arV 
 17555 
 
CORNELL 
 
 UNIVERSITY 
 
 LIBRARY 
 
 THIS BOOK IS ONE OF A 
 COLLECTION MADE BY 
 
 BENNO LOEWY 
 1854-1919 
 
 AND BEQUEATHED TO 
 CORNELL UNIVERSITY 
 
arV17555 Come " Unlvere ">' L "»»'y 
 
 T ufiii ™ a ,!» Sf. ,SS£S. r . .Ofcar. F. Lund, upon 
 
 onnj 1924 031 2 19 631 
 
The original of this book is in 
 the Cornell University Library. 
 
 There are no known copyright restrictions in 
 the United States on the use of the text. 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/cu31 924031 21 9631 
 
THE TRIAL iOF 
 
 Doctor Oscar F. Lund, 
 
 UPON AN 
 
 INDICTMENT 
 
 FOR 
 
 MANSLAUGHTER 
 
 "Magna est 
 
 Veritas, et ] 
 
 prevalent." 
 
 
 
 
 
 < 
 / 
 
 
 /• /, J 
 
 
 
 $ew *«|k: 
 
 
 
 
 kennard & 
 
 HAT, 
 
 STATIONERS 
 
 AND 
 
 PRINTERS, 
 
 
 . 89 
 
 Liberty Street. 
 
 
 - 
 
 
 1871. 
 
TIECIE TRIAL 
 
 WAS HELD AT THE 
 
 Hon. B. F. RANDOLPH, Presiding Judge, 
 
 , AND 
 
 JOHN STUKGES, F. W. BOHNSTEDT, 
 JOHN BEINKEEHOFF, 
 
 , As Associate Judges. 
 
 A. Q. GAEEETSON, District Attorney. 
 
 J. DIXON, Je., W. E. EOGEES ; 
 
 ALBEET, S. OLOKE, 
 
 COUNSEL FOE DEFENDANT. 
 
 Albert E. Cochran, Stenographer for Defendant. 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 I offer to my friends and the public these pages, which contain 
 the evidence elicited during my trial for manslaughter, held before 
 his Honor, Judge B., F. Randolph, at the Hudson County Court 
 House, in Jersey City, New Jersey. The trial commenced Mon- 
 day, December 6th, 1870, and continued, without interruption, for 
 two weeks. 
 
 I neither desire nor intend to comment upon the evidence ; it 
 speaks for itself. I wish, however, to thank all my friends who 
 stood so nobly by me in my time of great need ; and I would also 
 thank those gentlemen, who had never met or seen me before, but 
 who came forward, uninfluenced by any prejudiced feelings against 
 a system of medicine not regarded by themselves as orthodox, or 
 against me as an advocate of that system — who gave their testi- 
 mony in most distinct and unbiased language— who concealed no 
 facts, thereby necessitating a rigid cross-examination to tear the 
 truth from their reluctant lips — and who, finally, were not seeking 
 to secure » verdict of guilty, but were giving utterance only to 
 honest convictions, anxious to see nothing except justice itself 
 done. I would, moreover, thank most heartily all those of my 
 friends, who, although not actual witnesses upon the stand, still 
 gave their busiest hours daily to me, and who were constantly 
 present in the Court-room during the progress of the case, thus 
 testifying to me, in an unobtrusive manner, an offering of much 
 sympathy and many good wishes. 
 
 Among so many friends, I would offer a tribute of respect to each 
 one individually if I could do so, but it is impossible to mention 
 the names of all. If I once commenced I should not know 
 where to draw the line of- demarcation, between my duties to one 
 and my obligations to another, which would show me where to 
 stop. 
 
 I cannot, however, allow the present moment to pass, without 
 alluding by name to one gentleman who has on many occasions 
 proved himself to me both a true friend and a kind counselor. I 
 appreciate him, as a careful, correct and able physician. I respect 
 
VI PREFACE. 
 
 him, as a noble and good man. I honor him, as one older in years 
 and wiser in experience, and as one upon whom I can always rely 
 for advice in time of need and assistance in time of distress, I al- 
 lude to Dr. J; J. Yonlin, of this city. A friend in need is a^friend 
 indeed. 
 
 I submit and dedicate this book to a discerning and to a discrim- 
 inating public. Let every man, as he reads it, judge for himself. 
 Let him eliminate every assertion from the testimony which could 
 possibly have been influenced, in any manner or degree, by any 
 personal motives. If, while reading the following pages, the 
 testimony of any witness is found valuable as only making mani- 
 fest his own utter ignorance of even the first rudiments of physi- 
 ology; let the evidence of that witness be cast out, as of one not 
 qualified to be called an expert. If another witness seems to have 
 learned his story, in common with others, by heart, and clings 
 to the text given him concerning the cause of death, showing an 
 obstinate disposition to repeat it, parrot-like, hoping by its con- 
 tinual iteration, to secure conviction, let that evidence also be cast 
 out, as not worthy of credit. If still another, in an unguarded 
 moment of anger, forgets himself so far as to show the cloven 
 hoof, and to speak words really confessing that his only purpose 
 is to condemn the accused if possible, then let his testimony be 
 stricken out, as being too prejudiced and too far from a candid and 
 impartial opinion. 
 
 On the contrary, let the words of those gentlemen who have no 
 personal motives to influence their thoughts and mould their an- 
 swers ; who not only give their opinions, but who also are able to 
 sustain them, and who prove themselves perfectly familiar with 
 every part of their profession, be accredited with all the confidence 
 they may justly deserve. 
 
 After all this elimination is completed, and every prejudice and 
 unworthy feeling thrown aside, let each man for himself place the 
 assertions of those who said John D. Coates died from morphine, 
 in one scale of the balance, and the words of those who declared 
 he could not have so died, in the other, and then, in conclusion, 
 judge for himself which scale preponderates. 
 
 Madison and Clinton Avbs., Bergen, N. J., 
 January, 1871. 
 
TRIAL OF DOCTOR LUND. 
 
 After seventeen peremptory challenges by the 
 defense, the following named • gentlemen were 
 impanneled as jurors : 
 
 1. Foreman, Mitchell Loder. 
 
 2. Thomas Idell. 7. William 0. Wood. 
 
 3. William W. Lavense. 8. John H. Bookstaver. 
 
 4. Peter C. Earle. 9. Charles Dennison. 
 
 5. Albert M. Hedges. 10. William 0. Weir. 
 
 6. Thomas Gardner. 11. Geo'rge Klattenhoff. 
 
 12. John I. Eollins. 
 
 Mr. Dixon, the senior counsel for the defendant, 
 then rose and addressed the Court, respectfully re- 
 questing that an order be made excluding all wit- 
 nesses from the room, except while actually giving 
 their testimony upon the stand. 
 
 As the District Attorney made no objections, pro- 
 viding the same rule was made applicable to the 
 witnesses for the defense, the Court gave the desired 
 order, making an exception, however, in regard to 
 the medical witnesses', by not including them in the 
 order. 
 
 The trial then was opened by the State calling as 
 its first witness — 
 
 Mes. Mabt Coates. 
 
 She being examined 'by Mr. Garretson, testified as 
 follows : I live in South Bergen, and was the wife of ' 
 
DOCTOR LUND S TBIAL. 
 
 the late John D. Coates ; he had lived in Bergen for 
 six years ; on the Sunday previous to the 20th of last 
 July, he was taken sick about eleven o'clock at .night ; 
 
 1 did all I could for him, putting on mustard and 
 bathing his feet, but as he got worse, I sent for Dr. 
 Wilkinson about three o'clock in the morning; he 
 came and sent my brother, James Kelly, to the drug 
 store for some medicine ; the . medicine did him good, 
 so that lie got well after it; the next day he was 
 around, seemed quite well, and went to the ball 
 ground; he did not, however, like, the medicine, as it 
 tasted too much like castor oil ; he jdid not go to his 
 work; he went with me ,to the ball ground, about 
 half-past one, and staid until four o'clock, when he 
 saw Dr. WiJkinson coming, and went home to meet 
 him ; our house was two blocks from the ball ground ; 
 my husband met the Doctor in the yard ; he did not 
 give my husband any more medicine then. 
 
