IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 I.I 1.25 [SIM m II 1.8 |U 11.6 Photographic Sdences Corporation 23 WE.'iT MAIN STREET WEBST£R,N.Y. MS80 (716) tri-Arsi « fV ^oi^^ \\ %^ '^^■** 0^ Hi U.A CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques The Institute has attempted to obtain the best original copy available for filming. Features of this copy which may be bibliographically unique, which may alter any of the images in the reproduction, or which may significantly change the usual method of filming, are checked below. L'Institut a microfilmd le meilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a 6t6 possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-dtre uniques du point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la mdthode normale de filmage sont indiqu6s ci-dessous. □ D D n D D D □ D Coloured covers/ Couverture de couleur Covers damaged/ Couverture endommagee Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaurde et/ou pelliculde Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque Coloured maps/ Cartes g^ographiques en couleur Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur Bound with other material/ Relie avec d'autres documents Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La reliure serree peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distortion le long de la marge intdrieure Blank leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajouties lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, mais, lorsque cola 6tait possible, ces pages n'ont pas et6 filmdes. Additional comments:/ Commentaires suppl^mentaires; □ Coloured pages/ Pages de couleur □ Pages damaged/ Pages endommag^es Q^! Pages restored and/or laminated/ Pages restaur^es et/ou pelliculdes I l/Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ l_Vj Pages d6color6es, tachet^es ou piquees □ Pages detached/ Pages d^tach^es rryf Showthrough/ I I Transparence □ Quality of print varies/ Quality in^gale de I'impression □ Includes supplementary material/ Comprend du materiel supplementaire n Only edition available/ Seule Edition disponible Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalement ou partiellement obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, etc., ont dt6 film6es d nouveau de fapon d . obtenir la meilleure image possible. This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est film6 au taux de reduction indiqud ci-dessous. 10X 14X 18X 22X 26X 30X / 12X 16X 20X 24X 28X 32X The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks to the generosity of: Library of the Public Archives of Canada L'luxemplaire film6 fut reproduit grdce d la g6n6ros(t6 de: La bibliothdque des Archives publiques du Canada The images appearing here are the best quality possible considering the condition and legibility of the original copy and in keeping with the filming contract specifications. Les images suivantes ont M reproduites avec le plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et de la ..ettetd de I'exemplaire filmd, et en conformity avec les condi :ions du contrat de filmage. Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed beginning with the front cover and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All other original copies are filmed beginning on the first page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impression. Les exemplaires originaux dent la uouverture en papier est imprimde sent filmds en commengant par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la dernidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second plat, selon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires originaux sont film6s en commen^ant par la premidre page qui comporte une empreinte (!'impression ou d'illustration et en termmant par la dernidre page qui comporte une telle empreinte. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol —^^ (meaning "CON- TINUED '), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), whichever applies. Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur la dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas: le symbole "-^-signifie "A SUIVRE", le symbole Y signifie "FIN". Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely included in one exposure are filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent dtre film6s d des taux de reduction diffdrents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre reproduit en un seul clich6, il est film6 d partir de Tangle supdrieur gauche, de gauche d droite, et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre d'images ndcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent la m^thode. 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 f t •*■'«. "^■ ^ i » .. W AN C" \.j A N 8 W 1-: l{ 1(1 A ('.ii!i|ilil,i I'lilil !r,| " A U('\ ii'W (iT ill" tii;il of An iltfw Mill, I'mi Miiidcr. liy Kuwaiu) I). WdUiH- iM.i;iv, A.M.I M.I).' iiiir of (111' (iitvrmiis ol I III' ( ; .llfu • ol l'l>\ sici.iii' .iikI Sur- "^c'liis. I., ( '.. 1 clc. etc . clc. — »v — ADVOCATE. " lli^ iinsiii'nl iiiiiM'', ;).' iiiKU-icm'ss <;f his lifi'. His wiiicli iij:aiiiHt von, and liU i>liic.r i' ilio stnii.', Will '!fi vour lOiMir-iitiiiu ov rwcitiii, 'lliat y 'ii ^liull s;illr \v yn.xr ow.i ic|iurt. AimI ."IucII iiT calMiiiiiy ." M/jASi Ri: fin Me.^si'RE. — " As llioii urm St .ji siici.', tji' ii««iirt'i| 'lliiiii fliait liav( jiirtit'i.', m..u- 'li.in tlioii dcninst ." .M/RCM.ANT OP Vknick. <» (ill ^ i^ 33 /9 1 VN ANSWER TO E. 1). WOinillNGTON, M.l)., &" 'm § A pain[ilili't, cutilled '* A Rt,'vi(.'\v of Ihe li-ial of Aiuli'ow Hill for murder,"' was piihlislied souic time since by E. D. ^Vorlh- iiigton, M.D., ^c. In this pul)licatioii my fallior, the late Judge Short, was attacked in the most unjnstiliabie manner. A pro- duction of so exlraordinai'v a character demanded an eai'lier notice, whi'~h it would certainly have Jiad received, if my fathers illness and death had not liappencd so soon after its appearance. When dead, and ho could no longer defend liimself, I ftdt that it was my duty to vindicate his cliaracter from the asper- sions wliich had been cast ui)on it. 1 knew that these had em- bittered the last days of his life, if not hastened his end, and that, if living, he would never liavo rested until he had successfully repelled such an in.soleut and unprovoked attack upon his ro jiutation. Though firmly convinced that the opinion of those who were acquainted with my father coidd not Ix; iniluenced by such a person as Dr. Worthington, yet I feared tliey would produce a bad effect upon the minds of others to whom he was imknown, and Avho would never perhaps inquire whether they were true or false. 1 recollected the words of VoUaire : ^ Men- Icz, incnlcz^ il en rrslcra loujours quclqnc choice." Another reason for I't^fntiug this calumny of Dr. Wortli- inglon was the perusal of the following reference to my father, published in the Si. John's iV^^(cs and hearing date the nintii June, the day after his burial : " We have been favored by Ihe i)erusal of a pamjihlet by " Dr. Worlliington, vindicating his own professional skill, at- " taimnents, education and ability most modestly and success- " fully, and also passing sonic s!riiMure< upon tli" courlncl of ''• llu' liilt3 I;mi(Mitcd Jiul^^ SliDrl. 'U'.)' i.af.ii^i'aplis sci-iu wuM " '^ovoivly peniir.! .'ukI alio n led tio ho!(l,so (.ir;is W(» coulil set', '' for ;iii action I'nr liltel. \vlul(,'. Ity iiisimialion, tiiey wfrc most '■' sevor(\ Tlicrc is no dnnUi lliat I he ^.'Oiins ol' inortal ilii^oasi' '■' \V(MC liiikui!,' ill Iho .Ii.il^e'.N fivatcin, and had no little to do '' nilli 'hat icnii>orai y irritation \vhi'lled i,if)iv than any ono el*'. .Indt:o Shor! h:is involnn '■ tarilv h)und tlui very hi'st way ol' riMtMin;)!!;^ hiuiseli on th'j '' paniphlrli'.M-, viz. : by dyinL', 'Ar? Gohlsnulii sty?, : ' If lovely wciinan i^tnoi)* to foil) , ♦ * » * ' Tl .; only Pa.v to choal her li>or ' Ai.il wriiii! Ilia bosom, U to die '" '■ i!' vvc on.y lint \\ v.'haf. divorst' and divers [tangs onr (.nieuiies '• have had in Ih.e i-onrso of thcnr whole Jives, we should feel '• no prndg;- or revengo againsl liieni— r;ither [nty." Tills, if i! nnjaiis anything, means that the matter contained in Dr. Worlhington's pamphlet is trii«-> ; that Jnd^ce Short had done a grie^on^ wrong and that he had no defence hut to die I'kc. Hnrh language published by one concoi-ning ano!ii<-r who had n( viv ininred him. .i'ld was d(;ad and could no lon;-'i'r de- fend him?ell\ pj'ociaini.s a degree of wanton uialiec, heailles.s- iiess, and t o^val■dice, wliifdi miisl inspire every right feeling man wilii horror and disgus!. The mere coupling of tiio author's name with these A\ords sliould he enough U) call down upon hirn (he execiaiiou td" all true hearted men. His name is V. A. Ernhtu-son, M. A., Lenuoxviile , tlie najue of tiid editor of the li.'Wspapm'-Smilii. In a later issue of Ihe same papt v there was an e.vlract from the Canadian Medical Journal relating to this pamphlet of Dr. Worlliington, in which lie' writ; ; aijjiroxcs ol' that pi'oduction and reflects on my Hilhei's \nemojA'. For this last act In; m-'res a great itriuciple. Does this principle ^;anl■lion an insult to the dead 1 These remarks relating to Judge Short were ntterly uncalled for and unprovoked ; they cIiMrly betray the chai'ac- tcr and object of their authois. If tliese persons choose lo act u[>. on the l)elief that a •• living dog is lietler than a dead lion " lliey arc at perfect iilierly to do so : but they surely have no right to insult the dead, especially as tln.'v were ignorant of the farts of the case. llavinu lead the above articles,.! had re-r-on to reproach my- self for having alhjwed my fathers namti so long to remain im- (hu- a cloud wliii h could lie so easily dispelled by the pnblicci- lion of the truth. 1 saw that lln- dcalh. whi< It Di. Worlhin-lon o I '■•"tiu,.. o t had (loiio so uMuii lo make iuiliappy, was uoi niou.c^h tosatislV him ; !,hat it caused no leiriorso nor reprot, but that there was a (ietermiualion to perpetuate the falsehoods which he had pub- lished, to elevate their author as high as possible, and blacken the nieuiory of the departed. I have aocoi'dingly undertaken this task. To discharge it with composure many circumstances rend(>r it extremely dilfi- cult and painful : tlu; revolting features of tht; case — the char- acter of the pamiihleteer— the nature of the attack and the terrible result, th(,' death of a dear and honoured parent. 1 will however endeavour to perform it with calmness and impartial- ity. In attempting this, 1 claim fair, if not indulgent, consid- eration. A moment's pause and inquiry into the n^otives which insti- gated the author to attack one so good and kind as my father, who had never injured hiui in any way, will servo to give some insight into the character of Dr. Worthiugton and his purpose in writing this pamphlet. The reasons he has alleged for taking such an extraordinary proceeding are, that in his charge to the Jury on the occasion of the trial of Andrew Ilill for the munhjr of his wife, Judge Short made him the subject of an unjustifiable attack which was published to the damage of his reputation, and that the Doctor's object is his own vindication. These reasons are mere ])reteuce and unfounded. Judge Short did not make him the subj{>cl of any unjustifiable attack whatever. It is true that in Ike course of his charge to the Jury in this trial, he analyzed severely the evidence of Dr. Worthiugton and commented upon it at considerable length; his reason' for doing so was this :— l)i-. Worliiington w%'is the only witness for tiie prosecution who swore positively that a murder had been committed, Judge Short believed the life of the prison- er was endangered by his testimony, and was thoroughly con- vinced that the accused was innocent. Some of the Judge's re- marks might have been severe, Vml their severity was justly de- served and greatly provoked by the character of Dr. Worthing- ton's evidence and by the manner in which it was given. In his testimony Dr. Worthiugton contradicted himself, three medical brethren, and some of the highest authorities in his own scien- <'e. His manner in the witness box was marked by a degree of levity unfitting the p!ac(> and the occasion, and unbecoming n ! i pfi'son of liis ixf;o aiul prolV^sion. ll was cnlin.'ly in Iho (.'.\[kv aiiiT of liis fallaci<'s and cniilrndiclioiis, aiifl in some aniinad- viTsions upon th(Mn, Ihal Llio sowrily of llio Jndfxos chargo con- sisli'd. If Dr. Woilliitiylon was luirt in his foeliiips or i-pnta- lion i»y any of 111. si' i-cniaiks, il was [luri'ly incidental, not inl(Mitional. The olijcct of .Indgo Slioil ^v•as lo bencfU Iho pris- oner whom lir l)(d!t'V('d lo ho iniiDront, and not lo injnro Dr. Worthinglon. Il is nol, trni', as asscrlcd hy the Doctor, that the .Indite represented him as nntrulhfnl and miedneated ; on the contrary, he paid a high coniplinu'nt lo his ahililies. In support of this assertion, 1 snhjoin a report of the Judge's charge, given ill the Sherbrooke Pionnicr. Tliough this i-eport does not do my fatherentire justice, being only a hasty sminnary of what was said, yet il is the only one in -whieh there a])[)ears to b(,' no intention to uiisre[)resent. It contains the sidtstance of all that was spoken concei'iiing Dr. Worthingtou, and will therefore serve the purpose for which 1 luM'e introduce it. Literally translated from the French, it i\ms as follows : '• At ■)::{() His Honor commenced his addic^ss to the Jury. He first drew a lively picture of the tiu'rible accusation under wdiich the prisonin* labored. Then he gave a succinct summary of the proof and commenced his comments: Had the prisoner any motive to couunit this i>r(^tended murder? Two were attri- buted to him: first, jealousy, on the presumption that Grace and the deceased were on very intimate terms; second, a wish to prev(Mit his wife fi'om drinking. It is proved that the pris- oner was on very good terms with Grace and that. he was not jealous of him. (Here the Judge said — moreover it is proved that the deceased was not intoxicat(.M.l on the night in question.) As to the pretended threats ho may have made against his wife, in the presence of Mrs. Shores, we must recollect that this wo- man has not told the truth or was greatly mistaken on another important point; she might also be mistaken on this. The way she gave her testimony, her appearance in the box, her feigned or false emotion, her great grief two months after her sister's death, all tliis shows we must be cautious in receiving her tes- timony. As to this threat, it is to be remarked that if the prisoner had intended to execute it he would not have inform- ed his sister-in-law of his design. ^" Passing lo the medical evidence for the Crown, I must say V Ili.il I Inv no .