have been found in the body on proper
chemical analysis?--If it were there.
[Sidenote: T. Nunneley]
Adverting to the statement about the stomach being put in a jar, brought
up to London, and then immediately submitted to examination, in your
judgment was that in an unfavourable or favourable condition for
ascertaining whether the strychnia was there?--It would give a little
more trouble; I do not see anything else. It is not my opinion that the
analysis may be defeated or confused by the existence in the stomach of
any other substance which would produce the same colours.
Supposing death to have been caused by a dose of strychnia poison
sufficient, but not more than sufficient, to destroy the animal, in your
judgment would it be so decomposed by the process of absorption as that
you would not be able to detect it by those tests in any portion of the
system?--No.
By LORD CAMPBELL--It is a question on which toxicologists have
entertained a different opinion?--I believe they have.
Examination resumed--Have you studied the question sufficiently to be
able to state reasons for thinking the minimum dose, after having done
its work, continues in the system?--I believe the illustration given was
that as food undergoes a change on being taken into the body, these
substances also do.
By LORD CAMPBELL--It has been said that the decomposition of food
affords an analogy?--It has. I believe not. The change in food takes
place during digestion, consequently these elements are not found in the
blood, or, if the change does not take place there, they remain
unchanged in the blood. These alkaloids are absorbed without digestion,
and may be obtained unchanged from the blood.
Cross-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL--About half of the experiments on
the sixty animals I spoke of were made in conjunction with Mr. Morley,
the gentleman who was called for the prosecution. A few of these
experiments were made in connection with this case, but the great bulk
certainly not.
You have not told us what may be material, the general dose given?--The
general dose given in the experiments has been from half a grain to two
grains. I have seen a cat and a dog die from half a grain, not always.
There are varying degrees of susceptibility both in animals of different
species and in individuals of the same species.
You say that the symptoms generally appear in from two to thirty
minutes; Mr. Morley states two minutes to an hour; will you undertake to
say there have not been cases in which the first appearances have been
delayed an hour?--I do.
Have you not known instances in which you have had to repeat the doses
of poison?--When the dose has not been sufficient to kill, but to
produce symptoms, there is a wide difference. I have given it three
times. The quantity I gave was half a grain. That in the solid state
would be a small dose to kill an old strong cat; a small dose will
suffice in the fluid form. Where the half-grain dose has been given
three times the reason was that the cat did not swallow the doses.
[Sidenote: T. Nunneley]
With regard to the symptoms you have described to us, can you tell me
whether the result of your observations is that these symptoms occur
uniformly, or at uniform periods of time, or whether they vary
occasionally?--They certainly do not occur at uniform periods of time. I
have not observed considerable variation in the order, but I have in the
time.
When the convulsions have once set in have you found considerable
difference as to the periods at which they take place?--Some difference,
with greater or less intervals.
Have you also found that one animal will have a succession of attacks
before it dies, and another will die after a much less amount of
convulsion?--Yes. An animal seldom dies after one convulsion, generally
four or five, and often a great many more. I have known one or two
instances in which the animals have died after one convulsion.
From a dose which in the same quantity has not produced the same effect
in other instances?--Yes.
Does the order in which the muscles of the body are convulsed vary
also?--To some extent it does. The convulsions are generally
simultaneous in the muscles of the trunk and those of the extremities. I
think the limbs are generally affected first; they may be simultaneous;
but the limbs are more easily observed.
Have you known any instance in which rigidity greater than is due to the
ordinary rigor-mortis has occurred after death?--I do not think there is
any difference. I have known instances in which they were very rigid,
but I have known instances in which the muscles were flaccid. I may
state I do not think there is any peculiar rigidity produced by
strychnia.
With regard to the lady whose case we do not name, was it not the fact
that, although the muscles of the body were flexible, the hands were
curved and the feet arched and muscles contracted?--Not more than is
usual from ordinary causes. I have said the hands were curved and the
feet arched by muscular contraction.
Do you mean to say that when you spoke of the feet being decidedly
arched that you meant no more than is due to the ordinary rigidity of
death?--I do; that is what I mean by muscular contraction.
Do you mean to say that when you signed this, “The hands were incurved
and the feet decidedly arched by muscular contraction,” you meant no
more than is due to the ordinary rigidity of death?--I do, and stated so
at the time, not in the report I have signed, but in conversation with
the parties engaged.
You made a report which did not include the whole?--It is stated in the
former part of the report that the other muscles of the body were so;
that there was a distinction between the two portions of the body--a
statement of fact, but nothing more.