 Monday night my husband seemed pretty well, and 
 slept all night ; he did not take any more of Dr. 
 Wilkinson's medicine after one o'clock, Monday ; on 
 Tuesday morning when he- rose, he did not feel as 
 well, and did not go out of the house ; he seemed 
 dissatisfied with Dr. Wilkinson, and asked me if there 
 were any other doctors near by ; I told him there was 
 Drs. Lund and Lewis ; he asked me to send my little 
 daughter for Dr. Lund ; I did so, and he came between 
 two and three o'clock, Tuesday afternoon ; he re- 
 quested that I should send to his office for the medi- 
 cine ; I sent my daughter, and she brought back 
 some powders in pink paper ; I gave him three of 
 them, one every hour, commencing at three o'clock ; 
 they made him worse ; his face and hands swelled 
 and he became sick at his stomach ; after five o'clock 
 I began again to put on hot flannel cloths over his 
 stomach, but he still grew worse ; at eleven o'clock 
 I went over after Dr. .Lund again ; I rang the bell ; 
 
DOCTOR HIND'S TRIAr,. 9 
 
 the Doctor himself came to the door, and I told him I 
 wanted him to come to' my husband, that he was very 
 sick ; he said he would be there in fifteen minutes ; 
 I had no further conversation with -him then, but 
 went home ; I waited until ten minutes past twelve, 
 when I went back again for him, my brother going 
 with me. 
 
 Q. What did you do when -you got there 1 A.I rang 
 the bell and the boy came and opened the door for me ; 
 I asked him if the Doctor was in ; he said yes, he was 
 in bed ; I told him to run up stairs and tell him quick 
 that I wanted him right away. Q. Did you only say 
 /wanted him? 
 
 Mr. Dixon interrupting : O come, Mr. Garretson, 
 don't cross-examine your witness. 
 
 Q. Tell the exact words you used ? A. I told him to 
 go up and tell the Doctor I wanted him right away ; 
 I told him to go up stairs and tell the Doctor I 
 wanted him right away ; "I told him to tell the 
 Doctor Mrs. Coates wanted him. {See' Appendix a.) 
 Q. "What did the boy say ? A. He went up stairs. 
 Q. How long was he gone up stairs ? A. He was only 
 gone three or four minutes, if he was that. Q. Did the 
 boy come down again ? A. Yes, sir. Q. What then ? 
 A. Well, Dr. Lund came down himself in two or three 
 minutes after that to his front door. Q. Who spoke 
 first ? A. I spoke to him. 
 
 Q. What did you say ? A. I asked him why he did 
 not come at eleven o'clock to see my husband ; I was in 
 such a way to get him \o come ; he told me not to get 
 in such a hurry, he knew what was the matter ; the 
 powders he had given in the afternoon were not strong 
 enough to take effect ; he told me to hold on for a 
 moment, and he went up stairs and brought me down 
 three powders ; he reached them into my hand ; I 
 asked him would he not come and see my husband, 
 and he told me, no, there was no necessity ; for to go 
 
10 DOCTOR LUND's TRIAL. 
 
 home and do as he told me ; I asked him again would 
 he not come and see my husband as he was very bad ; 
 he asked me could I not mix up a powder ; I told him 
 yes I could, but I thought he was the properest per- 
 son to do so ; he told me to mix it up in a tablespoon- 
 ful of cold water, and to be sure that I gave it all to 
 him ; I told him again I had rather he would come 
 along with me ; he told me he would not ; that he , 
 would not open the door that night to me again ; so I 
 told him I would not bother him any more ; so I went 
 home and gave the powder as directed. 
 
 Q. How many powders did hegive you? A. Three. 
 Q. How many did you give your husband ? A. One. 
 Q. What time did you give it ? A. About half past 
 twelve ; he did not have it ten minutes before he was 
 raving wild. Q. How did he act ? A. He acted 
 just as if he was in the greatest agony in the world ; 
 his insides, he said, were burning ; and he threw him- 
 self down on a rocking chair, and in five minutes he 
 was fast asleep ; he continued bad up to about three 
 o'clock ; he snored dreadfully, and my brother was 
 afraid that somebhing was the matter with him. Q. 
 What do you mean by continued bad ? > A. Well, he 
 must have been in great pain. Q. What did he do? 
 A. He was just wild through the house, with a pain 
 in his head and wrin gin g his hands. 
 
 By the Court: When was this. A. Before he 
 sat down, and he continued to sleep from that out. 
 
 Q, You said he "continued bad " until three o'clock — 
 What did you mean by that ? A. He never waked 
 up at all that I know of, for I was taken very sick at 
 that time. Q. What did you do at three o'clock ? A. 
 He did not wake .up at all {this is a mistake : he did 
 wake wp, as will he seen), and I then sent after Dr. 
 Wilkinson ; he came right away, and did not do any- 
 thing himself for him, but had one or two doctors. 
 Q. Where was your husband all this time ? A, In 
 
ixxyroB i/chd's teiAl. * 11 
 
 the chair ; they did all they could for him, but could 
 not get any medicine down him. 
 
 Q. What other doctors were there ? A. Drs. For- 
 man and Bock. Q. What time did Dr. Forman 
 come? A. About six o'clock. Q. Who was with 
 your husband from three o'clock until six? A. 
 Mr. Welch. Q. Any doctors? A. No, sir. Q. 
 How long did Dr. Wilkinson stay after he came ? 
 A. All the time up to twelve o'clock. Q. What 
 did Dr. Wilkinson do when he came ? A. He. 
 felt his pulse, clapped his hands, and tried to 
 arouse him. Q. What became of the powders? A. 
 I saw them last with Coroner Burns at the Inquest. 
 Q. What was the difference between the first and last 
 powders ? A. The last were much larger than' the 
 first ; there was no difference in color that I noticed ; 
 the last ones were not put up as nice as the first ; both 
 were in pink paper. 
 
 Q. How long did Drs. Forman and Bock stay ? A. 
 Up until about twelve o'clock ; they gave my husband 
 up when they went away ; they could do no more for 
 him ; he was dying ; he died at half past twelve. Q. 
 Was there any change in him before he died ? A. 
 "He became quite white just before he died. Q r 
 When did you see Dr. Lund next ? A. About eight 
 o'clock the morning he died ; he came into the room 
 as the door was open and looked at my husband, 
 and felt his pulse ;, I says, Dr. Lund, is not this an. 
 awful loss for me ; he looked at me and very abruptly 
 said, you, have not lost him yet. • Q. Did he say any- 
 thing else. A. No, sir ; he went away without saying 
 or doing anything more. 
 
 Q. How old was your husband. A. He was forty- 
 seven ; . he was an engineer on the Cunard dock ; he 
 worked up to twelve o'clock the Saturday night before 
 lie died. 
 