•onli.l.jii.v in il,. Di. Ausliii a()r> \U)\ ;i;-iv.> with Ins cnlloagnn Dr. Wortlini;,'ton. Tlic fonnrr ^.'iw liis l.'S'i- nwinv ill l.-asl with caniion, iiiul Um.U linu- to lunn his opinion bofoi'v iillinninf,' it; bnl Iho l;iU(M-sh"Wr(l Innis.-ll' p.,>iti\i<, tl''- i-iiUHl and dopniatir in his (.[.inions. 1I;« assrvw d Ih.il tlw! \vonn(N in (jn.'slion conld not. have hern acri.hMilal. To 1):-. Tu'vc him, liicro nnisl liavc been a ciini iinMnict: of ciirtnnslan- c.'S 111.; niosl cxlfaordinary to raii.sr ihtMii. This [toor woman innsl hav(> taUni a pi-cntiar [uisilion on jiin'posc lo n crivc Wu) mortal hhnv. This is not natni'al. If ^li- h id h.'iMi ranqht in tlie act of inhdclily. lilt' hist ihin.i^jshc wonUt liavtMlone wonld have hc(Mi to try to rsc;* m^, as wonld also her uiTomplic(>. I luTii'vo then Dr. Woi thinj,;on is in ciTor on this point, nanudy, lilt! nianncr in whiidi ihrsp wonnds wen- inlliidrd. I^csidcs, if (iraco had had any ciiininal inlfnliuii, h(! \voni,i "ol havo w.iiti'd until he rtvudicd the pris*.>ii(M-'s [ilace in onlrr - accon:- plish it ; and no smdi ciirninstaiKTs havin.i,' occurr- d, Ihnv is nothini,' to cstahlish (hat iho jiiison t was prov ;< d. ■^^ The Doc' "'s pri'toii'^iou is tlh'Mvhuv iinprohahlc ; • o laui-h so, that wo cannot, ailmil it. Moiccvcr, his Icstinioiiv . ^ 'ncoi'- rc^ The oxaininalion of th;^ body \ -as not c"ndu( .(>d with pioper oaro. The description of the wonnds w.iii h [hrM> two witnesses have j/iven ns, cleaily proves this. Di. Worihinj,'ton said that th'^ poker litted the principal wound cxa'tly. lint il is lirov(>d thai the instrniiKMit has nol the saini> dimcnsiiuis as this wound. The Docl'ir has 1,.mmi positive, lail not e.\a'''. Often, Ihe mosl positive men are the most liable lo be niistakim. IVu' example, that learned jndse who said he wonlel nol believe his iudjuniumt erroneous, should the angels appear to him and tell him he was mislakMi. (This is sli,i;litly inacnrale ; the remark made by .Tndge Short h as follows : Dr. Worthingloir^ manner reminds me of what a certain distingnished Jud'^i} said to mo — when he had made np his mind on a law point, he was u> sure he was right, that if the Angel (iabriei cune to him and told him he was wrong, lie wonld nol lielieve him.) Doctor Worthington eri'ed in a similar wayjie has wished lo i«lace his opinions above those of all others, even of the most learned authors. Whatever may be the experience of a physician, e.x- perience and practice are not all that are ncce;,sary. In mcdi cine as in other professions, knowledge and capacity are de- rived from the stndj of anthers, from pn-actice and from expr- (• rionco. LiMij^lh of [jraclice Ihercfoiv is not svillicieiit to (>x- ])lain everything. Thero m- some who learn as mr.li in tinee years in a oily as others in twenty-eight years in the connlry. D(>fect of education also connts nnirh in medicine. Dr. Wortii- ington has great talents, hnt he is liahle to err and may some- times he mistaken. "Then in opposition to tliesc two witiu>sses wi; have two men (Minaliy capable and more competent, because Dr. Worthingtun has not in his twenty-eight years' practice met with one single case of thrombus or sanguinons tumor, whilst the other two physicians for the defence have seen such cases in their expe- rience, and have told us, supported by the best authorities, that these tumors are not unfrequent, especially in the hnnale se.v. Now, Dr. Pare has slated that he had observed a varicose vein on the body of deceased. Agreeing with his coHeague, Dr. Paget luis expressed the opinion that the death of deceased might hav(! been occasioned by the rui)tnre of a tumor caused Jjy her fall, and also that it was very improbable that those wounds had been inflicted with the instrument of which so much lias been said. As to these circumstances, there is a se- rious and very important contradiction in the testimony of the medical men. We cannot, therefore, rely stiHiciently upon it, in order to find this man guilty and send him to the scallbld. The other testimony is besides far from being enough to lead us to this conclusion. We must receive Grace's testimony with the weight that is due to it, for what it is worth, but it is to be leinarked that he is corroborated on the main points. ''The Crown has then entirely failed in its proof. In order to find tlu; firisoiier guilty, we must belic^ve that he suddenly hecam(> a demon ; this is incredible. Then let ns be on onr guard, for it is written : ' He who sheds the blood of his brolh- or, his blood shall also he slied,' If we wore to condemn an in- nocent man \vc should render ourselves guilty of the most ter- rible of all murders, a judicial murder. (This is inaccurate ; the Judge said : The warrant undcn- which we act is — ' Whoso sheds man's blood, liy man shall liis blood be shed.' In dis- charging it we must bewMre of transgressing, else we shall be guilty of the worst of all murders, &c., ike.) Conseiinently, I believe it my duly in such a case to declare that in my opinion the prisoner at the bar should h(\acf|uitted.'' 'ihv. jt'iuarlo tvliiluig to l>i'. U'wrtiiin^^loii In Ihr ;ib..vc ivi-ui't were wamiiiUMl liy lli<> iiMturc of hi? eviMeucc ; any injurious It'udfMicy llicy may \ui\v hail most have been coimlfM-acl-'d bv the tla;ii'iiii- frrms winch hjlloW'd. This pu!il!'';;tion ihro caimol ho l!i'.' up.r of which lie coniphiins, it mnsl he Ihi! »f tlie Slifrtroolo! (uiZ'iUf. Now, this last roporl is a tissoo of coarse niis->taloijieuls and nlil;^(■pr(•i^onta lions from iK'ginning to end, andditl'ers maUnial- ]y from thai of the ['ionnirr. i.ol only iis rcgirds Ihr Judge's f'harge. Imt also as to the ruKugs of the Court and the evidence uf some of Ihe wiliurii^i'S. In parliciilar. with ri'sjieci to the •ludgeV charge, the reporter of the Gazcttf has carefully ex- cluded everything lo be foun^ lu the Pionuier whi'di is al all favorabh' t > Dr. V.'o.rthington, aggravated m tlio grossest mamuM' \\ hatt'vcr reiiecled upon him, and dclib.ralely fo)!?t"d in ^vl)at wa^ never uttered. Whai rendeis thc-e discrepancies belwt en Ihe reports oi the Judge's c liarge in the?e ]'.ewspn|.'ers llie more remarkable is, llial they all relau; to Dr. W orlhiugtun, ;'nd that ihe report of the Jnd'^e's c!iarg(3 in tin; Oazcile, ;is will ajipear from the fol- lowing^ lelle;, \\;iS piepared f:om the notes of the Pioiintcr : — SherhrooKe. A"gust 2L*, ls7l. IioiiKUT Sfiuur, l.i^'l.M' of th>s iil I have no hesilation to say tlial il rnnlaiiia the whole substance of the charge, and is coirecl and accurate us such. I remain, Dear Bir, Your obodiiMit servant, L. C. liEl.AMlKU. Co-Editor of the Pionnier dt SlurOivoliC, Notwithstanding all this, although the report of the Pionnier was much more favorable than that in the Sherhrookc Gazette^ and that the latter had been prepared from the notes of the former, yet Dr. Worthington with strange perversity ignores the report of the Pionnier and adopts that of the Gazette^ and when this fails him resorts to his own invention or that of some of his friends. Wliat is still more remai-kable is that judge Short had much more reason to complain of the report of the Gazelle than Dr. Worthington ; so much so, that I took tiie pains to contradict it. Hut the most suspicious ciirnmstance of all is that the author of the report of the Gazette^ which Dr. Worthington pretends was calculated to do him so much harm, was not, as one would naturably supi»ose, his enemy, but one of his dear friends and admirers. (Combining all these facts tliey conspire to shew that, if there w'as not complicity and collusion between Dr. Worthington and the i-eporter of the Gazelle^ there was some- thing very like it ; and thai the object of the latter was not to injure the form(>r by the report, but to snpjtly him with what he wanted, a grievance — a pretext — an opportunity of gratify- ing his vanity and vindictive Icmpei-, of injuring Judge Khort as much as [lossilile. at the same time ventilating his own opi- nions and advertising his high attainments. Dr. Worlhington's conduct befori! and aftei- the publication of tliis pamphlet, and llie character of that production tend to prove tliis. After the delivery of this charge of which he complains, Dr. Wortiiington, wlio was then my fathers jihysician and attend- ing my mother, mot my father as usual daily, and never shew- ed by his manner that he felt injured by what had occurred. And my father who fell he had done nothing more tlian his duty, was not conscious of having given him any just cause for com- plaint. All this time Dr. Worthington was no doubt working at this Pamphlet. When everything was ready and the train laid, he wilbdn'W. This pamjililel ajipt^-u'i'il. ■ \ T ' .3 lis puljlicalion was uol coiifmod, as oiio might roasoiuilily ox pc'ct, to pprsons and places to which the Shcrbrooke Gazette coii- taiiiiiig Ihe charge complained of extended, but sent to persons and places where and by whom this paper and Dr. Worthington wi're probably never heard of before. Copies of it were trans- mitted, I have been credibly informedjthroughout the whole Do- minion, as far as England, to Ministers, Judges of C;uiada, i^c. The injury to Judge. Short, the benefit to himself were ma- de as extensive as possible. The aim with which he sets out in this pamphlet is only a cloak to conceal his malice, and the manner in which he at- tempts to accomplish his professed object betrays it. He de- fends himself by committing in a much more aggravated form, the very thing of which he complains in Judge Short, an un- justifiable attack upon his reputation. Does the degradation of another elevate ourselves? Is recrimination vindication? His mildness and modesty, though they may deceive some, were in reality only a mask assumed in order the better to effect his purpose. When self exaltation was his aim, humility was the best disguise. Besides an injured tone and modest airs enabled him the more easily to secure that sympathy and belief which he sought. But any pretension to modesty or mildness is repel- led by his boasting in this pamphlet of advantages and attain- ments which were never qui.stioncd, by its extensive publicity, and by the form itself in which the attack has been embodied. For, if Dr. Worthington be \'ol aoluated by insatiable malice and a devouring vanity, why did he not answer this charge in the same manner inwdiich it was published— in the newspapers ? If his defence wa& good, why did he not at once cooie out boldly, why all this intriguing and careful paving of the way ? A newspaper was too ephemeral a publication to suit his pur- pose ; he fancied he had a golden opportunity to immortalize himself under a pretext of self vindication, and he could not re- sist improving it to the utmost. Dr. Worthington anticipates this objection by alleging ns his reason for not doing so, that the Sherbroohc Gazette denied him the use of its columns for that purpose. This excuse how- ever is a little too transparent. Is the Gazette the only news- paper in Canada? Would any editor in the Dominion have rc- fuised him the right of vindicating his character in a pr»)per. manner if injured ? 1 caniiol believe il. Tlio uii.'ro (.!.\[»o.surc' of lli;,' I'lilsouoss of llio rcixtiL of lli:.' Gazel- le and llie suspicious circinuslauccs uudor which it was niadi', ought of itself to bo a sufficii'ul auswer tu Dr. WorUiiugtou's pamphlet. For Dr. Wurlliiuytou, as tlu> grouud work of this production, takes tliat rcjiort, which being -eniovod, llie super- structure Ijuilt upon it falls to tho ground. I shall not liowdvcr simply content myself with this, but follow tlio aulhor of this pamphlet step by step, latter though the task be, through the details of this case, — acknowl.;dge the truth when I find it and bring my proofs in its suiifiort — point out what is false and per^•erled, and contradict and exjilaiu it. And 1 venture to assort that, if I meet with the impartiality which all the circumstances of this case entitle me to ask, I shall prove to the satisfaction of any uuju'ejudict.'d person, that the spirit and purpose." of Dr. WorthingLon is not what lie represents, but somethiug entirely ditlerent ; that th(!n> was notliing in Judge Shorts charge whicdi was not deserved ; no- thing which coidd justify Dr. Worthington in taking tin; mali- cious course which he has adopted. J shall not make a single assertion on my own authority. I have tho best evidence to rely upon — the Judge's notes, the reports of the two n(nvspa[iers, the Ploanicr and the Gazelle^ the notes taken U,v the defence by Mr. Pannoton,and the distinct rccuilfction of persons who wore present and heard and undei s.L')cm1 what was said ; all of which will bear uie out in my asr.i:.rlions. In commencing his pamphlet, W\ Worthington coni[)Iains that Judge Short, in his charge, i-epresented him as " positive, deculed and dogmatic, and as having conducted the examina- tion of the body of Mrs. Hill with e.