Kidd V. Royal Agriculiural Society of England. 655 
i 
chemical evidence and analyses have been on my friend's side. I Lave told 
you and called your attention to this : that we were most anxions to have 
the opportunity of getting an independent analysis of the very cake incul- 
Ipated; but we have not had that afforded us. My friend has called his pro- 
jfessors and chemical witnesses upon that point ; and let us see in what posi- 
j ion they land us. 3Iy friend says, attach no weight to the result of the 
l;hemical analysis — it proves nothing. The component parts, as ascertained 
|;>y chemical analysis, may be health-giving, or umy be death-giving, but their 
tiuantities and their decimals are the same, and they will mislead you. Gen- 
l lemen, I protest against that argument, and 1 will ask you just for a moment 
[o see if it is a fair one. In the first place it is obvious that there must 
'^lave been some useful object in submitting it to chemical analysis, other- 
vise the Defendants would not have gone to the trouble. I suppose I may 
-'3 it for granted that it was anticipated and believed that some useful 
, would be served, otherwise why should a chemist be employed, and why 
aould this cake be submitted to his critical tests, and to the experiments 
i/hich he would make upon it, for the purpose of discovering its component 
arts '? Dr. Voelcker, Mr. Tuson, and the other gentlemen who were called, 
minent in the walks of science, were called in for the purpose of making a 
• mical as well as a microscopical analysis. Therefore I think we start with 
■ : that those who j^roposed the test and suggested the inquiry must at 
.-t have had an object in view in obtaining this result. Now what is the 
lisult at which they arrived '? I find, gentlemen, that this cake, upon which 
le cattle of Mr. Wells were fed, yielded : — 
Of oil 13-06 
Of albumen 27-68 
Of mucilaginous compounds 25-68 
Making a total of 66 42 
nd, Gentlemen, I find that according to an analysis which we made of pure 
iseed-cake — nothing but linseed in its purest and simplest form without any 
ilmixture, and made as pure as it could be, for the purpose of testing the 
inures which were given on the 16th of June, 1872, by Dr. Voelcker, very 
'iarly the same result is given within only a few decimal points as the 
.culpated and accused linseed furnished, which they say caused the death of 
ese cattle. Gentlemen, I find further that when; Mr. Tuson, who gave his 
idence in support of the Plaintiff's case, was examined, he gave us this 
alysis : — 
Oil 12-67 
Mucilage 27-64 
Albumen 33-48 
Total 73-79 
that the proportion of nitrogen was some decimals higher than the 
'^'en which was foxmd in the pure sample tested by Professor Voelcker in 
■.ne, 1872. 
Well, what result do you get from that ? My friend says, treat it as nothing, 
the poison out of the question, and that which was deleterious may do 
mischief, and that the analysis may be an analysis of death-giving 
1 ledients or of health-giving ingredients, and will prodiice the same result 
it'ar as the analysis is concerned. But pause a moment ; look at the other 
£|3 of the question. If there was so much of deadly poisonous elements 
t re, from which si;ch a yield of oil, albumen, and mucilage could be 
' ived as to give a product and a result equal to more than the average of 