12 doctor lund's tbiaI; 
 
 Cross-examination by Col. Rogers : 
 
 My husband had not'been sick for twenty years be- 
 fore this last sickness, and had never taken medicine 
 I know of - y it was about three o'clock, Monday morn- 
 ing, that I called Dr. Wilkinson ; Monday afternoon 
 we walked to the ball ground, and were there about 
 two hours ; we had to stand while there ; it was a 
 pretty warm day ; my husband began to get worse 
 about eight o'clock, Tuesday morning, complaining of 
 a pain in his bowels ; he did not complain of his, head 
 until he had taken the powders on Tuesday afternoon ; 
 he was growing worse all day; half an hour after 
 taking the medicine, he commenced to complain of 
 his head, while his hands and face swelled up; he 
 leaned his head upon his hands, and said his head 
 was awful ; between this time and the time I first 
 went for Dr. Lund, he was growing worse all the 
 time with the cramps in his stomach, but I do not 
 know whether the pain in his head continued ; when 
 I gave him one of the second powders I got, he was 
 then complaining of his head and the pain in his 
 bowels ; he said then, I will take the medicine, kill or 
 cure; 'after he took the powder he seemed in great 
 agony, tore his hair, wrung his hands ; said he was 
 burning up in his insides ; he could not any of the 
 time lie in bed on account of the pain, but sat up in 
 the rocking chair ; he was in great pain at the time 
 the powders were given ; after I gave him the powder 
 I remained with him until about two o'clock, when I 
 was taken very bad with the cramps and had to leave 
 the room ; I went down stairs and, laid down on the 
 lounge, leaving my brother and Mr. ¥m, "Welch with 
 my husband ; I laid there about two hours ; my hus- 
 band was growing worse all, the time between my 
 first and second call for Dr. Lund, being in great 
 agony ; this agony lasted all the time from five o'clock 
 
bocTOK lund's trial, 13 
 
 until twelve; it was in the stomach, and ceased in 
 about ten minutes after I gave tbe last powder. 
 
 Q. Had your husband woke up between the time 
 he went to sleep and the time you went to bed ? A. 
 Not that I know of. Q. Were you present in the 
 room all the time? A. No, sir. Q. "Where were 
 you? A. Down stairs on the sofa. Q. That was 
 after two o'clock ; were you down stairs before that ? 
 A. No, I don't think I was. Q. Don't you know ? 
 A. I don't think I can tell. Q. Did you take any 
 medicine. for the cramps that night ? A. No, sir. Q. 
 Did you -take anything else for the cramps ? A. 
 No, sir. (Appendix 5.) 
 
 Q. You spoke about your husband's snoring or 
 breathing hard ; was that before you went down 
 stairs? A. Tes, sir; but I thought he was only 
 asleep ; I noticed it in about ten minutes after he 
 took the powder, and it continued until I went down 
 stairs. Q. What was your husband's personal ap- 
 pearance? A. He was a stout man. Q. Short- neck? 
 A. Kather, not particularly so. Q. Did he xise 
 tobacco? A. He smoked, but did not chew. Q. 
 Was he in the habit of smoking every day? A. I 
 suppose he was. Q. Smoke in the morning ?. A. I 
 suppose so. Q. In the evening ? A. Yes, sir. Q. 
 Pipe or cigars ? A. If he could not get a cigar, he 
 would smoke a pipe. Q. He smoked then every day ? 
 A. Oh, he did certainly. Q. Was he smoking every 
 evening through all the evening ? A . Yes, he would 
 take a pipe. 
 
 Q. Where did you apply the poultices ? A. 
 On his stomach ; I kept them hot from half-past six 
 Tuesday evening until eleven. Q. Did you apply 
 the poultices to the same place Sunday night? A. 
 Yes, sir. Q. Any Monday night? A.' No, sir. Q. 
 What directions did Dr., Lund give you in regard to 
 giving the last powders ? A. He told me to give one 
 
14 DOCTOR LUND'S TRIAL. 
 
 every hour. Q. Did he tell you if he was not better to 
 give another ? A. No, he told me to give it to him every 
 hour. Q. "Whether he got well or not? A. Tes, he 
 made no statement about that. Q. Why did you not 
 
 five him another ? A. I could not, he was asleep. Q. 
 )id not Dr. Lund -tell you not to give another if it 
 relieved him ? A. No, he told me to go home and , 
 give one every hour. Q. Do you remember giving 
 your evidence about this particular point before the 
 Coroner's Jury ? A. Yes, I think I do, but my mind 
 has been greatly upset since then. Q. Did you hear 
 of his drinking anything that night ? A. No, sir ; he 
 was a man who never drank. Q- Did you have any 
 liquor in the house that night ? A. No, sir. Q. 
 Any ale ? A. No, sir. Q. Did Mrs. Welch bring any 
 into the house ? A. No, sir. Q. Did you send out for 
 any? A. No, sir. (Appendix c.) 
 
 By the Court : When Dr. Lund gave you his 
 directions, was any one by you? A. Yes, sir, my 
 brother stood behind me on the stoop. 
 
 Dr. James Wilkinson, 
 
 Examined by Mr. Garretson, testified — 
 
 Q. Where do you live ? A. Jersey City. Q. 
 You are a practicing physician ? A. Yes, sir. 
 Q. How long have you been in practice ? A. Twelve 
 years. Q. Did you know Mr. John D. Coates in his 
 life time ? A. I only saw him about forty-eight hours 
 before his death, on Sunday night, never before. Q. 
 At what time ? A. I do not know ; it was some time 
 in the night. Q. Where did you find him ? A. 
 Setting up in a chair in the front room. Q. What 
 was the matter with him ? A. He was complaining 
 of distress over the pit of his stomach ; he was rub- 
 bing his stomach when I saw him. Q. Did you ex- 
 amine him ? A. Yes, sir ; I made up my mind there 
 was no serious difficulty whatever ; he was very much 
 
DOOTOE LUND'S TBIAL. 15 
 
 agitated when I saw him, but did not seem to be in 
 much pain. Q. "What did you think was the trouble 
 with him ? A. Well a colicky trouble ; I thought it 
 was a nervous difficulty, as these symptoms seemed 
 most prominent. 
 
 Q. What did you do for him ? A. I prescribed 
 ammonia and valerian. Q. Anything else ? A. No, 
 sir. Q. Two mixtures ? A. !No, sir ; it was the 
 valerianate of ammonia ; my directions were to take 
 it every hour, I think, until relieved. Q. Was the 
 medicine procured before you left ? A. I do not 
 think it reached the house before L left, but I am not 
 positive. Q. How much 'did you direct to be taken ? 
 A. A teaspoon ful; I should state here that this prep- 
 aration was not the valerianate itself, but the elixir' 
 of the valerianate of ammonia. Q. When did you 
 reach home ? A. It was in the night. 
 
 Q. Did you see him afterwards 1 A. I called 
 again the next day, some time in the afternoon. Q. 
 Where did you . find him when you called ? A. I 
 knocked at the door, but finding no one at home was 
 on the point of leaving, when l.saw him walking up 
 the street towards the house. Q. Did you speak to 
 him ? A. Yes, I waited in the yard until he came 
 in ;■ I asked him how he felt ; he said very well ; I 
 then recommended him to take as a preventative for 
 these stomach difficulties, bromide of potassium. Q. 
 Did you make any examination of him that day ? A. 
 Yes, sir ; I could not find any disease about him ; he 
 said he felt very well'; he said he had never been 
 sick ; ■ I think he asked me if I was going to call 
 again, and I told him no, unless I heard from him. ' 
 
 Q. When did you see him next ? A. A little after 
 five o'clock, Wednesday morning, at. his house. He 
 was sitting up in a chair, with his head thrown back. 
 Q. Who was with him ? A. His wife, daughter and a 
 Mr. Welch, who came after me. Q. What time did 
 
16 
 
 lie come after you '( A. Five o'clock. Q. How soon 
 did you go? 'A. Immediately. Q. What were his 
 symptoms then ? A. He was totally insensible. . The 
 pupil of the eye was contracted as small as a pin's 
 head ; the surface of the skin was blue — livid ; large 
 beads of cold perspiration stood on him ; stertorous 
 breathing — snoring; respiration about twelve to the 
 minute ; pulse slow and laboring. 
 
