VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 237 
which he took up; they were put into a tin box. Black, who accom¬ 
panied him, took charge of the sods and stomachs. 
Robert Blaylock, butcher, Berwick, corroborated the evidence of the 
previous witness, stating, in addition, that he delivered the sods and 
stomachs to Dr. McLaggan, in Edinburgh. 
Dr. McLaggan —I am a Doctor of Physic and Lecturer on Materia- 
Medica, in Edinburgh. I remember, on the 24th of August, receiving 
the chest containing two jars and a tin box. The smaller jar contained 
the intestinal canal of a sheep. I subjected it to analysis for the 
purpose of detecting arsenic. I used Reinsch’s test. The paunch con¬ 
tained a large quantity of freshly-swallowed grass, and a minute trace 
of arsenic. The fourth, or true stomach, contained a very distinct 
portion of arsenious acid. I applied the test to the three last 
stomachs. There was a small amount of arsenic. I also examined the 
caecum or cal de sac. There were in that about 2 oz. of fluid substance 
and a slight quantity of arsenic. Supposing 1 had known nothing of 
the history of the case my inference would have been that the arsenic 
was swallowed by the animal. It was the most natural way for it to 
get there. There are but two theories—one, that it was swallowed with 
the food, the other that arsenic had been applied some other way to 
the animal, absorbed into the blood, had passed with the blood to all 
the textures, and had then been poured out by the secretion of the 
intestines, and so mingled with the remains of the food they contained. 
I should certainly consider the former to have been the more probable 
theory. The arsenic which I found was present in the contents of the 
stomachs. I did not examine the coats. I also found in the tin box 
the four sods, which I examined for the purpose of ascertaining 
whether they contained arsenic. I applied the same test, and found that 
they all contained more or less arsenic. Sods Nos. 1 and 2 contained an 
abundant sublimate of arsenic, which gave a small and distinct arsenical 
substance ; No. 3, a small sublimate, not so much as No. 2; and No. 4, 
a sublimate equal to No. 2. The arsenic existed in a soluble form. I 
examined a portion of a package which I got from Mr. Elliott. The 
constitution of the powder I found to be 3 2 1 per cent, of sulphur, 
44’72 of arsenic, and 52 07 of soda. The general conclusion I would 
draw from the indications would be that the arsenic was taken in by the 
mouth. Arsenic, as a matter of science, can be absorbed by the skin; 
but it is not easily absorbed. Dampness would have a tendency to 
weaken the mixture. 
Finlay Dunn —I am not connected with practical chemistry at 
present, but was so up to 1856. I am the author of a work entitled 
* Veterinary Medicines/ &c. I have made, for the purpose of this 
inquiry, certain experiments on sheep with various sheep-dipping 
solutions. I wrote down the result. On Saturday, 19th Feb., I made 
a mixture exactly like Mr. Elliott's. 1 had 23 sheep brought up, and 
the whole I dipped in this solution. The sheep were turned into a 
yard, into which hay, loose straw, etc., had been removed. No 
mischief arose to the animals. Besides that I made another experi¬ 
ment, taking the same proportion of soda ash and sulphur, but half the 
quantity of water. I immersed four sheep in this solution, and again 
without injury. I made a third experiment, taking 10 oz. of arsenic, 
10 oz. of soda ash, 1 oz. of sulphur, and 2 lbs. of soft soap. I dissolved 
these in six gallons of water. In that I dipped four sheep. I also got 
one of the sheep that had been previonsly dipped, and kept it in 65 
seconds. I consider Mr. Elliott’s powder perfectly safe. 
John Gamgee , Member of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, 
XXXII. 32 