[Sidenote: T. Nunneley]
Mr. Morley stated here the other day that in the experiments he made
with you on animals killed with the poison, that after death there was
an interval of flaccidity, after this rigidity commenced, more than if
it had been occasioned by the usual rigor-mortis; you do not agree with
him as to the statement of the fact?--I do not; it is a difference of
opinion entirely.
You say you generally found the heart full?--Yes, the right side. The
fact of the heart having been found empty in this case, amongst other
things, leads me to the conclusion that it was not a death by strychnia
poison.
Did you hear the evidence given here the other day of the
post-mortem?--I did. I also heard this stated, “that the heart was
contracted and empty.” I believe I was in Court when the gentleman who
conducted it gave his evidence of the post-mortem examination of Mrs.
Smyth, who died from the unfortunate administration of strychnia.
In those two cases does the fact of the heart having been found empty
exercise any influence on your judgment?--Not unless I know how the
post-mortem was made. If the post-mortem was commenced in the head, the
explanation is given by Mr. Morley and myself in the case at Leeds. We
had no doubt of the heart being full, the blood being fluid, but the
head being first opened, and the large vessels cut, the consequence was
that the blood by mere natural physical causes drains away.
Are you aware how the post-mortem was made in this particular case of
Mr. Cook?--It is stated that the chest and abdomen were opened before
the head.
What effect would that have?--If there were blood in the heart it ought
to be there.
That would not make the difference. The head was not opened there in the
first instance?--No; that is my explanation of it.
How do you account for the emptiness and contraction of the heart in Mr.
Cook’s case?--The heart, if empty, is usually contracted. I cannot
account, from the appearance of the body after death, for the emptiness
of the heart, any more than it might be the usual effect of death. It
varies very much, but, as a general rule in post-mortem examinations, we
find, if the heart is empty, it is contracted.
If I understand you, the post-mortem appearance of Cook’s body, which
you say differs materially from those you have seen after death from
strychnia, were the emptiness of the heart, the state of the lungs, and
the want of congestion in the brain. What do you say as to the state of
the lungs?--The lungs are described as not being congested.
[Sidenote: T. Nunneley]
Do you attach any importance to the emphysema?--It is of two kinds. One
consists in a dilatation of the cells, the other in a rupture by which
the air, not being in the cells, passes amongst them.
I suppose you say it was not from the rupture of the cells here?--That I
inferred from the description given.
Have you not found emphysema in the cases of the animals that have
died?--Yes. It has always been from a rupture of the cells. It could be
in no other way.
What is there in the statement of witnesses which makes you think there
was emphysema of the other sort?--There was during life a diseased
condition of the lungs.
I am speaking of the appearance of the lungs after death?--I must put
the whole together.
Would it not have been desirable to know whether this emphysema was
natural or whether it was from rupture? We heard the witnesses here who
made the post-mortem examination?--If the question had been put to them.
But you were advising my friends throughout, while Dr. Harland was here,
and you heard what he said. Did it occur to you it was proper to ask him
what was the nature of those?--No, because I heard (which was sufficient
to my mind) that disease had existed. The question was put, as to the
disease, to Dr. Savage.
I am speaking of this emphysema?--It did not occur to me.
You have told us the various symptoms about this gentleman, from which
you gather he was of a delicate constitution. To which do you ascribe
these convulsions of which he died?--Not to any.
I understood you to say that the fact of his having syphilis was an
important ingredient in your mind?--Yes, but you ask for convulsions.
You have no doubt he died of convulsions?--No.
You entered into a long detail of the various ailments under which this
unfortunate man suffered, and you say that this would predispose him to
convulsions. I ask you which of them?--The whole; the continuation of
them.
Amongst others you mentioned excitement?--Yes, and depression of
spirits.
What evidence is there, on which you rely, of his being a man subject to
depression of spirits?--It is stated by Mr. Jones that he was subject to
depression of spirits--mental depression. There was a good deal of
mental depression at Rugeley.
Would you expect excitement to produce its effects recently in its
existence, or after it was totally and entirely gone?--It may induce
that state of brain in which convulsions will follow at some distance.
Did you find from the evidence that the brain was perfectly
healthy?--No, not perfectly healthy. Mr. Bamford said it was not.
[Sidenote: T. Nunneley]
Do you mean, as against the reputed testimony, and the testimony here of
Dr. Harland and Dr. Moncton, as well as Mr. Devonshire, to set up the
testimony of that old gentleman, Mr. Bamford?--The evidence stated at
the inquest itself is put in the depositions.