 Q. What did these symptoms indicate? A. Poi- 
 son by opium or morphine. {Exactly the same symp- 
 toms are found in many different diseases?) Q. 
 What did you do for him ? A. I began to apply , 
 restoratives ; as . applications of mustard. In the 
 meantime, however, I had sent for assistance. I 
 advised the' family to send for Dr. Lund. They 
 informed me that Dr. Lund had prescribed these 
 powders and one had been given. 1 advised them to 
 send for him immediately. This they refused to do, 
 as he had declined to come, so I sent for Drs. Forman 
 and Bock. Q. When did they get there ? A. In the 
 neighborhood of six or seven o'clock. Together we pro- 
 ceeded with the treatment. We tried flaggellations — 
 beat him, whipped him ; tried to excite vomiting by 
 tickling his throat, and I injected belladonna under the 
 skin, so as to get its antidotal effects ; he could not 
 swallow. Belladonna is considered -an antidote to 
 opium. {Appendix d.) The peculiar effect of bella- 
 donna was produced. The pupil of the eye became 
 dilated, and the flush also peculiar to belladonna came 
 over the whole surface. We also tried cold effusions 
 ^or pouring cold water on him. When the powers of 
 life began to flag, we tried electricity, injected brandy 
 or whiskey into the bowels, artificial respiration was 
 tried, and we were preparing to make oxygen gas for 
 him to breathe, when he died. JSTone of our efforts 
 prevailed in the slightest degree. He sank deeper 
 and deeper. 
 
DOCTOK LUND'S TEIAL 17 
 
 Q. Were you with him when he died ? A. No, sir, 
 I was not at that moment. Q. What time did yon leave 
 him ? A. I think it was a little after twelve. Q. 
 Was any. medicine given him after you were called ? 
 A. It was impossible to give him medicine. We tried 
 to give him strong coffee, but he could not swallow. 
 {Appendix e.) In my opinion the stomach pump 
 was inadmissible, for two -reasons. First, his breath- 
 ing was so difficult that I think the pressure of 
 the tube upon the glottis would have killed him in 
 a moment. In the second place, he was thoroughly 
 under its influence, as four hours had elapsed since he 
 had taken the narcotic. 
 
 Q. Did you know what he had taken? A. Well, 
 Dr. Forman and myself tasted one of the powders, 
 but we could tell pretty well from the symptoms, 
 without seeing or tasting the powder. Q. Could you 
 tell from the taste what they were ? A. ISTot^positive- 
 ly. Q. What became of the powders ? A. I took 
 one and Dr. Forman the other, or rather I gave him 
 one and kept the other. Q. What did you do with 
 your powder?' A. I had it weighed. Q. Was it in 
 your possession all the time until you had it weighed ? 
 A. Yes, sir. Q. Who weighed it ? A. I first took it 
 to Mr. Wells. I was passing the store one day, and he 
 put it on his scales, and the clerk said lie thought there 
 was half a grain. 
 
 By the Court : Did you see it weighed ? 
 
 A. Yes sir. He said he could not weigh so small a 
 quantity on his scales. (Appendix f.) Q. What then ? 
 A. I think it was the next day I had it weighed by Mr. 
 Gardner, on Monticello Av. Q. Did you see it weighed ? ' 
 A. Yes, sir. The powder had previously been tasted, 
 to the best of my knowledge, by Dr. Forman and my- 
 self, and certainly by Dr. Culver. Q. How much did it 
 weigh ? A. It weighed a grain as near as possible to 
 weigh it. There was the slightest possible particle want- 
 
18 DOCTOR LTJND's TRIAL. 
 
 ing of a full grain, so slight as that it would be only ap- 
 preciated by weight. Mr. Gardner thought that about 
 one-sixteenth lacked, about as much, he said, as would 
 be inevitably lost in previously weighing it. Q. "What 
 did you do with it after it was weighed. A. After the 
 post-mortem I gave it to the Coroner, during the In- 
 quest, I think. It never passed out of my possession. 
 Q. When was it weighed ? A. It was weighed after 
 the post-mortem, but I am not sure about Mr. Wells. 
 
 Q. Was there a post-mortem examination? A. 
 There was. Q. By whom made? A. By myself, 
 assisted by Drs. Forman and Bock, and in the presence 
 of Djs. Culver, Yeirs and Buck. Q. What amount of 
 care was exercised in making the post-mortem ? 
 
 Mr. Dixon interrupting : Never mind about that. 
 Let him tell us what he did, and we will judge for 
 ourselves the amount of care displayed. 
 
 The Court : State what was done ? - 
 
 A. Will you allow me to read the minutes that were 
 written on the spot ? 
 
 Mr. Dixon: Were they written by yourself ? 
 
 A. No, sir, they were not, as I made the post-mor- 
 tem. 
 
 Mr. Dixon : I object to it. 
 
 The Court : Were you acting together ? 
 
 A. Yes, sir. He wrote while I made the post-mor- 
 tem. 
 
 The Court : State from memory what you can, bat 
 you may refresh your memory when necessary with 
 what was written ? 
 
 A. The post-mortem was made on the 21st of 
 July, about 10J a. m. The weather was warm, 
 about {guess work commences here, as there was 
 no thermometer in the room,) 80°, and it was about 
 twenty-two and a half hours after death. The rigor 
 mortis was well marked and the body well developed. 
 The face was livid, and there was a florid congestion 
 
DOCTOR LUND'S TRIAL. 19 
 
 on the surface of the body, especially on the more de- 
 pendant parts. There was but little flow of blood 
 on section of the scalp. The dura mater was adher- 
 ent. There was marked venous congestion of the dura 
 mater and pia mater. There were white fibrinous 
 lines accompanying the blood vessels. The convolu- 
 tions of the brain were flattened. The brain itself was 
 firm. On section of the brain, the puncta-vasculosa 
 were well marked, the arachnoid fluids slight, but 
 clear. The right ventricle of the brain was empty, the 
 left ventricle contained about an ounce of serum. (The 
 Doctor's post-mortem report before the Coroner, read 
 bloody serum. It is an important omission, as its 
 presence would show that the man might have died of 
 ' apoplexy, and not of morphine.) The choroid plexus 
 was congested. There was no bloody effusion in any 
 part of the brain. (To settle the question that there was 
 bloody serum in the left ventricle, see the Doctor's first 
 report before the Coroner's Jury, corroborated by Drs. 
 Forman and Bock, and also afterwards by Dr. Pal- 
 mer and Dr. Lewis. It cannot then be true that there 
 was no bloody effusion in the brain.) The cerebellum 
 was about healthy, except congestion. On opening the 
 chest there was about an inch and a half of adipose 
 tissue. The pleura was adherent on both sides, and 
 on the left side was firmly adherent to the diaphragm. 
 The right lung was adherent to the upper part of the 
 chest. The heart was about normal in size, the valves 
 healthy with clots on the right side. The lungs were 
 healthy except the congestion. The liver was large, 
 extending to the left mammary line. It was con- 
 gested. There were venous congestions of the intes- 
 tines, particularly of the colon. The kidneys were 
 slightly congested, but otherwise healthy. The ex- 
 ternal surface of the stomach was reddish and con- 
 gested. The spleen was large, Jaut not excessively 
 congested. 
 
20 DOCTOR LUND S TTCIAL. 
 
 Mr. Dixon : Do we understand when you use the 
 word congested in the other places, you mean exces- 
 sively congested ? 
 
