1816.) Separated from the Living Body. 265 
difference between the one hand and the other, There was merely 
a slight scar at the bottom of the nail of the fourth finger. 
2. On the 10th of June, 1814, at eleven o’clock in the fore- 
noop, two men called upon Dr. Balfour; one of whom, George 
Peddie, carpenter, had his left hand tied up in a handkerchief; 
from which blood dropped. On examination, he found the index 
mutilated. About one-half of it had been cut off. On asking him 
what had become of it, he said that he had not looked for it, but 
supposed it would be found in the place where the accident had 
happened. Dr. Balfour instantly sent his companion, Thomas Ro- 
bertson, to find it out, and bring it to him. The amputation had 
been made from the upper part of the second phalanx on the side of 
the thumb to the third phalanx on the opposite side. It had been 
made by an axe, aud was very neat, Thomas Robertson returned 
in about five minutes with the piece of the finger, which was white 
and cold, and resembled, both in feeling and appearance, a piece 
of candle. It was 14 inch long on one side, and one inch on the 
other. Cold water was poured upon the two wounded surfaces to clean 
them. ‘They were then applied to each other as exactly as possible s 
and Dr. Balfour assured the man that they would re-unite. He 
listened with distrust; on which Dr. Balfour endeavoured to convince 
him that at all events the experiment might be tried without any in- 
convenience, and told him that, unless pain or putrefaction came on, 
the bandage must not be untied fora week at least. He was advised to 
suspend his arm in a sling, and to abstain for some days from all 
work. He promised, at last, to obey these directions. Next day 
he returned, and stated that he had experienced no pain or incon 
venience, but that the wound had continued to bleed a little. Dr. 
_ Balfour assured him that this was of no consequence, and engaged 
him to return every day. But lie did not return again; nor did Dr. 
Balfour hear any thing of him till the 2d of July, when a person 
ealled upon Dr. B., and gave him the following account. Two 
days after the wound had been dressed, George Peddie, yielding to 
the ridicule of his companions, who laughed at him for giving credit 
to what the Doctor had told him, went to, consult another practi- 
tioner. This Gentleman at first pointed out to him the impropriety 
of his conduct in going to any other but the person who had dressed 
him first ; but when the patient insisted on his strong repugnance to 
carry a piece of dead flesh at the end of his finger, and requested 
him to take off the bandage, the surgeon at last consented. For- 
tunately the re-union had commenced, which engaged the surgeon 
to replace the bandage, and to persevere in the treatment which 
Dr. Balfour had begun. On the 4th of July Dr. Balfour visited 
his patient. ‘The union was complete, and the finger had recovered 
its heat and sensibility. The skin and nail afterwards came off, but 
there was not the least doubt that they would be speedily renewed. 
Dr. Balfour terminates his relation with the affidavits of George 
Peddie, Thomas Robertson, and Dr. Reid (who was present when 
the finger was first dressed), before Mr. Duncan Cowan, Justice of 
Vor. VII, N° LV, S 