\treme carelesness." Judgt; Short did say that Dr. Worthington was positive, de- cided and dogmatic in his opinions, and that he had not con- ducted thj elimination of the body cf Mrs. Hill with proper care. Those words, positive, tlecided and dogmatic, are surely neither very oifensivo nor injurious; oven if they were, what proof lias Di'. Woi'lhington given that they were unfounded ? Undeuia])ly, they were just and deserved. In his evidence, at this trial. Dr. Worlhington's positive, deci(h.'d and dogniatic style and opinions were remarkable. Allhough lie had not seen II mo body of Uiis woman unlil twenty hours after doatli, yet he pronounrod as posilivcly and doeidodly that she had been murdered, as if Jic liad witnessed the s':"cne from tho beginning 10 lh»! end. Mary Hill, ;igL>d |;3, the daughter of tho deceased, who was at home on tlie night of tho 14 Ih., when hoi- mother died, and saw and heard evorytliing that was said and done, and without whose knowledge no act of vioh}nee could have been committed, testified that her mother met her death by an accidental fall on the cradle and that, when she was dying and conscious of her state, told her this. The evidence of the child was firm, clear ami consistent, and not contradicted by that of anv other evewitness, but confirmed on all material points. On the contrary, Dr. Worthington, who had witnessed nolhing th: t took place on the night in (jnestion, asseverated tliat it was utterly impossible that tho deceased could have di<>d in any accidental manner whatever, that she must have come to her death by violence, thus contradi. ting the evidence of an eyewitness and the last words of the ilec(\ased. Dr. Worthington was not only positive as to the manner of the death of the deceased, but was also exceedingly positive as to the weapon used. This, he asserted, was a piece of iron made use of by ililFs family as a poker, or something exactly similar. No trace of blood was discovered on this instrument ; Mary Hill testified that it was lying on the stove at the time of the accident, and the only reason given by Dr. W(n-thington in support of his assertion was, that the instrument in question corresponded exai-tly wiih lh(> size of the wounds. A case is related by Beck, in his Mcdiral jurisprudence, which aptly illustrates the danger of medical men pronouncing positively 'Concerning the weapon used solely on the ground of its cor- responding with the wounds feund ov. the dead boily. A man was murdered by anolhei', called Thom, in lHi3, in Maine. Tho surgeon who examined the body of the d(>ceased found on the premises a pair of iron tongs, with tliD bow of which one of the wounds of Ih ■ murdered man coiresponded exactly. From this coincidence the surgeon infern.'d that this or some such instrument \vas used in the murder. For a similar rea- son two other surgeons who (wamined the body agreed that it ■was caused by some blunt inslrmnent, a brickljat or the like. The criminal, after conviction, confessed tiiat \n) had used an axe. 1-2 Dr. \VorthiiiL;tO!i was also positive; as to ihc di'.'ss of tlic (h'ft'ast'd. IltT diawors, ho said, were arrang.'il in one parli(M]- lar niaimor and no otlior, thov \vore bnttonod hon^ and there and noL elscwh.-rc. How conld Di. Woilliingf on know this ? When he saw tli>' liudy they had been i-enioved. I may hei'e i-eniai-k that, lor one; who knew so little of the affair as Dr. Worlhington and had so few materials to work with, the eonstructive skill hf; displayed in the manufacture of his theory was astonishing. Tlie nunulcst detail was not foTgottf'n. There was nothing wanting to make it coinplole, except a foundation. There was not a spark of evidence in its sn[)port. Dr. Worlliington was not only positive and decided, ho was also dogmatic. When cross — examiniMl concerning the fh'st wound, the superficial one, and asked whether this wound could not have Ixien caused by a fall on the siiarp corner of the bench or (M'adle L'u ei'ating the parts w ilhoul tearing the dress, lie answered thai it could not. Yet, Tayloj- says that considera- ble laceration of the soft parts of the body and even severe fracture may be caused by a blunt object, without tearing the dress, provided it be of an elastic or yiekling material. Being asked whether the same wound could have been eausijd Ity a fall pressing the tisr-ues with sudden violence against, the edge of the pelvis Ijcnenlh, which by its resistance produci'd the cut in (juestion. Dr. Worthington answered that it could not have been cans .' in this way. Yet, Taylor (M. J. p. i".)'J) remarks that, ''■ when the soft parts of the body are struck and there is .1 bony surface beneath, a longitudinal rent often appears as a result of the force being received liy the bone. A fall on the vulva may produce a similar injury, and unless carefully exa- mined, may lead to the inference that a weapon has been usetl." When asked concerning the second wound, the mortal one, whether it could not hav^ been caused by the bursting of a thromliusor sanguinous tumor,Dr. Worthington repudiated the idea as absurd. He admitted howoA'cr the bare possibility of such a thing, but said he had never seen one in all his practice. Tumors of this kind, he answered, could not be formed in a short time, in n few hours, it would require days for theii- for- mation. Yel, Cazeau, Valleix, Velpeau, Nysten, Churchill agri.'o that these tumors do not unfre(]uently occur in e.xactlv [ho sfimc placo wlicro tlio scrmul wonud was siliiattMl, ninl Ihat this is a usual seat uJ" those allVclioiis. Tlial llu-y ofliMi swell rapidly (in a frw minutes) to llioir full size and burst with a suddenly fatal result. Many rases are reported hy these autliors where, in the process of childhirth, these tumors have formed and burst, and the patient his died undidivered. Moreover, when quf^stioned whether the instruments produced was not one of those which would iuilict a wound by perfora- tion, he admitted that it was. Being then asked whether wounds made by perforating instruments wore not always— imless exa- mined immedial(dy after death— smaller than th(; weapon used, ho replied that they were not, but larger. Now, Deck, Ijayard, Dnimylren, all concur in tiiis^ that wounds "^mado by perfora- ting iiistrnmentsare always smaller than the arm used, on ac- count of the elasticity and contracti])ility of the tissues. After many (juestions like these, in his answers to wliich he had contradicted some uf the bi-st writers on M(>dical science and Jurisprndeuce,— Taylor, Beck. Bayard, Churchill, Wilson, Vel- peau, Unpuytren, Nysten, &c.,— he was asked if these were not good authni'ities ; some he answered were, others, the french authors, he confessed he had not read. Being then asked if in tho works of lh(>se w; iters many cases were related, principles laid down, and opinions (>,\pressed in opposition to Ihf.sc he had main tained in his evidence, this circunislance would not shake or induce him to medify his opinions — ^- A'o, il tcould not ; I would bvlicve those n-riUra only in so far os ihry agreed iriih me and no further^'" or words to that ellect. Here, tho Judge intei-posed and inquired: '"Whence do you deiive your knowledge ?" '■'From my tUH-nty-righl years experience,'' answered Dr. Woi-thington,— thus setting up his own opinions against those of the mostcele- brated physicians, and extolling his twenty-eight years expe- rience as a higher and more fertile source of knowledge than the writings of some of the ablest authors on Medical science and Jurisprudence. , With regard to the remark which Judge Short made, as to the want of proper care in the examination of the body of Mrs. Hill, this was the only observation that touched at all Dr. Worthinglon's professional reputation, and referred only to his mode of conducting the post mortem examination in this case. I think it will not be denird liiat, in a trial for murder, wdiere a medical witness appears against the ac- »..i «i i i Bi > ii >.M.j«i .^ H ciis.'il, Ills ovidiMiri' slioulil aiw.'iys lii' roundod (tii a (•.■irrriil (vxaiiiiiialion of tin' l)0(ly of llKMlccoascd, moivcspiMMally wlu-ii such tosliinony is IIk^ only cvidciKN; ap;ainsL the prisoner, bnl al>ovo all in a case like tlio prcscMit, whci'i* Uic (.'vidcncc of a nn'diral man was not niortdy iIk; only cvidt'ni'o against llu; nccnsed, lint fonti-adiclcd by ryiwitiicssi s. In Ihrsc last ini-n- tion('(l rasos any want of can; on the pail of a nu'dical wilncss \A'er to a question whether the swollen and discolored appearand^ of tJie right labium was not a sign of a wound liy contusion, he said this labium was not swollen and discolored. The Repoi't before the Coroner's iminest by Dr. Austin and Dr. Worthington was then produced ;uid read. ]i\ this Ilepoi-t, which was made nnder oath, " embodied one stateiu(mt of facts," and pni-ported to be a cor.rLH.'t account of the examina- tion of the body, the following statement appears: " We then> <;xamined Ike external organs of generation and noticed first that they were covered wilJj blood and that the riijht labium was swollen and discol&rccL'''' Jieiug called upon to explain this contradiction, he answered that the report containing this statement concerning the swollen and discolored appearance of the labium was written in a hurry and did not express his mean- ing. This Report, on which these men Hill and Grace were com- mitted for murder. Dr. Worthington admitted was mad(j in a iiurry ! The statement therein contained as to the swelling and discoloration of the labium, and which aflbrded a good gro\md for the theoiy of the defence, indicating as it did a wotmd by contusion, Dr. Worthington said he did not mean ! This was a very convenient and characteristic wayof a voiding the difliculty. ho I.') Tliiri iv|)(,i! Ill' says is iii)t lo in.' foiiromuh.'d willi ih.' r.\;iiiii- iialiou ul' 111'' hoily. U pui'porlt^d liDWt.'Vor to contnui I ho lull .'iiul ronr-cl ivsiih of Ihat oxaiaiiiatioii. It \va> saciaiinMilal and not afti.'iAvards coiToctt.Ml nor amcudod. Di. \VorLhiiii;loii's t'VuhMicc on this [Mjiiil. \vil!i lelVriMico to Uic abovtj mciitioiiid slaU'iHOiit, is llic less cxi'iisahli! Iw aiisi- it iclaliMJ lo an ohvio\is fact, which iiiusl liave prcscntod itself lo any one oxaniiniujj; Ihe ^onila! or;,'ans of dcrcasf.'d witli oi'dinary cai'o. lint Ihih was not IIk; only icason, as ho has asscrlod, for tho reniaik .hidj^'o Short made in vr'fi.'icnro lo him, roncorniny his wanl of cart' in tin' o.vaniination of the Ijody of lh(j docoasiul. Ill his I'oport, a f^arbleil extract of which is qnotod in his piniphlftt, tho second wonnd is (h'scrihod as cnw. and n half inches III Ifiiijth and I'co in drpih. In the report of his evi- dence, in the Shrrbvoolic Gazelle, in the Judge's noti!S and lhos(! of Mr. I'anntHon, all of which correspond exactly on this point, this wonnd is described as one and a half in lenylh and about tiro and a half in depth. In Uio instances above given, Dr. 'Woithinglon contradicted befoi-o the Jnry his report made hefore the Coroner, twice : — First, concci'ning the swcdling and discoloration of the labinni, and secondly, respecting the size of the second wonnd. These contradictory statements, if the I'csnlt of one and the same examination of the bodv, camiot Lolh b(! true, one of them must be false. Bnt both stalemenls were made under oath on very material points. It is charita- ble therefore to conclude that neither is false, hut both are true. If l)oth these Btatements then bo true, they must be the result of two diil'erent examinations, one h(>fore the Report was made and the other afler, and one of these examinations must liave heen conducted with exti'emc cai-elessness ; for how could two examinations of the same l>ody, \mless it had un- dergone a miraculous change in the interval, liave been care- fully made with sncli contrary results? — The one examination presenting a siroUen and discolored appearance of the labium, the other nothing of the kind ; the one disclosing a mortal wouml one and a half inches in length, and two in depth and the other one inch and a half long and t^'o inches and a half deep. The assumption of carel(!ssuess, therefore, is the most favourable way of accounting for the above contradictions. Dr. Worthingtou. in his pamphlet, asserts that \hfi periosteum of the bone was toi-n ojf. In his report before the corotuu' he is IG silent, on lliis point, slaliii;; ii!iii[ily tli;it '' lli ■ ho-ii; was laid l)arc foi* tlu? tlistaiicf of nearly half an inrh." If il hr. \i\u; Ihat th-; pcriostcinn wnslorn from the bone, why wai. not th(.' fact nicn- tiont'd in his rcpoit ? It was ccrlai.ily a most matf.'rial point and, if trnc, nii.sl liavo lu'cn ohsci-vod Ity a snr';;ron oxaminin;,' the parts with any afli-ntion. Vi.'t, Dr. Worlhington, at tho trial, in answer to the (jnestion wheth(5r tlie bone was snatched nr marked by the Idow. said it was noi, only hare. Mow conld the p(M"losteum have lu-'on torn olF the bone without leaving ii scratch or mark which acaiefnl examination must have reveal- ed ? Tliis inconsistency im[)lics (Mtlier cai-elesness or reprohen- siblo for^'et fulness on th(.' [>ait of Dr. Worthingtou. Perhaps, howevei', he will explain it in the same way in wiiicli he ac- counted for his contradiction of the statement in the Report concerning Ihe swelling and discoloration of the labium, — it was made in a hurry, it was not what In? meant. These alle- gations involved important mattersof fact : The one— llie .tict'//- ing and discoloration of the labium^ was a strong argument in support of the theoiy of the defence ; Ihe other — the tearing of the pcriustrurn from the bone, an oh]Pxl\on against it; the for- mer Dr. Worthinglon defeated by saying lie did not mean it, the latter ho h s italicized in his pamphlet, though lie did not mention it in his report before the Coroner and said the revers(i at the trial. What answer does such— quibbling— shall I term it, deserve ? Several things have been stated as facts by Dr. Worthington in this remarkable pamphlet, which were not menlioned in his evidence before the jury. How lias he arrived at the know- ledge of these new facts? Has the body of the deceased been exhumed and examined afresh? Have these new ideas been furnished by a capricious memory or a fertile imagination ? Again, Dr. Worthington stated, in his report and in his evidence at the trial, that the pudic artery was cut. When asked whether it was one of the small branches of the pudic artery or the main branch, he answered that it was the main inter- nal pudic. He admitted however that he did not know whe- ther the blood was arterial or veinous, and also that he had not traced bach or dissected the i^csscts. How then could he assert positively that an artery had been cut, or if he could, that it was the internal pudic ? f r t I-'- 17 11(1 liuri! Iial th'! icl inoii- il i)oinl iminiii}^ , ai Iho ! rale hod AV coukl i.'iviii^ fi revcal- pprelu-'U- P or haps, li lie ac- ic Report liimi, — it ese allo- ,he swell- itiioiil in caring of the for- niean it, (lid not .c reverse ill I term rlhinglou led in his le know- ised been leas l)eeu a lion ? id in his tien asked lie artery ain inter- low whe- he had not [ he assert :ould,,lhal L'lslly, \vh.;ii asked whelhei- Ih" deeeasi.'d was a person of syi)liililie hahil, he aiiswinvd : '* In all my (;xpeiienee, 1 never o\aniine(l a nKjie hmililiy body ; lher in depth, Dr. Warthinytou having s-worn that it was one and a half in lerrgtb and alwiut tioo and a half in depth. But this diiVt'ivnce was not, as as.serted by Dr. Worthiugton, the only one in the evidence of the medical witnesses. Dr. Worthingl-on contradicts Dr. Austin on a very material point already mentioned, namely : the swelling and discoloralion of the riijhi labium. In his evidence