 A. Yes, sir ; the gall bladder was filled with a 
 dirty milk colored liquid, the last flow from it being 
 yellowish. The cystic duct was impervious to a probe. 
 ( Which means, in the words of the other physicians, 
 entirely closed.) The colon was loaded with faecal 
 matter. I believe that is all. 
 
 Q. What appearances were there in this body which 
 would not be found in a healthy 'body? A. The 
 excessive congestion, the contents of the gall bladder, 
 and the closure of the cystic duct. Q. The adhesions 
 of the pleura ; was that healthy or otherwise ? A. It 
 was evidence of previous inflammation, perhaps a year 
 old, perhaps twenty. Q. The question extends to. 
 perfectly healthy persons? A. In perfectly healthy 
 persons it will not adhere, but it will not shorten life 
 under ordinary circumstances; it showed he had 
 had inflammation at some time or other. Q. Could 
 you tell how long previously ? A. No, sir ; they were 
 old adhesions though, as they were so hard to break 
 down. Q. Then the appearances found here, which 
 would not be found -in a healthy person, were the 
 congestion, the contents of - the gall bladder, the 
 stricture of the cystic duct, and the adhesions of the 
 lungs? A. A man may be perfectly healthy and yet 
 have the adhesions. Q. Was there anything else? 
 A. Not that I remember ; I would mention that the 
 stomach and its contents were put into a jar, sealed, 
 and handed to the Coroner., (Appendix g.) 
 
 Q. From the post-mortem examination, what do you 
 conclude was the cause of death ? A. Poisoning by 
 morphine. (Appendix h.) Q. What were the post- 
 mortem evidences of poisoning by morphine ? A. The 
 excessive congestion.' Q. What effect had the contents 
 of the gall bladder in producing the congestion? A. I 
 
DOCTOR LTJMD'S TRIAL. 21 
 
 do not think they had any. Q. What symptoms before 
 death, or appearances after death, were caused by those 
 contents ? A. None that I know of. Q. What effect 
 would the adhesions of the lungs have % A. They 
 would make a man short breathed upon exertion. 
 Q. Produce congestion ? A.. No, sir. , 
 
 Q. How much matter did the gall bladder contain ? 
 A. It was not measured, but I should judge about' 
 three ounces. Q. Did the congestion of the brain- or 
 lungs depend upon the absorption of that matter ? 
 A. No, sir. Q. What effect could it have ? A. I do 
 not think that the matter in a closed sack would be 
 likely to cause any particular difficulty. Q. How 
 long might it remain there and produce no effect ? A. 
 It might remain there altogether ; it would ultimately 
 be disposed of; cases have been known where there 
 has been matter in the gall bladder that way, and it 
 has been absorbed, and the gall bladder has dried up. 
 
 Q. What is the cystic duct ? A. A duct by which 
 the bile enters the gall bladder from the liver. Q. 
 Is there any other openings from the gall bladder ? 
 A. No, sir ; but there is an opening from the liver 
 by which the bile can still pass from the liver to the 
 bowels. Q. Suppose the cystic duct was entirely 
 closed, how could the bile get out of the gall bladder ? 
 A. It could not get out, but would have eventually 
 to be absorbed. Q. What is the difference between 
 the symptoms of a person dying from apoplexy and 
 from morphine poisoning ? A. As a rule, the pupil is 
 dila'ted in apoplexy ; in this case it was contracted ; 
 in apoplexy we do not have the excessive congestion 
 of the skin that we do in poisoning by opium. 
 
 Q. How about the post-mortem? A. In apoplexy 
 the* rupture of the blood vessel would be revealed by 
 a clot of blood on the surface of the brain ; in this 
 case there was no bloody effusion whatever. {What 
 then could the effusion of bloody serum in the ven- 
 
22 doctor lund's tkial. 
 
 tricle be called?) Q. What is the usual dose of 
 morphine ? A. From one-sixth to a quarter of a 
 grain. 
 
 Q. What is the smallest amount that is known to 
 have proved fatal ? A. A case is quoted in which — 
 
 Mr. Dixon interrupting : If you are going to quote, 
 suppose you produce the books ; we then can read 
 them for ourselves ? 
 
 A. From my own personal observation, I cannot 
 state how small an amount of morphine will cause 
 death. 
 
 Q. Where is the ease quoted you were speaking 
 of? A. In Beck's Medical Jurisprudence. 
 
 Mr. Dixon objected to the question, on^the ground 
 that it covered not only the personal observation of 
 the witness, but the reading of books and the state- 
 ments of other parties. 
 
 Objection overruled. Mr. Dixon excepted. 
 
 Witness : Dr. Beck, to the best of my knowledge, 
 quotes two-fifths of a grain, and Dr. Guy, in his 
 Medical Jurisprudence, quotes one quarter of a grain 
 as having proved fatal. 
 
 Mr. Dixon : I ask the Court to overrule that answer 
 also, for the reason I have given. 
 
 Refused and exception taken. 
 
 Q. How many drops of laudanum are equivalent to' 
 a grain of morphine ? A. I shall have again to quote 
 authority. 
 
 Mr. Dixon objected, and took the exception. 
 
 A. According to the United States Dispensatory., 
 twenty-five drops of laudanum is equal to one grain of 
 opium. 
 
 Mr. Dixon : The Court will please understand that 
 the answer is also objected to. 
 
 Answer admitted ; exception taken. 
 
 By the Court : Q. Are the books quoted, good 
 authority ? 
 
23 
 
 A. Yes, sir, first rate ; the Dispensatory also states 
 that one grain of morphine is equal to six grains of 
 opium ; hence one grain of morphine is equal to one 
 •hundred and fifty drops of laudanum ; Beck states the 
 same. 
 
 Mr. Dixon : That is all under objection. 
 
 Q. In what cases do you prescribe a grain of 
 morphine? A- I do not very often do it, unless a 
 person is used to it. Q. How do you discover that ? 
 A. By personal experience and . knowledge. Q. Do 
 you ever do it when you are away from the patient ? 
 A. No, sir. . Q. What kind of practice would it be to 
 prescribe a grain of morphine, in the absence of the 
 patient ? 
 
 Mr. Dixon : I object to that as incompetent, 
 coming out of the proper field of questions for an 
 expert. 
 
 Mr. Garretson : I say it is an expert question. 
 
 Mr. Dixon : Yes, I know it is an expert question, 
 but not a question for an expert ; I object to it, be- 
 cause it is not a complete statement of the present 
 case. It may make a difference whether the patient 
 has been seen within a short time previously. 
 
 Question allowed ; Mr. Dixon excepted. 
 
 A. Highly dangerous, I should think, sir. 
 
 Q. Did you see Dr. Lund at Mr. Coates' house at 
 any time ? A. Yes, sir. Q. When ? A. I think 
 about seven o'clock, Wednesday. Q. How long was 
 he there? A. A few minutes. Q. Did you have 
 any conversation with him ? A. I merely said go'od 
 morning. Q. Did he say anything ? A. I think he 
 returned the salutation. Q. What did he do while he 
 was there? A. Nothing. Q. Did he examine Mr. 
 Coates? A. He looked 2X him. Q. Did he say any- 
 thing about him? A. No, sir, except in answer to, 
 Mrs. Coates' remark. 
 
24 doctor lund's trial. 
 
 Oross-exa/rnvnation by Mr. Dixon : 
 
 Q. What sort of a patient was it, that Dr. Beck 
 said was poisoned by two-fifths of a grain of morphine ? 
 . A. 1 don't know, svr. 
 1 Q. Was it a child, or an adult ? 
 
