VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 231 
The investigation of the case was resumed by the evidence for the 
plaintiff being continued. 
Professor Dick , of Edinburgh, examined by Mr. Davison, deposed— 
I am professor of the Veterinary College of Surgeons in Edinburgh, 
and have had considerable experience in the treatment of the diseases 
of animals. I remember the plaintiff calling on me on the 19th of 
August last in the evening. On the following morning two of my men 
went with the plaintiff and returned with the carcase of a sheep to my 
dissecting room. The tup was opened in my presence. I sent to 
Professor Wilson and Dr. Murray Thompson. Professor Wilson’s 
assistant came to my dissecting room. I gave Dr. Thompson certain 
organs of the sheep—part of the skin, stomachs, the liver, the spleen, 
and a portion of the intestines and kidneys. He took those away with 
him. 1 myself examined the carcase of the sheep minutely, and formed 
an opinion as to the cause of death. Poison, in my opinion, was the 
cause of death in that sheep. I believe it was arsenic. It is scarcely 
possible to say in what way it was taken in; but my judgment was that 
it was absorbed by the skin. Assuming the mixture, of which I have 
heard the analysis, to be applied in the way I have heard it was applied, 
I am decidedly of opinion that the quantity of arsenic in the mixture 
was the cause of death, absorbed by the skin. The mixture applied 
with the arsenic and soft soap and soda, would materially assist in the 
process of absorption. 
Cross-examined by Mr. Atherton , and interrogated—Has it ever 
occurred to you on any previous occasion to examine any animal in 
which arsenic was discovered, sufficient to account for death ? Wit¬ 
ness—Yes, both sheep and oxen. The sheep which I have examined 
have been comparatively few, and have been sent me by old pupils 
from different parts of the country. I have never had a case in which 
I came to the conclusion that the arsenic had been taken in by the 
mouth. Supposing the sheep in question had been submitted to my 
examination, and no account whatever had been given to me of the 
history of the sheep, 1 would have been able to form this judgment: 
that, unless the arsenic had been poured over the throat, it must have 
been absorbed by the skin. Supposing the arsenic to have been in this 
case forced over their throats, I would expect to find the same indi¬ 
cations, because the same appearances would take place, whether the 
arsenic was absorbed by the skin and got into circulation, or whether 
it was taken in by the mouth. 
Re-examined—From my experience and knowledge of sheep, they 
would not eat grass seasoned with poison; they are delicate animals, 
both in their taste and smell. 
Dr. Murray Thompson —I reside in Edinburgh, and assist Professor 
Wilson. I received the package spoken to from Mr. Black, and also 
some of the organs of the sheep spoken to by Professor Dick. I 
analysed the contents of the package. I found arsenic to the extent of 
45 82 per cent., and 2 lbs 10 oz. was the weight of the package. I have 
heard how that mixture was directed to be used. In my judgment, it 
was a very dangerous mixture. Having regard to the different ingre¬ 
dients, that mixture was very likely to be absorbed by the skin. Six 
grains passing into the blood would prove fatal to the sheep. Assuming 
that mixture to be as represented by the defendant, and applied in the 
way described, 195 grains of arsenic would be absorbed by each sheep. 
I analysed the different organs. In the liver it was not very abundant, 
but distinct enough. The skin gave trace of arsenic. The second 
stomach also gave trace, but much smaller than the inner. The other 