before the Jiu'v, Dr. Austin admitted that Ih'^ right labium was swollen and discolored, liins agreeing with what he lias stated in his report b(?fore the Coroner. On the contrary Dr. Worthiugton in his testimony denied that this was the case, thus contradicting Dr. Austin and also a previous allegation of liis own, made under oatli, in the same report. And the only reason given for this contra- il ictiou by Dr. Woi thington was that he did not mean what he had said. If in this report, which ho had sworn was correct. Dr. Worthiugton did not mean what ho had himself dfdi- Leralely written, what better reason is there to believe that he meant what ho said before th(> Jury, what assurance has any one thai he means anything he says at all? The diffeience belweeu these medical witnesses on the point above mentioned was not a disagreement of opinion, but a direct contradiction on an obvious and most important fact. In the extract given by Dr. Worthiugton, in his p<'unplilet, of I he rejKjrl made hy him and Dr. Austin before the Coroner, he lias purposely excluded the statement concerning the swollen 19 ;iiul discolorod appearan(?o of tlio lahinni. This — oir.ission .shall 1 call it — on tlio part of Dr. Worlhiiigton, is very siguifi- canl and " iii^'Jily suggestive." The following extract taken from the original of that report is a little fuller and more correct than that given hy Dr. Worthingtoa ; "W(! thiMi examined the external organs of generation and noticed : First — that they were covered with hlood and that the rigiil lahiuDi tvas swollen and discolored ; Second ly--soparating the labia, we discovered on the inside a wound of about an inch and a half in length and a quarter of an inch in iho deepest part, ttiat deepest part being its centre, the ends of the wonndsoxtendnig only througii the mucous menilirane ; this ^vouud presentod a livid appearance ; Thirdly — An inch from the last described wound and still fiu'ther within the labia, being justat'fehe entrance of the vagina proper, -we observed a second wound, also on the right side, of about an inch and a half in lcu' intricate difUcuUies in Medical durisprndence " is astounding. Gertaiidy he reflects immense credit on his former masters. His boasted silver medal was a paltry prize for on(! so distinguished. Su(di a brilliant luminary moving in so ex- tensive an orbit must eclipse all other lights in medicodegal- scieuce. The contradictions, inconsistencies aufl fallacies above men- tion willatroi'd some idea of the nature of the medical testimo- ny for the piosecution. Whnt confiJenco could Judge Short repose in evidence of such a (diaracler ? Having with infinite pains patched up his own tlieory. Dr.Wor- iliingiou attacks I hat of the defence. His m' uner of doing this is peculiarly liis own. He fahricates a theorj which was never broached nor for a moment enlertaincd, makes Ihe Judge and medical witnesses talk nonsens(\ and then triumphantly refu- tes it all. He repiesents Ihe defence as having adopted two theories concerning the cause of the mortal uouiid ; oiie the bursting of a varix ; the oilier, accident. This is false. There was but one theory and this was —thai the n^.oiial wound was .he etl'ect of the bursting of a thrombus or sanguinons tumor, caused by an accidental fall on the corner or ro( ker of the cra- dle. Assuming as the J)asis of this Iheory thai clause in the me- dical report of Drs. Austin and Worlhington respecting the swelling and discoloration of the right labium, wbi(di indi- cated a contused wound, and m confirmation of this tin! evi- dence of Mary Hill who swore that her mother bdl on iIk; ci'a- (ile, it was suggested by the defence that the first wound, the superficial one, might have been caused by a fall dirertly on this body, or by the sudden and violent pressure of ihc tissues between the corner or rocker of the cradle and the edge of the descending ramus of the pubis, the latter cutting them. An to the second, the mortal wound, it was urged that it might )iav« "liMMi. . ■)■) 1)0011 ocrasioikMl in llio following mnniior :—whon the deceasccl foil, many of the dooper sealed blood vessels, which ahouiul whoro this wound was siUialed, were ruptured by the fall,lho blood being extra vasa tod into the surrounding tissue formed rap- idly into a tlirouibus or sanguinous tumor. The action of the deoeased in rising to go for the doctor from tlie bed whore she had gone to lie down after the accident, disturbed this tumor which now- had attained a largo size; it burst and the fatal liomorragho lensuod which caused her death. This hypothesis was founded upon the concurring tes'.imo- uy of Di's. Pare and Paget, supported by some of the highest authorities in Medical science. A reference to these authori- ties which are given at length by Dr. Pare, in liis theory at- tached to this pamphlet, will convince, J think, any unpreju- diced person that the Iheoiy of the defence was not so wild and extravagant as Dr. Wortliington would lead people to believe. Dr. Wortliington has made several. objections to this theory, which I have no doubt he believed irresistible. But the theo- ry which he has represented as that of the defence and which ho has with su( h apparent vigour attacked, was not the theory of the defence at all but one of his own creation. That the xnortal wound was caused by the bursting of a vari.. was never for a moment pretended. The only mention of varic(\s in con- wection wit'h the theory of the defence was that tiioy were a predisposing caus3 of a sanguinous tumor. The objections of this c.uidid doctor are therefore irrelevanU Tliey display ho- wever such novelty, depth and originality, that Ike attention of the pvd)lic, should be drawn to them. The first in importance of these objections, and no doubt in the opinion of Dr. Wortliington the strongest, is his ignorance and inexperience of such a thing as a varix in the labium. Ho says: '"■in a practice of 28 years in the country, I have never stMMi a varix in the labium — uiiver." To those who have not such an exalted opinion of Dr. Wortliington as he has of him- self, this objection may not appear very formidable, his know- ledge and (3xperionce would not ])crhaps be a fair or satisfacto- ry criterion. Notwithstanding his 28 years experience and other boasted advantages I know several medical geutlomen who have been only a few years in practice, and yet have met during that time several cases of varices in that situation. For instance, Dr. Pare, who has only been in practice about ;?;{ a eight years, saw a varix in the la])inm of decp.'isiMl somo live- years ago, and had another caso of this ki Jtl very rec(MiHy. 1 know also of another young physician who lias not practice as long as Dr. Pare and has mot with three cases of varices in the labia, one of which he is now attending, the other two he saw when a student in an hospital. Does not this prove what Judge Short said that a young man may see more in a city in a few years tlian an older physician in twenty-eight years practice in the country. In opposition to Dr. Worlhington's experience on this point many high autliorities might he quoted. The following, I think, are sufficient. Churchill, page 570, remarks '^ that the veins of the labium and the parts about the origin of the vagi- na and vaginal canal do liecome varicose and occasion conside- rable inconvenience, every one knows "—except Dr Worthing- ton. But it may be answered that the objection founded on the rarity of varices in the labia applies with greater force to the existence of a thrombus in that sitnation. It is true, 1 be- lieve, that such affections are rare, but thev are infinitelv less rare than the other circXimstances of this case. I am ignorant of a single case like the Hill case in the criminal annals of this countiy and only three or four similar are reported in tlie Books. On the contrary, many instances of thrombus are to be found in the writings of the best medical authorities, espe- cially in those of the French authors, and Dr. Paget testified that he had ^.^et several cases of tumor of this kind in his practice. In his masterly digression on the subject of varices in the labia, Dr. Worthington observes :" as varicose veins are always superficial, external force will burs' »liem laterally and inter- nal force externally." If Nysten be a reliable authority varices are not always superficial : " Far from being rare, deep seated varices ai-e more common than those M'hich are subcutaneous. The real original seat of dilatation iflebectasie) resides in the deep seated veins. It is from those that the (list"nsion arises and is propagated to the subcutaneous vessels," (p. 1188). Be- sides would it not depend upon tlu; direction of the force whether a varix bui-st laterally or otherwise ? If a varix were pressed laterally between two l)odies, would an external riMU down the middle be an ininossible rcsuU ? Is even force alwavs 24 neccsaary to causi; llio nipUiioof a varicosn vein? Is the spon- taneous bursting of a varix an inipoasibility ? On this point, Drnit, (p. 311)), says: "Sometimes veins become exceedingly thin and burst, causing a profuse or even fatal hemorrhage." Again, Dr. Worthington remarks : " surely, if death was caused by bleeding from a distended vein, that vein would Jiave been seen. Judge Short said no, when the vein was cm[itied of its blood it would be impossible to see it." Dr. Wor- thiugton's version of what Judge Sliorl said on this point is garbled. The Judge's remark was as follows : — " hi a case li- ke the presenl, whore death was caused by hemorrhage, and according to the evidence of tlie medical men for the prosecu- tion there was not a loaspoonful of blood in the body of the deceased, would it not have been extremely difficult, w'hen tho veins were empty, for Dr. Worthington to see them as they were in their former stale, and to pronounce positively that there were no varicose veins there?" And the familiar illus- tration Judge Short used to elucidate his meaning was this: — " Let your hand fall and remain in a perpendicular position for a short time, the veins swell and distend; raise it, the blood retreats and the veins do uot now appear swollen and distended as taey were." Is not this just and reasonable ? But the truth does not suit Dr. Worthington; it deprives him of that which misrepresentation affords — an opportunity to ridi- cule Judge Short and at the same time introduce that elegant and poetical simile about a sack of potatoes. Even this com- parison tells against him. How could even Dr. Worthington say from the empty appearance of a sack that it .vas before full? but supposing for a moment that Judge Short had said that it would have been impossible to see distended veins, he would have been supported by M. Velpeau. This great physician in discriminating, the varicose state of the veins and the inflam- mation of lymphatic vessels remarks that the existence of tho former is often, to be ascertained only by touch the latter by sight, thereby implying that varicose veins are not always visi- ble. So true is it that vessels when empty cannot always be seen after death, physicians often inject liquid in order to bring them in to view. Again Dr. Worthington objects: " 1 would ask then is it pos- sible that the deceased in falling could have received wounds of such a fearful character as to cause death retaining con- a ciousiioss ol^ou^•h lo know that, slio slood in need of God's mer- cy and of medical aid, and yet romaining ignorant of the exis- lance of these wounds btdieving only that she was l)leeding to death from flooding." If, as suggested by the defence, the death of the deceased was caused by hemorrhage from Ihc bursting of a sanguinous tumor, might not the deceased, though con- scious, have been ignorant of its existence when such a cele- brated physician as Dr. Worlhington in twenty-eig!it years practice never mot with a single case of such an aireclion I There is a remark made by Dr. Worthington in llie form of an olijection and wliich I confess 1 do not understand. It is this : '•' It appears lo mo that any body being a right angle to cause a wound two inches in depth must make an orifice exter- nally of at least four inches in length." If tliis erudite doctor's aim in making this observation is to shew lliat he has read the 47th. Prop, of Euclid, Bk. !., he can be understood ; otherwise this remark is like the rest, ostentatious and wholly irrelevant. It was never even dreamt that the fatal wound was caused by the corner of the cradle penetrating the body several inches. The theory of the di.'fence concerning this wound Jias been already given. The nature of the preceding objections which 1 have pre- sumed to criticize proves that Dr. Worthington has not shown even the capacity to understand the theory of the defence, much less lo refute it. Not satisfied with having misrepresented this theory, the learned doctor will not even allow that it was ori- ginal. He refers to the Barsham murder case which is no- ticed in a number of the '- London Lancet, " August 1870, as that from wiiich the theory of the defence was borrowed. To this assertion I have simply to answer — that before any report of the above case had been seen the theory in Hill's case had been decided upon. It was entirely original and any credit due to its conc(.'ption belongs lo Dr. Pare. The theory and the circumstanct!s in the Bariii.un case were entirely diilercnt from that in which Andrew Hill was concerned. In fact these cases resemble each other in nothing except the situation of the wounds. The same remark may be applied to those other cases which are cited by Dr. Worthington in his pamphlet. Any out' who will consult the reports of these cases can easily biilisfy llieuiselves on this [toinf. In all ol tliciii theiv was, apart from the iiu'dicai tosliinony, good sulislaiUial evidence against the accnsod. in the llilloasc, li«^sidi!S the medical testimony, there was not a sciiUilla of evi- dence against the prisoner, but on the contrary the h(3st ad- duced liy the crown, that of e^e-witnesses, was in his favor. In- tleed the only proof at -'il that a niur ler had been committed was that given by Dr. Worthington. How far did this testi- mony extend? Simply to this length — that the deceased died by violence ; as to the hand that perpetrated the deed, it was silent. Apart from this evidence, supposing for a moment, for the sake of argument, that it was reliable, what was there to connect the prisoner Hill with the crime it attempted to esta- blish? Nothing but that vague threat which Mrs. Shores, the sister of deceased, testified that Hill had used some time be- fore the death of his wife. Admitting this threat to be true, ln)w did it point to the way in which the deceased should ilie ? Could the murder of a wife by her husband, at six o'clock in Ihe evening, in the presence of her children and her pretended paramour, be the execution of such a threat as this: — " 1 will put a stop to her drinking befoi'e long, in a way that wont be known?" What belter way could he have chosen if he had wished to be discovered ? Jt is very remarkable that nothing about this threat was said or even hinted at by Mrs. Shores in her evidence before the Coroner's Jury. The e.