 A. An adult. 
 
 Q. Male or female ? 
 
 A. I don't know. 
 
 Q. Age? 
 
 A. I don't know. 
 
 Q. Physical condition ? 
 
 A. J don't know. 
 
 Q. Habits of life? 
 
 A. / don't know. 
 
 Q. Do you know any particulars about the case 
 mentioned by Dr. Guy? A.' To the best of my 
 knowledge, it was a female and delicate. Q. Do you 
 remember anything else of her condition? A. No, 
 sir. Q. Whether she was an adult or not ?' A. She 
 was adult. Q. What is the largest amount of mor- 
 phine that, in your knowledge and experience, any 
 one has taken ? A. That I have prescribed myself? 
 Q. I did not ask that question ; I asked the largest 
 amount that within your experience any one nad 
 taken ? A.I have no experience in the matter, 
 except what I have given myself; I can tell you 
 upon hearsay what parties have taken. Q. Did you 
 ever see a person that you understood had taken a 
 lareje amount at that time ? A. That I understood 
 had been taken ? Q. Yes, at the time you saw them, 
 you understood had been taken ; did you ever see a 
 person suffering, as you supposed from the effects" of 
 morphine ? A. Oh, yes. Q. Plow large an amount ? 
 A. I cannot state ; I only know what they told me. 
 
 Q. What is the large'st amount you ever prescribed 
 yourself? A. I think I gave two grains in one case, 
 
DOCTOR Hiiro's TEIAL. 25 
 
 where the man was an opium eater ; it had no effect 
 and he said he could take ten grains with impunity. 
 Q. Outside of that, what' is the largest amount you 
 ever prescribed ? A. I have seldom prescribed over 
 one-third of a grain. Q. Will you be kind enough to 
 1 give me a direct answer to my question ? A. Repeat, 
 it, if you please. Q. Outside of that case, Avhat is the 
 largest dose you ever prescribed ? A. I think one 
 grain to a person of the same habits. Q. What was 
 its effect ? A. Well, no particular bad effect ; it had 
 the desired effect ; it annulled the pain. 
 
 Q. Have you ever seen a person suffering from the 
 effects of morphine, where you understood he had 
 taken over a grain ? A. Only the two I pre- 
 scribed for, myself. Q. Before seeing Mr. Ooates did you 
 ever see a person whom you supposed had died of 
 morphine? A. From laudanum, sir. Q. Have you 
 ever seen more than one that had died from laudanum ? 
 A. I do not thin!-: I have, Q. Was that a man, woman 
 or child? A. A child, not over two years old; it 
 was dying when I saw it. Q. How much laudanum 
 had it taken ? A. The mother said two drops, but as 
 she was intoxicated, it is doubtful. Q. Did you ex- 
 amine it post-mortem ? A. 'Ho, sir. Q. What were 
 its symptoms ? A. Contraction of the pupil, clammy 
 perspiration, stertorous breathing, low respiration, slow 
 and laboring pulse. Q. How many drops of laudanum 
 are there in an ounce ? A. I don't know. Q. Do you 
 know how many in a tea-spoonful ? A. About sixty (the 
 books say one htmdred and twenty ; see Appendix i), 
 and eight tea-spoonfuls to the ounce. Q. Why do you 
 give more morphine to a person used' to it ? A. Be- 
 cause it takes more to produce any effect. Q. The use 
 of any other narcotic would have the same effect, in 
 necessitating a larger dose I A. Yes, sir. Q. The con- 
 siderable use of tobacco would tend that same way ? 
 A. Yes, sir. 
 2' 
 
26 
 
 Q. Does morphine ever cause pain? A. No, sir. 
 Q. Pain in the system is resistant to its effects, is it 
 not ? A. Yes, sir. Q. A person suffering great pain 
 could take more without danger than one not suffering 
 pain at all? A. Yes, sir. Q. How does morphine 
 act as poison? A. In producing congestion of the 
 vital organs, and paralyzing the nervous centres. Q. 
 What do you mean by congestion ? A. An undue 
 collection of blood in the veins. Q: Which is pro- 
 duced first, the paralyzing of the nervous centres, or 
 the stagnation of the fluid ? A. The stagnation first. 
 {Appendix j.) Q. What is the first effect of morphine ? 
 ,A. Excitement. 
 
 Q. Well, excites what ? A. The brain. Q. How 
 does it reach the brain ? A. Through the absorbents 
 and stomach, being carried into the blood and so 
 reaches the brain. * Q. If it reaches the blood through 
 the absorbents, is it absorbed directly from the stomach, 
 or does it pass into the bowels, and then become ab- 
 sorbed ? A. No, sir, it is taken up from the stomach. 
 Q. Directly? A. Yes, sir. Q. What do you call the 
 absorbents by which it is taken up from the stomach '( 
 A. They are called, absorbents. Q. That is their 
 ordinary name? A. Yes. Q. Is it by them that 
 the nutriment is carried into the system ? A. To a 
 certain ■ extent. Q. To any very large extent ? A. 
 No, sir, not directly. 
 
 Q. The absorption of nutriment commences at the 
 stomach by these absorbents, does it ? A. Yes, sir. 
 Q. Before getting into the bowels ? A. Yes, sir. Q. 
 Is morphine more rapidly absorbed than food ? A. 
 Yes,. sir.' Q. So rapidly that you think none would 
 pass into the bowels ? A. Oh, no, sir. The rapidity 
 of the absorption depends a great deal whether the 
 stomach is full or empty. Q. After being taken up by 
 these absorbents, where is it carried ? A. Into the 
 blood. Q. How do these absorbents leach the blood? 
 
27 
 
 A. The absorbents are little minute tubes leading to 
 it. Q. Leading to what? A. To the "blood vessels. 
 Q. "Which blood vessels ? A. The blood vessels that 
 are near the coating of the stomach. 
 
 Q. Which blood vessels, venous or arterial ? A. 
 Arterial. {The witness is rusty in his physiology. 
 The absorbents empty into the venous and not into the 
 arterial system.) Q. It passes into the arteries 
 then? A. Yes, sir. Q. Then where? A. It is circu- 
 lated through the system. Q. How does it get through 
 the system ? A. The heart throws it through the sys- 
 tem. Q. How does it get to the heart ? A. Through 
 the veins to begin with. Q. How does it get to the 
 veins ? A. It is absorbed in the first place, and passes 
 througji the arteries into the veins. 
 
 Q. You had it first in the stomach, then in the ab- 
 sorbents, then in the arteries, and now where ? A. It 
 permeates through the body_ from the capillaries. 
 Q. And from these arteries around the stomach it per- 
 meates the body ? A. No, sir, it is carried by the 
 whole circulation up to the heart. Q. You have not 
 got it into the heart yet; you have* it in the arteries 
 round the stomach ? A. It finally goes into the capil- 
 laries, and from the capillaries back into the heart. 
 Q. Do you mean to say that the morphine, which is 
 carried by these absorbents into the arteries, is trans- 
 ferred by them to the venous blood? A. Yes, sir. 
 Q. Must it not be first deposited ? A, It is deposited, 
 and the absorbents take it up and circulate it in the 
 blood. 
 
 Q. The second class of absorbents take it up ? A. 
 No, sir. Q. How is it transferred from the arteries to 
 the veins ? ' A. Through the capillaries. Q. Without 
 being deposited? A. Yes, sir. Q. Now in what 
 stage of its progress through the system, would it be- 
 gin to operate by congestion ? A. As soon as the first 
 stage, that of excitement, had passed off. Q. How is 
 

 28 doctor lotd's trial. 
 
 the excitement produced ? A. I don't know, sir. Q. 
 Well, what is the next effect ? A. It is the corres- 
 ponding depressing effect ; the brain being poisoned is 
 unable to perform its functions properly. Q. Which 
 functions are you referring to ? A. All the functions. 
 Q. What next ? A. After this has continued awhile 
 the blood becomes more and more poisoned, as long as 
 there is any material for it to feed upon, and if there 
 be poison enough to poison the blood up to a certain 
 extent, death ensues, the blrain being overcome. 
 