Do you mean to say, in your opinion, that excitement, producing disease
of the brain, would bring on these convulsions?--I mean to say this,
that in the condition of the brain, and the statement that has been
made, I believe it to be quite probable that convulsions might come on
and destroy a person, and leave no trace behind.
Do you believe that this man died of apoplexy?--I do not. You must bear
in mind he had taken doses of morphia.
Do you ascribe his death to morphia?--No, except that it would assist in
the convulsive attack, and it would affect the spinal marrow.
Brought about by the morphia?--No.
In your opinion was morphia right treatment or wrong?--I should think
not very good in the state of excitement he was in then.
Do you mean that there has been anything to show any excitement at
Rugeley?--You will not allow me to furnish an answer. There was no
excitement at Rugeley, but morphia, when there is sickness, will
sometimes disagree with a patient when there is an irritable state of
the brain.
The stomach was irritated, I will allow, but where is the evidence that
there was any excitement at Rugeley?--There is none.
Then why was morphia a wrong treatment?--Because it is after sickness,
and there is evidence of there being an irritable state of the brain.
From what he said himself, he must either have been delirious on the
Sunday night, or he must have had some attack similar to what he had on
the Monday night.
Do you mean the attack of the Sunday night was similar to that on the
Monday night?--Less intensity, but I think very probably of the same
character.
You do believe there were convulsions on the Sunday night, then?--No, I
do not.
He died of convulsions?--Yes, but I say of the same character.
Then you do believe he had convulsions?--To a certain extent, but less
in intensity. There was a great deal of mental and bodily excitement.
On the Monday night?--I have stated to you that he was in that condition
which very often precedes convulsions.
Will you admit if a man so under the influence of morphia and he is
suddenly disturbed by a noise, it is likely to have a depressing effect
upon him?--I will; but there is no proof of a noise.
[Sidenote: T. Nunneley]
There is no proof, except his own statement, of any illness?--Precisely;
that is part of my opinion--that he did not state what had occurred
accurately.
Do you mean to say that he did not state that thing?--No; that he was
mistaken. That is one of the symptoms. I believe the man to have been
delirious then.
Now, be so good as to tell me what are the convulsions of which you gave
some statement to my friend which will produce convulsions of a tetanic
form?--Any irritation will produce it.
Ending in death?--It may end in death.
Will you tell me of any convulsions which you have known end in death
accompanied with what my friend calls tetanic symptoms?--I have known
them in children. I have never had such a case in an adult.
Has your reading furnished you with any?--The general statement of all
writers is that such cases do occur.
Have you ever known or read of a case in which the patient was conscious
to the last?--No, I have not. I have seen it stated so, but I have never
met with it.
In epilepsy you have these tetanic symptoms?--Yes, but before death
consciousness is gone.
You have had considerable experience in idiopathic tetanus, and some
five or six, perhaps, of traumatic. (An extract from the evidence of Mr.
Jones was read.) I have read to you the description of Cook’s symptoms
as witnessed by Mr. Jones. I ask you to point out any distinction
between those symptoms and the symptoms of tetanus?--Do you mean the one
paroxysm or the disease which is called tetanus?
I am speaking of the paroxysm of tetanus?--It is very like.
By LORD CAMPBELL--You say this is not tetanus at all?--It is not. I
never saw a case of tetanus in which the rigidity continued at the time
of death and afterwards.
Cross-examination resumed--I am asking you as to symptoms of the
paroxysms. I understand you to say the symptoms of the paroxysms are not
distinguishable from those of tetanus?--Some of them are at the moment
of death.
Give me any of them?
By LORD CAMPBELL--This is not tetanus, but, as far as they go, they
coincide with the symptoms of tetanus at the moment of death?--Yes.
Cross-examination resumed--Observe, you have here consciousness to the
last. That before the man dies he says, “Turn me over,” and as soon as
they turn him over he dies. Tell me of any case you know of in which
death has ensued from convulsions, where the death was not from tetanus,
in which the patient was conscious?--I have already said I do not know
of such a case.
Let me call your attention to strychnia tetanus. Would you call the
symptoms tetanic?--They are called so very properly.
[Sidenote: T. Nunneley]
Do you agree with Sir Benjamin Brodie that while the paroxysms of
tetanic convulsions last there is no difference between those which
arise from strychnia and those which arise from tetanus properly so
called, but the difference is in the course of them?--I think there is.
I think that the hands are less violently contracted and affected in
ordinary tetanus, and that the whole effect of the spasms is less in
ordinary tetanus.