\cessive emotion of this woman and the fact of her having sworn positively yet incorrectly to a circumstance wliich she must have recollected, were calculated to throw discredit on her testimony. I have no intention of ridiculing the feelings Mrs. Shores displayed for the death of her sister Mrs. Hill, but I cannot help saying the de- monstrations of sorrow made by this woman in the witness box were so extraordinary as to suggest the suspicion to any ol)- server that they were not genuine. The circumstance to which this woman deposed may appear imimportant ; but it is by eliciting contradictious on points apparently trifling that the evidence of a witness is often im- pugned and overthrown. In all the leading features of a story a witness is prepared and can though untruthful be consistent. Judge Short did not accuse this woman of perjury as asserted by this doctor. His remark was: " This woman is either mis- taken or she has conmiitted perjury,'' and it was certainly justified. For an incorrect statement made under oath is either iiitpiilionnl or iininlfMilion.-il. U intontionnl it is porjury, i. uiiintcnlioual a ini.slakc So far was Jiulgo Sliort from ac- ciisin.!,' this woman oC p^rjui-y, lio used languago wliirh im- plied tho revei-so. For ailoptiiiij; Iho most I'avourahl.^ alterna- tive he said: '•This woman has been mistaken on an impor- tant point, she maybe so as to this threat." Even supposinj,' the Judge had made this remark, how is Mrs. Hhoies concerned in the vindication of Dr. Woi'lhington's professional reputation? Why does he waste a page of his precious Pamphlet in making a jeremiad over lier? He evidently needs su[iport, and embraces indiscriminately every thing that can supply his want and bolster up his att.ick against Judge Short. Besides there are pt>culiar reasons which ix-nder it advisable to conci- liate this woman and enlist her on his side: Ilinc lacrymo.'— Hence all these tears. But any suspicion which the threat in question might have excited against the prisoner ^is; rep(dled by his behaviour after the death of his wife. None of the usual signs of guilt were shown. There was no attempt at tliglil— none to stille inquiry or to avert suspicion. On tlie contrary the moment danger ap- peared, he sent Grace for the doctor and his daughter for tho nearest neighbour, being so crippled by froz'Mi fcid that he could not go himself. Even if no niMghbour had been called in, was this omission remarkably susi)icious? Jn a case where death was so sudden and rapid was it luniatunil that such a step was not taken immediali.'Iy ? In cases of alarming and pressing necessity do we always preserve our presence of mind and act as we sho\ild ? The fact also of Hill not explaining to Dr. Worlhingtou the cause of his wife's dea'.h in a satisfactory manner was not very strangv. IIl- told all be know and he knew uolhing but what he had heard from his daughter. The cause of the death v/as as mysterious to him as to others. The only pres.uuption remaining against tho [irisoner was the unusual ■sit;\'iation of the wound. To these Avho unlike Dr. Worthington will acknowledge tliat there are some things hryond their compreluMision this objection is not material. Often, the oilecX of accident seems the result of tho nicest design. Theorizing however on this matter is idle. We have the evidence of Mary Hill who ?aw and hi-ard all that was said JU)d done on the night of the lith. Sbe testified that on the x's »»viMiin,L,' ol' lliis (lay she was in llio house wiili her mollior. whiln [Jill, (irac(! and licr youiijjiM- sister were oiUsido ; lliat in risiiif^- willi tlic Iwiby in her arms ffoni Iho rradlt} where sho had boon siltin,:>, liei' nuithcr fell forward a;^ainsl, the Itcnidi in front and Ukmi liacdvwai'd upon the cradh'. U[)on hi'r dangli- Icr exclainnu!,' '• Xow yon have hnrf the ])aby " sho answered : '' It is not liie haliv ImL nivsell" wlio is hnrt, if it were not trv- hv^ to save the bal>y I slionhl not l»e Inn't."' Si)e llien got up, put her hand nnchn- her dress and said : I am l)loeding to death, tell your father lo eunie ni qnickly. Slic walked to her bod, lay down, and soon afterwards died. In her last moments when, as her daughter expressed it.slie was piayin;^ for herself saying: "(Jod have mercy on nry sold." in answer to .1 (jnes- tion how she had hurt herself, deceased said : •' on tlu; cradle." The acconnl which this witness gave of the d(!ath of the de- c(>ased at the trial was the same which she ielat(>d before the Coroner and that which she gave to her aunt Mrs. Shores, a f.'w hours aft(U' her motlier's death. Her evidence was con- firmed on all important points by John Oraci', anolher witness present, and remains unshakim and entire. It must therefore be admitb-'d, if not, on what grounds should il Ite rej sister of her nioliinr when; slip coiiM iiiibosoni Ikmsi^II' with salVty, and every arti- fice no donlit was nsf' unisl be received as true. If so, Iheii the medical tesliniony of llie prosecnlion must be rejected, be- raiKso it is directly contiadirlory to it. Moreover, if this woman had been mnrd(M'cd, it is probable lliat Dr. Austin who saw the body very soon after death would liavG seen sometliiug to e\cite suspicion; but he aduiitled in his evidi.Mico that he did not suspect any foul jilay. Mrs. Shores, the sister of deceased, wdio came soon after Dr. Austin left, also admitted that sln^ iiad no suspicion that her sishM' had been murdered. Twenty hours after, durini,' wliich ample timo had been afforded for concealing: every trace of p:uilt, if there was any, and inventing sonu^ cnidible account of the manner of th/" death of deceased. Dr. Worthington who knew notliincr of what had happened but lint which he had learul from Dr.Ans- tin, appeared on the seene, iimnediately a most atrocious njui'- der was iliscov(ued. I may here remai'k that this is not the first time Di'. Worlhington deservi^s the merit of having found out what liad escaped other medical men , his fondness and fa- culty for startling discoveric^s ar(> notorious. The body was examined, an inquest hold and a report hand(Ml in Ity Drs. Wortiiiuglon and Austin, in which it was asserted that the deceased had died by violence. Hill and (JraciMVoro apprehended as ilw murdc-ers. The preliminary examination was conducted before tln^ Coroner at which several hundred people were present. Hill and his two daughters, one l;{, the other 9 years old, (irace, Mrs. Slioies, Drs. Worthington and Austin and s(n'eral others were examined. The account giv(Mi by Hill and his daughters and ))y Cirace of the affair was clear, consislenl, similar, and wa,s relatiMl with such an air of trut;h- fuiucss, that some who had previously believed a murder had been committed entirely changed their opinion. As to the testi- mony of Mrs. Shor.'s on that occasion, there was not a word about that threat which sin; afterwaids spoke of at the trial. J have been infornu'd by a gentUniian who was pi-esent when she was examined l)eforc the Coroner's ,lurv that few of the mn. :!(i iiy wlio Imnid her It'slimony had iihk li confidcnrc in wlialsiii' snid, and foi' \\u'. sauic? i-casuii as liial vvhicli indii'cd .liidj^'O Short to iiiakt> tilt' roniaiU with whicli Dr. Woitliinploii has rcproacJjed him — 1 moan hor o.xrossive omotioii. Kight of the Coi-onoi-'s.Tin-y wore ol" o^tinion llwt the (h'alli of (hn'oaarHl was arridtMital, llic other Iwtdvo that it was lli^ K.'^^ult of viohMicc, some of wlioiii had no oth-.-r reason for their verdi't tlian a du- siro for a more tliorough investigation of the matter. Let any one for a moment weigh and contrast liio evidence for the proset.ntinn and the defenre. For the prosecution, tho only evidence was tlii' opinion of JJrs. WorlJiinjiton and Austin which was conllicting, unreliahleaad in oi>[)Osilion to two otiier medical men o(]\4ally al)le and more coiapelenl, and also to the highest authorities in Mediwil soieiice and Jurisprudence. For the defoucc, lljcre was tlie evidence of Drs. Pare and Paget, con- vsistent, similar and supported by some of the ablest physicians and writers on forensic medicine, I'ounded on llio concurring testimony of eye-witnesses, tliat of John Grace corroborated hv Marv lIill,aiRl sealed bv th(jenly advaiiood because tlu're was no jtioof in its support. And it was of the last iiiiportanco that a belief so pn;- valeiil yet groundless slioul 1 not be allowed to take jiossession of the minds of llu;Jury. For if this theory was once admitted, then the e.xisteneu of a motive would appear and a link connet'tin;:; the prisoner with the alleged murder, forf^'od. No theory could su;j;get;t a inon! violent provocation than the tlis- covery by a husband of his wife in an act of adultery. It was a matter theioforo of great importance tliat the minds of thu Jury should be disabised of any such idea and this was the reason why Jndgo Short took the pains to show its extremo improbability. Again Dr. Worthington makes Jndgc Short spoak as follows : " Want of education is a barrier to the acquirement of medical knowledge and length of practice is of secondaiy considera- tion," and further: " Dr. \Vv."thinglon tells you, gentlemen, that in a practice of twcnty-idght years he nc\or saw a vari.\ ; on the other hand, here is a medical gentleman who tells you that they are of frecpient occurrence, that he has seen them in his own practice repeatedly. This, gentlemen, is another proof of how necessary education is to the acquirement of medical knowledge and how one man being educated may learn more in throe years in a citv than another man in twenty-eight years in the country," " But then, gentlemen of the Jury, Dr. Worlhington is, after all, a more country practitioner." A few words of this quotation are true, the rest, especially the last lines, are false and perverted. The only remarks Judge Short made at all resemlding these were as follows, hi analyzing the medical evidence for the prosecution and defouce he said : " In Ootimating the testimony of nitHlical wituessus, expe- rience is not the only thing to be considered. In medicine as in sciences, skill and knowledge are derived — not only from practice and experience, but also, from the study of good au- thors. A physician's otniorlunitio'j for obsorvalion inuslalso l)e /«-■ "*£■!«.*«" t taktMi iiilo coiitiulcratioii. A young niau may soo inoie variety in a city in ilin'o years llian an older practitioner in twenty eijflit years in tlit^ country. Dr. Wortliington Jias great talents, but uj is liable to err and may sonielimes be mistaken. In opposition to the medical witnesses for the prosecution, we have gentlemen equally capable and more competent. For Dr. Worthington tells you that he has not met in his twenty-eight years pi-actice with one single case of thrombus. "Whereas the medical men for Die defence have seen such cases and have told us, supported by the best authorities, that tumors of this kind are not unfrequent in females, and Dr. Pai'e has testified that he had observed varicose veins on the body of the deceased some years ago. This proves that though Dr. Worthington poss- esses abilities and experience there arc some ' things which are not dreamt of in his philosophy.'" From these remarks this candid and modest Doctor has care- fully selected everything which by the most perverse inlerpra- tation reflected upon him, wilfully overlooking all that was favorable. It serves his purpose to say that Judge Short cha- racterized him as an uneducated country praciitioner. It fur- nished him with a handle for a smart retort and at the same time a pretext for informing the public of tlie following ^ery important and interesting intelligence — that he is a person of extraordinary attainments, — that he was not born with a silver spoon in his mouth, that he has hcAnx in a city and in the old country, — that he was a pupil of Dr. Douglas and awarded a silver Medal for Medical jurisprudence some thirty years ago liy certain eminent ])ul lumamed personages. That Doctor Worthington was not " born with a silver spoon in his mouth" is a fact that was never contradicted. I'or this lie has no reason to complain ; though fortune may have de- nied him abundance of silver and gold, nature has compensated him with a rich supply of a metal uotv a days as highly esteem- ed — ))rass. As to those advantages of which Dr. Worthington makes such a parade, admitting them to be true, what do they prove ? Has the mantle of Dr. Douglas and the other celebrated men he mentions fallen upon him ? Many a schoolboy could make a similar boast — that he had won prizes and received the instruction of able men. Does this learned doctor forget the calf that sucked from two cows and became only — a bigger calf in consequence. If Dr. Worthington really be y person of 33 ago r)00U Ihis e (le- satcd iigloii [hvy ralod coil Id >d the sucii high atlaimuonts as he professes, what is the necessity of piiblishl'ig this fact? Surely the public are capable of finding it out of themselves. Perhaps however some of his intimate acquaintance have not yet made this discovery ; he is there- fore excusable in adopting this mode of advertising. While indulging with such complacency in these remarks concerning himself, why did he not entertain the public with an account of soHK of those cases in which he has so brilliantly displayed '' his professional attainments?" For instance, that late affair of W. C. Drew vs B. Bullard and John H. Peck' just reported, in which he made such a laudable attempt to distinguish himself and won such unexpected renovyn ; oi some of his recent dis- coveries in medical jurisprudence, — how often he has solved any of its " intricate difficulties" to the satisfaction of any on« but himself — how often he has been a witness for the Crown in trials for murder and how often, when the case for the pro- secution depended in any way on his evidence, the Jury have given a verdic' in accord.iuce with it? Even supposing Judge Short had cal'od this eminent doctor a men; country practi- tioner, ''-ha' else has he been for the last twenty eight years ? What prospect is there of his being anything more considerable as long as he lives? Having furnished himself by the language al)ove quoted with what he conceives to be a good pretext for insulting Judge Short, Dr. Worthington launches out into the most elaborate sarcasm ridiculing him as incompetent and as having made mistakes, etc. In answer to this, I have simply to say that several medical gentlemen who, in the opinion of many, ai-e superior to Dr. Worthington were present when Judge Short delivered his charge, and I have Iheir authority for isserting that all the judge's comnvnils on the medical evide.ice were just and acurale and in uniKC.i with the best writei"s n Medical science. The reverse n-igJit be truly said of the evidence oi Dr. Worthington. Indeed his opinions were so diiferent from anything to be found in t!i.'se writers, so original, so profound that they certainly deserve to be published in a more ambi tious and enduring shape than a pamphlet form, and ho enti tied to the position of a teacher or oracle in tliat science. 