 Q. Is the depressing effect produced by the presence 
 of a poison in the blood directly, or by the' numbing ^ 
 of the brain? A. The latter. Q. Explain then how 
 you get to the congestion ? A. The ' congestion is 
 produced by the brain being poisoned. (Appendix k.) 
 Q. Benumbed? A. Yes, sir. Q. How does that pro- 
 duce the congestion ? A. It partially paralyzes the 
 heart so that it is unable to throw its blood with 
 sufficient force to the extremities. Q. How does it 
 paralyze the heart ? A. By its poisonous effect upon ,. 
 the nervous centre of the brain. Q. How are the heart 
 and brain connected ? A. By nerves. 
 
 Q. Which nerves? A. The pneumogastric, if I 
 • recollect. Q. With what part of the brain do they 
 communicate ( A. The back part of the. cerebellum. 
 (The witness now makes a mistake in his anatomy ; 
 the nerve in question does not arise from* the cerebel- 
 lum, but from the medulla oblongata?) Q. What is 
 there in the morphine that produces the poisonous 
 effect? A. I don't know, sir. Q. What is the chem- 
 ical composition of morphine ? A. I don 't know. Q. 
 Is there carbon in it? A. Yes, sir. Q. Much? A. 
 I don't know, sir. Q. Nitrogen? A. 1 don't know. Q. 
 I)o you know any of the other coniponent parts except 
 carbon ? A. No, sir. Q. Would not carbonic acid 
 gas inhaled produce the same symptoms? A. To a 
 great extent, yes, sir, 
 
DOCTOR LUND S TRIAL. 29 
 
 Q. Operate substantially the same way ? A. Except 
 to affect the pupil. Q. To what do you attribute the 
 effect upon the pupil? A. To morphine. Q. How 
 does it reach the pupil? A. I don't know, sir. Q. 
 The presence of any substance where the carbon is ex- 
 cessive would have pretty much the same effect upon 
 the system ? A. Except the state of the pupils. Q. 
 Or anything which benumbs the cerebellum would 
 have precisely the same effect? A. If carried far 
 enough, yes, sir. Q. A blow upon the head then 
 might occasion it ? A. Occasion what, sir ? Q. This 
 same course of symptoms, paralysis of the cerebellum, 
 weakening of the heart, corruption of the blood, and 
 congestion, would it not ? A. Yes, to a certain extent, 
 but not the condition of the pupil. 
 
 Q. Do you think that the contraction of the pupil is 
 peculiar to poisoning by morphine ? A. In a great 
 majority of cases ; I never saw a patient under the in- 
 fluence of opium where the pupil was not contracted. 
 Q. I want to know whether there are any of the class 
 of cases where the brain is benumbed, circulation cor- 
 rupted, blood congested, where we have not also con- 
 traction of the pupils ? A. Tes, uraemia is sometimes 
 accompanied by contraction of the pupil. Q. None 
 of these symptoms are uniform? A. As far as I 
 know it is uniform in opium. Q. Do you mean to say 
 that books also say it is uniform ? A. No, sir. Q. They 
 say it is "not uniform, do they not ? A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. And you would not by any means conclude that 
 because you saw dilation of the pupil, that it was not 
 opium poisoning ? A. No, not "positively, no, sir, that 
 is according to the books ; I never saw it myself. Q. 
 What is uraemia? A. Poisoning of blood through 
 disease of the kidneys. Q. Did you examine the kid- 
 neys in this case ? A. Yes, sir. Q. And the other 
 urinary organs? A. I don't remember whether the 
 bladder was examined, I think not ; it is possible. Q. 
 
30 DOCTOR LUND'S TRIAL. 
 
 Could not uraemia arise from disease of the bladder ?- 
 A. No, sir. Q. It is nothing more than the injection 
 of urea into the blood ? A. No, sir. Q. Could not 
 that take place from the bladder? A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. Might not a diseased condition of. the bladder 
 produce a diseased condition of the blood? A. I 
 don't believe it ; uraemia arises from a disease of the 
 kidneys; the bladder is a mere receptacle, a closed 
 sack, that is evacuated as soon as filled. Q. Why 
 could it not be absorbed from the bladder as well as 
 from the kidneys ? A. It could not without ulceration. 
 Q. Yes, but might there not be ulceration ? A. We 
 have ulceration sometimes. Q. Can you see -any 
 physical reason why we could not have uraemia from a 
 disease of the bladder ? A. I don't believe it would 
 be absorbed from the glands. Q. Why could it not 
 through ulceration? A. If we had ulceration the 
 urine would irritate it, and it would be. voided as soon 
 as formed. 
 
 Q. Now, pyaemia, what is that ? A. It is absorp- 
 tion of pus or matter into the blood. Q. Could not 
 that produce the same effect substantially? A. No, 
 sir. Q. Why not? A. Because pyaemia takes several 
 days to poison the system ; the symptoms in this case 
 are not those of pyaemia. Q. I am not talking about 
 this case ; I am asking you generally whether pyae- 
 mia might not be attended with the same symptoms you 
 found in this case? A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. You have told us that pyaemia is absorption of 
 pus into the blood ; after that absorption it would 
 operate in the same way by benumbing the brain, 
 would it not? A. To some extent. Q. And after 
 the brain was benumbed the heart would be weak- 
 ened, the blood would not be propelled with its usual 
 force, and congestion would be the result ? A. Yes, 
 sir. Q. The same route would be pursued by the 
 poison pus after it got into the blood, as by the poison 
 
D0CT0K LTTITq's TKIAL. 31 
 
 morphine? A. To a certain extent. Q. You say to 
 a " certain extent," what difference is there in the 
 route ? A. The difference in the route is this, that 
 after the brain becomes poisoned by pyaemia, 
 we have a certain set of symptoms which tell un- 
 mistakably the source of the poison. 
 
 Q. Suppose pus in the stomach were absorbed by 
 the absorbents, it would pass through the same route 
 as you described for the morphine, would it not ? A. 
 It woTi-ld not be absorbed. Q. I have put it into the 
 absorbents already ? A. Well, I suppose it would. 
 Q. "Would not this effect be produced in the same 
 way .? A. The poison would be carried in the same 
 way. Q. Would not its ' effect upon the system be 
 substantially the same ? A. It would develop symp- 
 toms which are well-known to be indications of 
 poisoning by pus. Q. And if the absorption should 
 take place from some other part of the system than 
 the stomach, it would pursue substantially the same 
 course, would it not ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Its effect 
 substantially the same ? A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. How do the symptoms of poisoning by pus 
 differ from those of morphine ? A. In pysemia, the 
 first symptom is a continuous chill, and excessive 
 sweats day after day, and night after night, and as 
 the system becomes more poisoned, the matter is 
 deposited in different parts of- the body, especially in 
 the liver ; in post-mortem, from pyaemia, you have 
 the liver usually diseased. Q. Is that invariable? 
 A. Not invariable, no, sir. Q. Are the cold sweats 
 invariable? A. I think they are, sir. Q. Through 
 how many days and nights ? A. From four to twelve 
 days. 
 
 Q. Have you ever known a case that proved fatal 
 in less than four days ? A. No, sir. Q. Have you 
 ever known a case at all ? A. Yes, sir. Q. How 
 many? A. A great many, I don't know how many. 
 