You would expect to find the hands more firmly and tightly closed in
tetanus from strychnia than in ordinary tetanus?--I think it is so.
There is another difference, that in tetanus the convulsions never
entirely pass away.
That is one of the reasons Sir Benjamin Brodie gave for distinguishing
the course?--In the case at Leeds it was the same.
I believe you felt perfectly prepared in that case, on the description
of the symptoms, to come to the determination that it was a death from
strychnia?--I thought it possible and probable. I did not come to a
determined opinion. I expressed an opinion. I did not say I had no doubt
as to the cause of death. We had ascertained at that time that there was
strychnia.
After the opinion you expressed in that case, is it possible that you
can represent this case of Mr. Cook as one of idiopathic tetanus?--I
never did, and you have not heard from me that I infer that.
I have heard it said in this case that this may have been something
arising from a syphilitic affection?--Idiopathic or traumatic tetanus
was mentioned. I do not think it was a case of tetanus in any sense of
the word.
Why not?--I have given the description. Because it differed from the
course of tetanus from strychnia in the particulars I have already
described.
Repeat them once more?--The very sudden acquisition of the convulsions
after the first rousing of Mr. Jones; his power of talking.
Did you not know that Mrs. Smyth begged to have water thrown upon her,
and talked throughout?--It did not occur to me.
Are you judging of the one incidental case, and coming here with
conclusions founded on that?--I think it is an element, the time.
Then let me add the element, that the lady continues to the last
conscious, and asks to have her legs stretched just before she died;
does that shake your faith?--Yes.
Do you not know in that case her last words were to turn her over?--Not
at the last moment. I do not dispute it if it is said so.
[Sidenote: T. Nunneley]
Were there not here the premonitory symptoms; the animals are affected
about the jaws and the ears, and Mr. Cook has stiffness in his neck, and
asks to have it rubbed?--It is a premonitory symptom.
Was it not a symptom of the convulsions, which are not distinguishable
from tetanus?--I have said so. I have stated here that I believe in
cases of poison from strychnia it is first developed in the legs and
feet.
You have told us the animals began to feel twitching in the ears. This
gentleman had, before the convulsions came on, stiffness in the muscles
of the neck and jaw, and begged to have them rubbed?--That might be if
it were anything else.
I ask you now, is not the difficulty of breathing one of the premonitory
symptoms? He sat up in bed and complained of feeling suffocated?--Yes.
And felt a stiffness about the neck and asked to have it rubbed, and, as
far as we know, this was the case in all the animals, though they could
not ask to be rubbed. I ask you what were these but premonitory
symptoms?--In no one single instance could the animal bear to be
touched, and it evidently was most painful to it to be touched. I know
that Mrs. Smyth asked to have her legs and arms straightened.
Let me ask you this, have you not often found that it was prior to the
occurrence of the paroxysm, and not after the paroxysm?--No, I have seen
a paroxysm brought on by it.
In all cases?--No, not in all cases. But in the other case, for two
hours before she died, when she could speak, she begged them not to
touch her.
Did she not ask to have her legs rubbed?--That was when the attack was
slight, not during the fatal attack.
After the paroxysms had set in, did she not request to be rubbed?--She
did before the convulsions came on; she liked to have her feet and legs
rubbed.
Afterwards she could not bear it, because it caused a recurrence?--Yes.
That was in consequence of the twitchings, was it not?--I think not. It
is stated by all the witnesses she begged she might not be touched.
But for that one thing, that the paroxysms came on so soon after the
first premonitory symptom, is there one single point in which this
differs from strychnia tetanus?--The power of swallowing so lately.
On what does it depend, the inability to swallow?--From the inability to
move the jaw.
I ask you whether it is not a fact that, unlike as in natural tetanus,
in tetanus from strychnia lockjaw is not the last symptom, and very
often never sets in at all?--I have never seen an instance in which it
does not make its appearance.
[Sidenote: T. Nunneley]
Is it the last?--I do not deny that it may be.
At what stage did it come on in the Leeds case?--Very early, more than
two hours before death.
How long did the paroxysms continue before death took place?--Two hours
and a half.
That was in a case in which very large doses of strychnia were
administered?--We supposed four or five times repeatedly.
In the case of Leeds there were four animals killed afterwards from the
contents of the stomach?--There were.
You state that you have succeeded in every case where you have tried in
your experiments in finding the strychnia?--Yes.
Did not Mr. Morley differ from you in two cases?--In one he did. We
divided the poison which we found in the stomach into two portions, and
we adopted two different processes for extracting it, and by the one
process we were both rather doubtful, but by the other we produced it.