EDITORIAL. 
465 
porary  difficulty  with  the  jury  as  the  indictment  alleged  that  the  poison- 
ing was  effected  with  "  arsenious  acid,  or  some  other  poison. "  The  latter 
expression,  however,  covered  the  difficulty  when  explained.  It  was  not 
until  after  the  parties  were  indicted  that  Prof.  Bridges  was  called  upon  to 
determine  the  quantitative  proportion  of  the  arsenic,  and  as  he  had  not 
reserved  any  of  the  pie,  he  could  only  determine  the  proportion  remaining 
in  the  unexhausted  liquid  of  the  Marsh's  apparatus.  An  accurate  por- 
tion of  this  was  carefully  examined,  and  the  quantity  of  2.92  grains  of 
arsenic  proved  to  be  present  in  the  whole  of  this  residual  liquid.  How 
much  had  been  removed  in  the  numerous  preliminary  experiments  could 
not  be  determined,  but  the  proportion  isolated  was  amply  sufficient  to  prove 
that  the  pie  had  been  effectually  poisoned. 
In  the  cross-examination  Dr.  Bridges  stated  that  he  employed  a  piece  of 
commercial  zinc,  two  inches  by  eight,  in  his  Marsh's  apparatus,  which  he 
cut  from  a  large  sheet  of  zinc  bought  for  the  use  in  question,  and  which 
he  had  had  in  possession  for  five  or  six  years,  and  had  frequently  tested  and 
found  to  be  free  from  arsenic;  but  he  admitted  that  he  had  not,  in  this  instance, 
tried  the  zinc  immediately  before  using  the  apparatus,  nor  had  the  sulphuric- 
acid  been  so  examined,  though  also  known  to  be  pure  by  previous  trial ;  but 
as  a  portion  of  that  mixed  for  use  in  the  experiments  was  left,  it  was  tried 
after  the  Marsh's  apparatus  had  been  put  in  action  and  found  pure. 
In  attempting  to  destroy  the  force  of  Dr.  Bridges'  testimony,  the  counsel 
for  the  defence  relied  mainly  on  the  three  points  above  indicated,  as  weak- 
ening his  evidence,  and  endeavored  to  make  it  appear  that  the  arsenic  may 
have  been  derived  from  the  zinc  or  sulphuric  acid,  both  of  which  are  known 
to  sometimes  contain  arsenic  ;  and  that  as  it  had  not  been  shown  unequivo- 
cally that  arsenious  acid  was  in  the  pie,  that  some  innocuous  preparation  of 
metallic  arsenic  might  have  given  the  metal  as  obtained  by  Dr.  Bridges. 
To  more  effectually  gain  their  object,  Dr.  B.  H.  Rand  was  employed  to 
prompt  the  cross-examination,  which  was  very  long  and  sifting,  and  worked 
in  many  irrelevant  points  regarding  other  preparations  of  arsenic,  and  dwelt 
pointedly  on  the  impurities  of  zinc  and  sulphuric  acid,  and  on  the  probable 
manner  in  which  a  pie  might  be  poisoned,  after  it  was  baked,  with  arsenite 
of  potassa,  etc. 
Dr.  Band,  after  thus  officiating,  was  subsequently  called  to  the  witness 
stand,  having  prepared  himself,  by  special  experiments,  to  weaken  the  testi- 
mony of  the  prosecution.  Dr,  Rand  gave  as  his  opinion  that  Reincsh's 
process  was  the  best  test  for  arsenic  :  that  Marsh's  apparatus  was  unexcep- 
tionable when  used  with  the  proper  precautions.  These  he  detailed  at  great 
length,  especially  in  reference  to  the  use  of  pure  zinc  and  sulphuric  acid, 
and  considered  it  absolutely  necessary  to  try  these  immediately  before 
testing  for  the  poison  to  give  validity  to  an  analysis.  He  said  that  he  would 
have  no  confidence  in  the  liquid  tests  if  organic  matter  of  any  kind  was 
present,  unless  the  results  were  proven  to  contain  metallic  arsenic  by  sub- 
sequent treatment. 