1 niig'.U -"no ion of ♦An extract of a report of this case, in *»liich Dr. Worthington fig .red «o conspicuously, >vtll be I'uuud in i\ui Appendix of this pauipMt'i. ]»j\:vo\\ his 0\\\i laiigiiage and roconmiciid all persoiis wlio desire to acquire now ideas in iiKHjical jurispi-ufloucp to ropair thither and place themselves under tlie tutorship of tliis uio- dico-legal star. In his Iwcnty-tnglit years experience tliey will liiid an iriexhanstilile mine of medico legal knov/lodge dillereut from anything to be found in the text books extanl on that science. The novelty aijd originally of his notions would jus- tify him in imitating some of those ancient phih)sophers who the moment they acquiri'd ucw ideas founded a sc]u>ol,gavo it a liigh sounding name and published a few leading docti-ine.-^ to allure follo\Aers. This is a step which I am sure would suit the inventive genius of this enterprising d*)ctor. It might ap- propriately l)e styled "The Py thagoreo-Worihingtonoo-Ciabalistie Sect." Some of us dogmas will proliabiy be— Tolerate no supe- rior -Discard uiodesty and reserve--Cnltivate impudence and bujfvjonerv — Learn to advance the rankest nonsense witii as lirm an air of assiu-ance as if it were the soundest sense — Be- come notorious at any cost. . * * * Dr. Worthii'igiim thus continues : " After allowing the most extraordinary questions to be put to nie by Mr. Robert Short, the counsel lor the defence, such as : Dul you not form a theory l^efore you .saw the body ? Did you not make the circumstances suit liie theory ? Are you uot in the habit of doing so. &c ?" To" lie u'iticed even unfavorably by a pru-son so disti!\guished as Dr. Worlhington is an honor wliich demands some acknowledge- ment. It is true that I did ask some snch questions as these, lull I would not have put them to any other medical man. My reason for asking e\en him these questions was a convei-siitiou concerning tiie death of Mrs. lliU shortly after the post-mortem e.^amination, fi'om which I inferred tint the mouuml he saAv the i»oh3r and before seeing the body ho suspected foul play iVc, ^c. Until the above questions hail Vxhmi asked and answered 1 had no reason to believe that I Jiad mistaken his meaning. As soon aftcn-wards as an apportunity olP'red I ex- jiiessiMl my n^gret for tiaving used words wliich apjieared so nuidi to disconcert and otfend him. lb; seemed to b(! satisfied and 1 thought it was foi-gotten ; for it is usual,! believe, xvherc an oftenco is given and apology oiTered and accepted, no further meulion ismade of the tnatter. The ideas of this doctor on this poml are howeverpeculiar. \Vlien Imad(^ this apology, ( did so 3.) ■ory iices 'IVV Dr. 'dge- My I lull ii.'in saw play ami his I f\- lul so isUecl hero rther n this lid !^o under the inomoutary impression that he had some claim lo be treated like a gentleman, I now avail myself of this opportunity lo apologize for that mistake. Besides this question did not in- sinuate that Dr. Worthington had made the wounds— there was no doubt on the part of the defence that these wounds existed before he had e.vamined the body. The woret suggested was that in the excitement of the discovery of these wounds he might have, in attempting to ascertain whether tlie poker fitted them, slightly altered their size and shape unintentionally and un- consciously of course. Dr. Worthington's language relating to these questions which he has taken such pains to select and expose implies that in questions like these with varia- tions the whole of the cioss-exai liuation consisted, and that the Judge neglected his duty in allowing them to be asked. The instance just given is not the only one in which Dr. Worthington makes use of me in oi'der to slrengllien his attack on Judge Short. In referring to the strictures lae asserts Judge r h^rt passed upon him he remarks : " There was this consola- tioii that every person present knew the why and the where- fore of the attack " and again : " The prisoner did not require it and the imagination is left to fix on the real object of his sympathy," meaning 1 presume me. In another place 1 am ilescribed as an object of " unworlhthy partiality " and further, referring to two cases reported by Mr. Watson, he says: "For- tunately for Soci(,'ty they were not tried befoi-e Judge Short." The most obvious interpretation of which all this issaisceptible is that Judge Short f;'oni an unworthy partiality towards me, attacked Dr. Worthington in an unjustiflable manner and that the prisonpr though guilty escaped in consequence, It is ini- possible to conc^eive a more atrocious calumny than this, in suppor' of 'his charge no evidence has been nor can be given. On w?i;it ^iTfvnnd partiality can be imputed as the cause of ■Judg( Si'. ■• : ^ remarks respecting Dr. Worthington, it is ha-d to fcn^ei^ "^'bj only reason 1 can imagrue is this — That I was so sor.^iy disconUlted and exposed by his repartees in cross-examination that two days after, though I had iiever complained and was unconscious of the fact, Judge Short attacked Dr. Worthington in an unjustifiable manner. This se<'ms lo me very farfetched and absurd. Wliatever may be tho r.pinion of Dr. Worthington and his friends as to tin resuM of tli.o cross-examination, it did not in tlie mind of ;UJ some ri'dountl iniuh to liis credit or ropiituLion. It is not a litllo surprising that it never occurred to Dr. Worthington that the true cause for the remarks of which he complains was the in- consistencies, fallacies and inaccuracies in his evidence. How- ever obvious this might appear to others, it would I presume be unreasonable to e.vpect that such an idea shoiild for a mo- ment dawn upon one who has been a pupil of Dr. Douglas, de- corated with a silver medal for Medical Jurisprudence and had twenty eight years experience. The mere possibility of a mistake or error to such a personage is a notion too absurd and improbable to be for a moment enterlained. As Dr. Wor- thington has not adduced any proof in support of his insinua- tion as to the reasons of ilie Judge's charge, I will take the liberty of giving a few O' his terrible effective answers to some of the " extraordina. > "^--uons" I presumed to ask him. For instance, one of Dr. Woi I on's first answers under cross- examination was a positive stat, ent on a very material point directly contradictory to one he had previously made under oaih. Some of his other answers contained the most contemi>- luous contradictious to aulhorities who are regarded with the greatest respect by the ablest [ihysicians? But the most re- markaltlo replies of this facetious doctor and which 1 have no doubt he l)elieves contributed so nmch to my discomfiture were the following. In illustrating some remarks concerning the nature of the instrument used he said : — " If my lips were closed and I received a blow upon them they would both be injured," this sugg(>sted tlie following question : — " If one of your lips were struck by the clos(>d hand for instance, would it not exhibit a swollen and discolon.'d appearance on the outside and a cut in the inside ;is a result of its pressure against the teeth?" " It might." — "Does not this external swelling and discoloration of the i-ight labium and the cut on tlie inside in- dic;it(> that these elfecls miglit have been produced in a similar maiuKu' by a blow from a bruising body pressing the parts against the edge of the p(dvis underu(>:U!i?" Dr. Worthington ans- wered — '' Tlirre irrrc no trcUi 'ffie! ! !" He could not deny that in«this case the effects were exactly similar and that the cause might be so too, but he could not admit it, without con- tradicting himself, for he bad already said that the wound rould not have been caus"d by a fall on the cradle pressing the parts ngainst the l)Oiie Ijenealh, the latter cutting them. Ho avoided the difficulty by tiiis rharactoristir witliclsm. Again, when asked whether a Ihrornhiis could not have been caused by a fall on the cradle, Dr. Worlhiugton answered : — " What, Sir, do you mean by a thrombus?" On this question being repealed he said : " Oh you are looking at the cradle." In ansAver to another question Dr. Worlhiugton putting his hand to his face and turning with an air of mock deference to Dr. Pare said in a distinct voice, " What, Sir, is the technical name for cl — p," as if he did not know it. I have given here fully and faiily all those answers of Dr. Worlhiugton which contributed so much to my discomfiture and his satisfaction. Were tiiey so terribly severe and con- founding? Were they not on tiie contrary indecent, evasive, savoring of buRbonery, and disgusting — unfitting the sanctity of the place and the solemnity of the occasion, and disgraceful in one of his age and profession ? With what propiiety could a witness who conducted himself in this way claim the prolec lion of the Court? Did he not on the contrary mei'it the sever- est censure ? Jf Judge Short leaned at all towards the defence in this case, it was solely on account of the prisoner, who certainly stood in greater need and was more deserving of protection than Dr. Worlhington. I have the best a\ithority for asserting that if .Tuuge Short had not believed that the life of the accused was endangered by Dr. Worlhingtou's evidence and at the same time had not been thoroughly convinced of his innocence, he would simply have glanced at this Doctor's evidence and sum- med iip in a few words. He did not know the ti-ulh which I have since ascertained, thai the jury had made up their minds to acquit immediately after the e.xamination of Dr. Worlhiug- ton and before a word was said on behalf of the defence and two days previous to the delivery of his charge. If Dv. Wor- lhiugton had heard some of the genllemen of this jury, who are as intelligent as himself, commenting on his evidence after the trial as others heard them, he would have found their ty'- marks less flattering than Judge Short's, Notwithstanding liis positive l(?slimony there are proofs which tend to shew that how fii'uii;. soever persuaded he may have b(!en that a murder had been committed, he did not believe Andrew Hill guilty of the crime. For instance he said at the trial : "• J have known tile piisoiKU' for the last twcuity yeare and F never kucwa more 38 liarmless and inolTonsivo man." Again in tho beginning of liis pamphlet, reTorring to tlie causi; of tho Jndge's charge, ho says: " There was no necessity for any nnusual elfort, the prisoner certainly did not reqnire it." Lasth, in a conversiilion with the prisoner's danghter bi'fovc she gave her evidence for ihe Crown ho used language which evidently implied he did not believe Andrew Hill was the supposed murderer. Of this con- versation tho following is the child's account: — Mary Hill being duly sworn doth depose and say : '' I am the daughter of Andrew Hill and I have been a wit- ness for the Grown in the case of my father. I was going up to the Court House fov my father's trial with my aunt Mrs. Shores. We passtul by Dr. Worthington's place. My aunt went into the house to get some medicine from the doctor, 1 slopped at the door, when doctor ci. Wortluii,qtoii hclic-M-d IlitM'O um;^ no evidoHce {igaiiisi the [.risoucr. Auil yot in liis parnplili'l li'.' hns usod iMiij^iia^c which oroi-laiins iliroclly the roveisc These words in tlio afTidavil-^-' Tell the lnil'i,iny dear cliiM, i^<\ evidently mean tliis— say with nie that your motlier was murdered or you shall go to gaol and be punished, don't let any fear for your father restrain you, &e., ^c. Now suppose for a monierU, what is extrenifdy j'roliaMe, that this young girl, like other children, Jiad been itdlueneed more iiy th';se threats of gaol and pani.sliment than by her regard for the truth, what would have been the consequence ? Undoubtedly till:*: her father would have been iiung, on Ih ■ false testimony of his own daughter. Bui then Dr. Wortliington's theory would have been preserved, his great repulaiiou slightly enhanced. Suidi conduct as this deserves exposure at Irasl. Referring to that solitary question by M. Bros to be charitably attributed to a country practitioner. All the rulings of Judge Short ir. the course of this trial were in perfect accordance with precedent, principle and authority. With regard to severance of defenco, to grant it is purely discre- tionary in the Court. When the circumstances of the case jus- tify it, consent to an application of this kind is nut unfrequently given. Archbold, vol. 1 page 319. Within tht last eighteen months, there have been two cases, besides the Hill case, in which severance of defence was allowed upon the application of an old and experience lawyer. The Queen vs. Wilbur . Al tli.' same lime he characleri/fd him as a man of talent. I llniik I have furnished satisfactory proof thai all these remarks of the .Tnd^'e, except the last, were just and deserved ; Jiuleed, I venture to say that, if .Judf,'o SJiort's animadversions Jiad been murli more severe, Ihey would have been warranted by this Doctor's conduct Ihroughout the wliole of this affair. For instance, his treatment of Ihe prisoner's daughter before she gave her evidtsnce ; his indecent levity in the witness-box, the coiitrailiclioits and fallacies in his evidence ; hisdisrespectfor authority, etc. 1 would, moreover, ask any im- partial person to consider the character of this Pamphlet, its professed aim— vindication, which is in reality only vindic- tivencss ; his alTectation of mildness and modesty, when self- conceit and malice come up in every page ; his base attempt to rob an old man, when dying, of that which was dearer to him than his life — his reputation— and answer whether suoh a one deserves shelter from his Ord(?r or from Society? Is such behaviourcalculaled to lower or elevate the profession to-vvhich he belongs? Can it be a[»plauded ? If so, theii, none are safe. Any one, who has the misfortune to lose a near relation by a mysterious death, is liable to be indicted foi- nmrder ; his'fa- mily distressed ; the Government pal to vast exponsij, and the whole atlair turn out— a bubble. Then a witness may speak and act as he pleases in any of Her Majesty's Courts, and if aJudgv presume to comment on his evidence and accidentally wound his vanity, be shall be exposed to public contempt and oblo(]uy ; the administration of justice weakened, and Society itself shaken to its foundation. 1 i APPENDIX. BEDICAl TIIEOBl OF THE DEFEXCE L\ HIE lllll CASE, By F. PARit:, M D. ■J'« llu' Kditors of iJie Canada Medical Junnial. Gentlemen, \J-L^.% !' '^f.yo^Monn.a], piiblisliod in Mav last, you desrri^ uimL^btb lui llie defence in the trial of Andrew Hill, fur innr- Jonningjoni'tielves of the nature of llie theoiv adont.-.l -nul unisnjonwili flu- reasons winch induced me to denosc l\, !%• ,^ -^""T^^"'' <'^- «-ii'S"inous tnnionr. 1 w m hrsl cite from the evidence of the Dau'^Mer of tho/lo po.T.sing these yon still find ru^Sy'^^l^'^Ji^';^ % doing so you will much oblige, Your Obt. Servt, FRKDERIGPARE, J. icet^itialc lit tncdrriiir. Itl i:vii)I:n(:k nr wat.v k. iiii.i. I ;rni 'he il'iutilitir of Andrew Hill, 1 rim l.'{ years old. I wfis alone in llie house witii my mother when ihe accidiMit hap- pened ; my mother was siltin;^ in tluM-raddle with the hahy in her arms. She got np and T»it''hed forwai'd ap:ainsl tho l)eneii and then f(dl backward on the floor behind the cradle. She lay there some minutesand then gol up, and ran towards the IkmL WliiMi isho got up from the floor. I said '' yon have hurt llio baby " and she said no, it is myself that is hni-t. She put her hand inside her dross and told me to tell papa to come in (juick as she was ])leeding to death. She tripped ou the rocker of the cradle which caused her fall. Sh(> told me that she had hurt hei-s(df on the ;orner of tho bench and that she got her other hui't liy fal'ing with her bottom on tiie rocker of the r'radle. When she fell she cried out'- (J Dear! () Dear I My mother told Giac(> to go (jni(kly after Ihe doctor as sJuHkuI hurt herself and Avas bleeding to death. When tine doctor arrived she was dead. KVIDK.NCE OK nns. WOirmiNGTON AND AtSTIN. \V(! examined the external organs of giMieiation and noticed : First, that they were covered with blood, a.nd that the I'iglit labium was swollen ami discoloroil. Second, separating the labia we discovered ou [Iw inside of IIki right labiuma wound of about an inch and a half in hMigth, and a quarter of an inch in its deep(>st part, that dnep(>st part being in its center, Ihe ends of the wounds extending only throiigh tlit^ mucous mem- brane. The mticous nu}u\brane around this wound jtresented a livid appearance. Third, one inch from the last described wound and still further within the labia, being just at tlic en- trance of tho vagina proper, we observed a second wound, also ou the right side, of above an inch and a half in length, and two inches in depth. Tliis wound extended from its margin passing internally between the right wall of the vagina and the descending ra nnis of the pubis, but not connnunicating with Ihe \agina. The wound was full of blood, th(^ linger could be passed readily to the bottom of Ibis wound, which internally pre- sented a jionch shaped cavity of consideralde extfuit. WhatevfT instrument inflicted this Avonnd appeared to have struck with consideiable force against the ec ge of tin; descend- ing ramus (jf the [)ubis, laying the bone bare for a distance of nearly half an inch, then glancing off and passing between the pubis. Dr. Woithiuijilon cross-examinrd. — I think that Ihe wounds described might have been inflicted by the iron instrument now shown to me, I htted it this morning to botli wounds and it fitted them exactly. I do not think that thes(> wounds could - iMM^^'«k'>'' 1 / I liavo bt'Cii iullii'lcd by railing against the ljeiu:li as they werc internal wonnds. I think lu-r clothes must liave been up when she received the wuund.s. The woinids were not inlhcted through the clothes, or they would liave been cut or lorn. 1 do not think that deceased n;ceived the wounds accidentally but by violence. When asked if the iH.riost(;uni of the bone was not scratched or the bout; fractured, the answer was it was not, tiie bone was only Itare. Dr. Austin, said : The edges of the two wounds wei-e cleanly cut as if they had l)een made by a sharp instrument. The lirst wound partifulai'ly was so cleanly cut that I am obliged to nse the fingers to open the edges of the womid in order to see it. The mucous nieinlwane around the second wound was livid. The second wound, the mortal one, was separat(>d from the \agina, only by the membrane of the vagina, ])ut did not com- municate witii the vagina. Mary Hill, daughter of the dects'isinl, slates in Inn" evidence that her motlnn' got hurt l)y falling. It is very probable that she received contusions in her fall. The Physicians called )jy the Coronr'r to examine the body, at the lime of the Inquest, — say : We examined the external organs of generation and noticed hist, thai they wi.'n; covered with blood and that the right l.ibium was swollen and discolored. Taylor, in his treatise on uiedical Jurisprudt nee says, pagt; 21;{ and '214: Contusions and contused wounds are couunonly accompanied by a discoloration of the surrounding skin, to which the Un-iii ecchymosis is applied. If the contusion has Ikhmi raused some lime liefore death, there will be swelling of the part. Owing lo such swelling and discoloration on the external sni'face of the I'ight labium, it is probable ihal there was a contusion. The Physicians, continuing ihi'ir examination say: Second, separating the labia we discovei'ed, on the inside of the right labium a wound of aliout an inch and a half in length and a quarter of an inch in its de(>pesl part, i^c, ^c. Tlu' second wound of about an inch and a half in length and two inches in depth and I donl think that these wounds could have been indicted by Ihi3 bench, as they were internal wounds. The wounds were not inllicted through the clothes, or they would have been cut or loi'u. I dont think Ihal deceased rec ived the wounds accidenlally but by violence. ".'aylor, page 221, says: " Contused Wounds by bludgeons, 0' >th( I- blunt instruments, may be i-eadily in'odnced through tl:e dress without tearing or injuring it. Consiilerable lacera- tion of the skin and nniscle anil even sev(>re fractures may he raused without necessarily penelraling tlie dress, sui)[»osing it lo !)e of an elastic or yielding u.'itiu-e." Tin' clothes of the deceased being ample and <>f a Irong lexlure. it IS probable 18 T thai slio leceivcd her wounds in falling without having her dross tojii. Taylor, page 299 says : " Contused wounds on tJie female genilais may prove fatal by the laceration of parts leading to great loss of blood. Several trials of manslaugliter have taken place, in which this was proved to have been the cause of death. A contused wound on the vulva may occasionally pre- sent ill ambiguous appearance and be mistaken for an incised icound. Wlien llie soft parts of the body are struck by a blow or kick if there is a bony surface beneath a longitudinal rent, mav appear as a result of the force bfung received by the bone. A kick on the vulva, or a fall on this part, may produce a similar injury, and unless carefully examined may lead to the inference that a weapon has been used for its production." When deceased fell the weight of her body pressed the labia between the descending ramus of the pubis and ihe hard body upon which she fell, eitlitn- the cradle or the bench. And de ceased fell the more violently as she could not protect hei'self with her hands, in which she held her child. Whi(;h explains her saying after she had got up, that, if Ihechild had not been in her arms, she should not have beenhurt. U is quite post-i. ble that the pressure of the labia between the descending ramus of the pubis and the hard body may have produced theecchy- mosis, that is, the swelling and liviaity noticed on the external surface of the labia ; that it may have been the cause of the first described wound and that it may also have been the cause of a thrombus in the vulva and vagina. Beck page 15, trating of contusions says : Ecchymosis is pre, sent whenever the contusion is sutTicienlly violent to induce the rupttn-e of a blood vessel, and the natural result is to com- municate! a color more or less livid. When the quantity of blood is large, it is called " a thrombus." Here, it is necessary to give the description of a disease which, although rare, has nevertheless often been met with, that is, the disease called thrombus or sanguineus tumours in the vulva and vagina. In the No. CXX II of the Amaricnn Journal of the Aledical Sciences. A critic of the Traite Cliniquc ct pralique ihis innia' die puerpernles suites drs couches^ public a Paris en 1870, par le doclcur Hervieux, vwdecta de la malernile^ says: " The chap- ters for instance in Dr. Hervieux's work upon '^Thrombus of the Vulva and Vagina" and upon "sudden death during Labour" subjects upon which so little is to be found in our own language, are especially interesting and valuable," • Many more cases of this disease have bofu met with among pregna'.'t women either during or after childbirth, than in those wiio are not, for ihe very good reason, uo doubt, that child- birlh is of a much frequent occurence than accideiu. Authors who have quoted cases of Ihis disease in women that have g hev ?male ng to taken ise of pre- icised blow rent, bone. uce a Lo the tion." labia hod'-- id d<- ei'solt' ilains been posi-:i. a mil 8 cchy- Icrnal )f the cause s pre. iduce coni- ty of 'hich, at is, n the jdical mnia' , par chap- US of uring 1 our mong tiioso child- ilhors have 41) <^ been (ielivorcd of a clihl liavo nolicod that, as a goiitnal rule the labor had been more prompt and easy which goes lo show that, in those women there was what is called " Idiosyncrasy" or disposition for such discease. The cases quoted )jy Chur- chiiiand Gazeaux are cases of thrombus which occured in wo- men after tJieir delivery. Velpeaii, who is considered as an authority, shows that these tumors are nearly as freciucnt in women who are not pregnant as in those who are. Valleix, in his treatise " Gnide of the medic;il practitioner," vol. 5, page 27, .speaking of sangninous tumors, thrombus in the vulva and vagina, says : " The veinous and arterial system an- nexed to the vagina and external genital parts is extremely rich and his exposed to frequent congestions owing to two dis- tmct causes : menstruation and pi-egnancy. The mechanism va- ries in both instances, at the time of menstruation it is an active congestion, during which the repletion of the veins and the turgescency of the parts prevail, the latter being facilitated by the laxity of the cellular texture ; During pregnancy, it, is rather a passive arrest brought on by a difliculty in the return- ing circulation, and the cause of which is to be found in the dcvelopement of the uterus. These two modes of congestion are even found in some manner through the varicose state of the deeper veins, and also of the smaller superficial veins. Now, it may readily be conceived that veins so distended, relaxed, and perhaps rendered thinner, may break spontaneous- ly or under the influence of external violence, exactly the same as varicose veins of the lower limbs. Hence hemorrhages more or less considerable may occur in the deep seated tissues of the vulva, or the walls of vagina, which only differ from the peri- uterine hemorrhages by their location, the latter taking place in the peritonal cavity, but under the influence of identical causes. The first physicians who noti'-ed sangninous tumors in the genital parts have only considered them in connection with pregnancy and childbirth, but Professor Velpeau has since shown that these tumors are often independent of preg- nancy, and nearly as frequent among women who arc not preg- nant as in those who are. M. Veloeau quotes thirty cases in his own practice, and he says that ho noticed six of I hem in the course of one year. In cases when the uterus is empty it has always been observed that external violence has been the cause, a kick or a blow against the angle of a table, chair ^c.->., ^ic. The nature of these causes gives us to understand that there may be simultaneously an (external and internal womid. The empoverishment of the blood is a predisposing cause. Disten- sion and the varicose slale of the veins on the genital organs is a predisposing caiisf of Ihe groali.'st ini[tortance. In a i-ase of JU delivery tlier > is no external violence, but it is very clear lliat the child's he;. 1 performs the part of a bhint instrument by bruisinj^ the wa.'lsof th ; vagina and vulva. The most usual seat of thrombus is Ibo internal part of the labia. It is not :re to see a thrombus occupying at the same time both the -'gina and the vulva. When it occupies the vagina it is often fo^-.-J on the lateral parts. The tumour often presents a livid appeai-ance and becomes complicated with hemorrhage by the rupture of its membianes ; when the tumour is ruptured soon after its for- mation, the hemoi-rhage may be uncontrollable and unlimited. Churchill, J age 569, says, m his excidlent and elaborate ad- dress delivered the tl July, 1837, Mr. Cross remarks: " in no branch of midn'ifery have more contributions been furnished within the recent period to which I refer, than in respect to certain varices allaining an enormous size and bursting, so as to form sanguinous extravasation into the labia or the cel- lular texture of the pelvis and vagina, often with suddenly fatal result." Dr. F. Ramsbotham has published five cases, two of the right labium and three of the left, which occurred after labor and opened spontan(!Ously. There was a good deal of hemorrhage ; but all recovered well, after removing the clots. It does not recju'/e eitlu^r a dillicult or a tedious labor for its production; in many cases the labor has been short and easy. More frcfiuentiy the tumour appears after the labour. From this brief summary it appears that although the occur- rance is rare, it is by no means so uncommon as at first sup- posed. This disease which consists of an efl'usion of blood into the crlluhir tissue may etfect one or both labia and may ex- tend into the pelvis. M.r Cross regards t!ie tninoi's as the I'esult of a rupture of vf giual varices. That the veins of lh<.' labia, Hk; parts about the origin of vaijina and tht; vaijinal cawal^ do bccovic vavicoae and ocrasion coitsideroble inconvrnii'ucc every one hnuws. Mr. Stcndal ndales a case in which iiie LiMuour burst during labour and he states that between six or seven pounds of blood were lost ; the patient fainted and exi)ire(l. Thiee fatal cases are given in the Med. Chir. Review and Mr. Cross of Norwich met with one in which, during labour, rupture of the left labia took place to the extend of two or three inches^ followed by great loss of blood, and the patient died undelivered. Cazeaux, page (ili : "in the thrombus, the labia becomes swollen and rapidly distended, and forms a liimour more or less consideiab'e. in some instances, the quantity of ellused blood is such that the patient loses her strength and" faints. This tumour sometimes attains instantaneously its full size. It may confine itself to the external parts or stretch deeply into the pelvis and even as far as the iliac fossa. When the cellular texture is torn oU", the tumour is lluctualing i :>! I llio mucous monibrauc gradually mado thinnor ciuls hr bursting aud thcu follows a How of blood niorc^ or loss cou- siderablo. This lieuiorrhago may bo in sucli abundance as to cause dealb in a very short time. Nysteu, in his article on thrombus, says: ''The name of bloody tumours, or thrombus of tiio vulva aud vagina, is given to tumours constituted by blood infiltrated or oll'used in the lamellar tissue of those organs. Tlirombus most often affects the external labia, it has also been observed in the viuternal) labia, but rarely. The diagnosis of bloody tumours on the vulva is generally easy. Ju Tact, the sudden ai)[)(\arance of a tumour preceded by a sharp pain, the continuous and pro- gressive increase of that tumour, ofliMi an obviously determin- ing ("ause (blows, falls, violent eilbrts, ivc.,) are so many cir- cumstances which throw light upon the diagnosis. Those bloody tumoi.rs of the vulva and vagina sometijiics end by bursting. WJien the hemorrhage occurs, owing to the bursting of the pouch and of some large vessels, death may ensue after a few hours, aud even after a few minutes." "Wilson, Uurtuni Anatomy^ p'lgt' ^^i, says.- " The veins which form the uterine ple.xis surrounding llie vagina are peculiarly subjected to the production of calcareous coucnUious ternuni '' phlebolites," such is the name given to the calcareous concre- tion found inside of some varicose veins. Nysteu, on varices: Far from being rare, d(>ep varices are more common than sub- cutaneous ones The ivnl primitive seat of the phlebeclasie (di- latation of a vein) lies in the deeper veins. It is in these that dilatation arises and hence spreads into the subcutaneous veins." I have been the Hill familv Phvsician for many years. Five years ago. I attended the deceased in her conliuiuiiont, aud then obs(,'rved varices on the veins of the extiM'ual labia. It was the first tinu^ in my practi(;e that I noticed varicose veins in these parts. The presence of varices on the veins of the labia indicates that the veins on the walls of the vagina are varic(ise. For, accoiding to Nysteu, the real primitive seat of phh;be<'tasie lies in the dfjeper vcnns. On(> of the physicians says in his crosR-oxamination : ''The ends of the two wounds were clt;arly cut, as if they had been made by a sharp insliument. Tin; first wound particiilarly was so cleanly cut ihat I was obliged to open the edg"s of the wound with my fiugeis. in order to see this wound. The ins- trument produced as IIk; one presumed to have made tlu>se wounds is 1^ inch wide aud ^ of an inch in thickness. That iustruuK.mt is what we call a pinforatiug instrumeu." In a wound made by a pei'forating instrument, la the Medi- cal Jurisprudence, by Bayard, pag(! (i(J, Dupuytren and Samson tell us :'' There is distension first and then teaying. The wound is smaller than the instrument used owing to the elasticity of the tissues. The wound bear the character of the instrument, in its appearance. The wound is ol" the same diameter as the instrument only in the bones. Bayard, Medical Jurisprudence, page 60, tells us tliut, in wound intlicted with perforating instrument, " the solution of continuity is, in general shorte. than the length of the instru- ment, and it present more diastaris or separation than the depth of the instrument. "When the instrument is only sharp on one of its edges, a knife for instance, the obtuse extremity formed by the back of the blade, may be distinguished from the acute extremity produced hy the edge." If the back of a knife blade, in inflicting a wound, make a dull extremity to that wound, the instrument produced and said to have inflicted the wound described, which is one fourth of an inch thick and which is several times thicker than a knife blade, ought not to have made the two wounds with extremities cleanly cut, my own opinion is Ihauan instrument, which is rounded at the end, could not inflict a wound half an inch deeper at the middle than on the edges, and inflict ano- ther wider at the bottom than at the mouth having the form of a pouch of considerable size at liie bottom. Besides which the two wounds are wider than the instrument. From what Dupuytren, Samson and Bayard say, the two wounds described must have been inflicted by two instruments dilTerent in their shape and their width. The fu-st wound does not bear the character of one made by a sharp instrument, nor the character of a wound made by a perforating instrument. On the contrary, is has much more the appearance of a wound made by cou- tusiou. There is the lividness and the swelling without and the cut within the labia. Also, one of the physicians has admitted that this fii-st wound may have been made by contusion. Well, now the contusion, which has made this wound, has been such as to rupture the veins, especially if they were vari- cose, and the blood, which came out of these varicose veins, has formed a thrombus which afterwards burst and brought on the hemorrhage which caused the death of Mathilda Wat- son the deceased. The other physician has said that the two wounds have been inflicted by one and the same blow. After making the first wound, the instrument slided oil" and then made the second wound. We observe by the evidence that the first wound is smaller at the bottom; and the second wound is larger at the bottom, of the sliape of a pouch, and of considerable size. How there- fore can tne two have neen inflicted by the same instrument. And is it not much more probable that tho pouch shape wound of considerable size, was caused by the hood escaping from a ruptured blood vessel or vessels. It is proved, by the evidence of Mary Hill, that the deceased. ( ^ t t ': ii t her molIi'-M-, has f.ilh^ii v/itli tlm lower [)art ol' lior body on lilt? corner of the cradle and that she hurt herself in falling. Tiie swelling and the lividness on the external surfa^o of the labia, that is the eechymosis of thi; labia, indicating tliat there has been contusion of that part, corroborate the evidence of the little girl. According to Taylor, a kick on the vulva, or a fall on Ihat part of th(! body, may produce a longitudinal j'ent which res- senibles a wountl inllicled l>y an instrument. It is probable that the duceased received the first described wound in falling, because in falling the weiglit of her body caused the labia to be pi'essed between the edge of the des- cending ramus of the pubis and the body on which she fell. The result of such a pressure has been the rent on the internal surface, described a^: being ih(! first wound. According to Vel- peau, a kick, a ]>low on the angle of a table or chair, are deter- mining causes of the thrombus and the varicose veins of the labiii and the em[»ov('iishmout of the blood predisposing causes. It is probable that the deceased upon falling on the corner of the cradle, receive<{ a contusion sufTicient to ruption the veins which form the uterine plexus, which is on the side parts of the vagina. The blood etl'used in those parts then formed the thrombus, ik'sides, the lividness observed around the second wound, according to Valleix is almost always noticed around the thrombus' The clots of blood In the wound having the shape of a pouch and of considerable si/e, are also found, according to Uams- botham, in lhroua)us of the vulva and of the vagina. The di- rection of the second wound, wh>h follows up the vagina, without however couununicaling with it, indicating that this wound is found when tJi(! uterine venous plexus is, causes the presence of a thrombus to be presumed. Further more, there are two predisposing causes the presence of varicose veins on the labia, whi('h I noticed mystdf on Apiil 1866, and the thinness of thi; whole body as ascertained by the two physicians. This thinnes.-i indicat(^s the empoverishment of the blood, which I think was caused by the coutitutional syphilis. For in October, November and December 1860. 1 gave the deceased prescriptions to treat primary symptoms of that decease. In May, June, and August, 1870. I gave her other syphilitic prescriptions for the child which she was then suckling and which was only a few months old. On the body of this child I have seen the syphilitic erythema. The existence of the secondary symptoms of siphilis on the body of a child at the breast must be sulficient to show that its mother was laboring under constitutional siphilis. On ac- count of these predisposing and determining causes, 1 come to the conclusion that, not only it is possible but that it is very probable that the fall, which the deceased had ojj the corner ' / .»'» of llio cradle or llio luMich, has boon suHicionL lo cause llie fwi . wound as (IcsrrihiMl, and liiiiicj nil (lie IJu'Oinlins of ibc vulvn and vai,Mna. Tlie llin)iiiliiis ai'lcrwards Imisl spontaneously, or in till! niovcnienls whii'h slie made wliilsl she was lyin^ on lier lied. The luplnre ol' Ihe tiiionihns prodnc'd Ihr hem- onhaj'e which caused herdealh. MALPRACTICE TRIAL. AV. (l. DIIKW vs. G. n. DULLARD and .IOHN PECK. In this case, which took place recently, in St. Johnshury, Vermont, Dr. Worlhinj^ton gave (svidence against two confre- res, the Defendant^<. The following is an e.xtract of a Report of this trial and contains Dr. Wortington's cross-examination. KnwAitD D. WorrrniNOTON, ^L D. M. A., one of the Governor of the College of physician and Surgeon L. C. »t judgement V A. — Witness, after care- fully handling them aom^tim' . suiJ : Peihapa two or three ounces. Q. — Not 80 veiy much heavier, then, after all? A. — Not ao very much. Q — Now I want you to tell thn jury about ihe^e muscles which have their attachment to the shoulder, and about their contraction. It is true, iail not, that whenever a bone is fractured or thrown out of place, the muscles in the ntighborhuod of the injury, take on what ia called involuntary contraction ? A. — It is ; and sometimes ihat contraction is very powerful. Q. — In thij caae, the muscles about the shoulder coutract, sad tend to draw the ahonlJer down, do they not? A. — Yea, air. Q — And to cfifect a cure, you say it is important to keep the shoulder up — noAv. let me ask you as a mutter of philosophy, if it does not seem to you that the yoke splint is admirably adapted to accomplish this reault. A. — Perhaps 80 ; I can't say. Q. — Give she nameg of these muscles which contract to draw the shoulder down. Give them all. A. — There is the deltoid, the pectoralis major and the peciorali.s miuor. Q. — Give the origin and insertion of each. A. — The witness gave the origin and insertion of the deltoid and pectoralis minor, correctly — or at least to the satisfaction of counsel; but of the pectoralis major, witness «aid iu Hubstance, as follows : It has its origin from the clavicle, and its ioaertiou along the middle portion of the ribs. Q — Are you sure. Doctor, that tbid muscle haa its inseition along the ribi, at that point. A. — Yea, sir. Q. — Has it not its insertion upon the anterior lip of the bicipital groove? A. — I think it haa. I was mistaken ; it has. Q. — And did you give the whole extent of the origin of this muscle? A. — Yes, sir. Q. — Does not this muacle also extend along the whole length of the iter- Qum or breast bone ? A. — Yep, air. Oh yes. it does. Q. — And is that its whole extent? A. — Yea, sir, to be sure. Q. — Does it not also extenc along the cartilages of the true ribs? A. — Indeed, I think it doet>. Q. — This muacle has an cxteusive origin, has it not; more ao than you were thinking? A. — It haa au extensive origin. Q. — Have you givcti the uumes of all the muscles that have to do iudraw- i ,JI0 s ing the Hhoulder down and pulling: th« bone out of place? A. — I think I have unlcsH ii is (he Siitissimuii dorHJ. Q. — Has the biceps muscle anjthinjf to do wiihil? A. — It would have, Q — Now give the Oii^jin and inverlion of the Siuis'iauis dorsi. It is an Important muscle, is it nor ? A.- It is. Witness hel'' in bis hand a skeleton, and^ after starling once or twice to give the origin of this muscle, said: I don't know as I ciin give it in technical languBrfe. Q —Very well, sir, use jour own language ; but point '>ut to the jury wtereuboulB on the shoulder this muscle bus its oriijin, and give its direction j then point out the place where it terminates. Take your lime for it. sir ? A. — Witness turned ibe skeleton half round several tiin«s. and commonced as often lo answer the question, but finally said ; I don't think I can tell ; it has been some time since I was examined. Q.— But you say you are one of a board of exami/iers when at home- does it require less kiinwledge to txamine, than to be examined ? A.— In our examinations each bus his own department. Q.— Which is your department? A —The primary. Q- — You my the primary ? A.— Yes. Counsel.— Well, I should think so; that is aii. ^-%^ 4