32 DOOTOK LUND's TRIAL. 
 
 Q. "Where was the original seat of the pus in these 
 cases % A. In the womb. Q. Have you known any 
 cases where the pus was produced elsewhere than the 
 womb ? A. At the present moment I do not recollect 
 any other case in my own practice. Q. Would not 
 the duration of the disease depend upon the virulence 
 of the pus ? A. To some extent, yes, sir. Q. Any 
 other symptoms in pyaemia ? A. None than those I 
 have mentioned ; the brain is not usually much 
 affected. Q. Why should the brain be not much 
 affected ? A. / don't know, sir. Q. Your expertness 
 does not extend to that ? A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. Do you know the chemical composition of pas ? 
 A. I don't recollect, sir. Q. Do you know whether 
 it is constant, always the same? A. Yes, as far as I 
 know. Q. Is there carbon in it ? A. / don't hnow, 
 sir. Q. Are you familiar with the office of the gall 
 bladder? A. Yes, sir. Q. What is its office? A. 
 It is a receptacle for bile. Q. Does it communicate 
 with the liver? A. Yes, through the cystic duct, 
 which joining the hepatic duct from the liver, forms 
 the common duct that empties into the bowels. Q. 
 Are there any absorbents about these ducts ? A. 1 
 don't hnow that there are. Q. Do you know that 
 there are not ? A. No, sir. 
 
 . Q. Your expertness does not reach to that ; how is 
 it about the gall bladder; are there any absorbents 
 about that ? A. I don't Tcnow that there are^ 
 {Appendix I.) Q. Do you know that there are 
 not? A. No, sir. Q. Are there any about the liver ? 
 A. Yes, sir. Q. If there are absorbents about the gall 
 bladder, is there anything to prevent the absorption 
 of the pus you found there ? A. Yes, sir, lack of ulcer- 
 ation. Q. There could not be absorption without 
 ulceration ? A. I think not. 
 
 Q. How then could there be absorption from the 
 stomach without ulceration? A. Because there are 
 
DOCTOR LUND'S TRIAL. 33 
 
 absorbents there. Q. Yes ; but we are supposing 
 that there are also absorbents in the gall bladder ? A. 
 They would not absorb pus as such. Q. How then 
 would they absorb it ? A. It is changed in character. 
 Q. Changed to what? A. I don't know, sir. Q. 
 How then do you know it is changed ? A. Simply 
 from reading. Q. How is it absorbed ; what does it 
 become? A. I don't know, sir. Q. What is pus, not 
 as chemically, but as physically composed ; is it a 
 fluid? A. It is globules floating around in serum. 
 Q. Is not the serum of pus absorbed ? A. Some- 
 times, yes. Q. Has^ not that malignant properties ? 
 A. Eo, sir ; I think not. 
 
 Q. When y6u have pysemia from pus in the womb, 
 what is . absorbed ? A. Pus. Q. But 'pus_ is not. 
 absorbed as such?' A. As pus, no sir. Q. Well, 
 what is absorbed ? A. I don't know, sir. Q. Supposing 
 that there are absorbents about the gall bladder, is 
 there anything to prevent that change coming over 
 that pus, and it be absorbed the same as if it were in 
 the womb ? A. / don't know that it is absorbed. 
 Q. Yes, but there is nothing to prevent that pus 
 causing pysemia if it is absorbed ? A. I don't know 
 of anything. Q. The burning and intense pain in 
 Mr. Coates' stomach, could not have been caused by 
 the morphine, could it ? A. No, sir, I do not think 
 it could. 
 
 The Court here adjourned until Tuesday, December 
 6th, at 10 o'clock a. m. 
 
 On the. second day of the trial, the Court was opened 
 in usual form, at ten o'clock, with Dr. Wilkinson still 
 upon the stand. The cross-examination was resumed 
 by Mr. Dixon. 
 
 Mr. Dixon : Have you found out yet the chemical 
 composition of morphine ? 
 
 Dr. Wilkinson ; No, sir. 
 
34 doctoe ltjnd's trial. 
 
 Q. Or of pus? A. JSTo, sir. Q. Or of bile? A. 
 ISTo, sir. Q. Have you any correction to make in your 
 testimony in reference to the course of the contents of 
 the stomach through the system ? A. No, sir. Q. 
 Do you know what the thoracic duct is ? A. Yes, 
 sir, it is a duct for the reception of the chyle ; it passes 
 up along the spine and terminates in the left sub- 
 clavian vein. Q. Has that anything to do with the 
 route of the contents of the stomach? A. Not di- 
 rectly. Q. Has it indirectly ? A. That is to say the 
 chyme, food, being reduced to chyle, passes into the 
 bowels, when the absorbents take it up, and carry it 
 into the circulation. Q. Do you mean none of the 
 contents of the stomach pass into the* thoracic duct until 
 after entering the bowels ? A. I do not think they 
 do. 
 
 Q. Then the contents of the stomach, when absorbed 
 directly from the stomach, pass from the absorb- 
 ents into the capillaries ? A. Yes, sir, what is absorbed 
 does. Q. That portion of the food taking a dif- 
 ferent route from the other ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Have 
 you ascertained yet whether there are any absorbents 
 about the gall bladder ? A. 1 have not looked the 
 matter up. Q. Are you familiar with Sharpey and 
 Quain's work on anatomy? A. I have seen it; lam 
 not familiar with it. Q, Is it standard? A. Yes, 
 sir. Q. These absorbents are sometimes called lym ; 
 phatics, are they not? A. Yes, sir. Q. From their 
 contents? A. Yes, sir. 
 
 A page of the work on anatomy was here turned to, 
 which states that the lymphatics, or absorbents, of the 
 gall bladder are very numerous. 
 
 Q. Have you ascertained whether the serum of the 
 pus is poisonous or not ? A. I have not looked at it 
 since yesterday, sir ; I hold to the opinion it is not. 
 Q. On what is your opinion based ? A. Because se- 
 rum is innocent. Q. On what is your opinion based ; 
 
DOOTOE LUND'S TRiAlj 35 
 
 have you ever tried it? A. No, sir. Q. If it were 
 innocent could it produce pyaemia? A. No, sir. Q. 
 Are you familiar with Jones and Sieveken's Patho- 
 logical Anatomy ? A. No, sir. Q. Have you seen it ? 
 A. Yes, sir. Q. Do you know anything of it as an 
 authority ? A. No, sir. Q. Is it American or Euro- 
 pean ? A. I do not know anything about it. 
 
 Q. Suppose you should find in that hook, page 146, 
 these words: "Pyaemia may take place from the 
 absorption of the serum of pus alone. Lebert found 
 by experiment, that the injection of the serum of pus 
 into the blood of animals, killed as quickly as the in- 
 jection of pus itself." Would you not then believe, 
 that the author of that book, did not think the serum 
 of pus to be innocent? A. I should think so. Q. 
 If it be possible for pyaemia to take place from serum 
 alone, can it be innocent ? A. Grant that is proved, 
 it may not be. Q. Suppose the books to say, "Be- 
 cause it is clear this may easily take place, wherever 
 capillary vessels are in contact with puriform exuda- 
 tions " ? A. That is not very definite. 
 
 Q. If it be true that pyaemia occurs, wherever the 
 capillaries are in contact with puriform exudations? 
 A. What is a puriform exudation ? Q. I am not on 
 the witness stand, if you please, sir. A. You tell me, 
 and I will answer. Q. Do you not know what a puri- 
 form exudation is ; do you not know ; yes or no ; if 
 you do not know, then I will tell you ? A. Yes, sir, 
 I know. Q. What is it ? A. It is an exudation like 
 pus. Q. What is exudation ? A. It is a flowing out. 
 Q. If the capillary vessels be in contact with these 
 exudations, and pyaemia may take place from contact 
 alone, is it not clear that serum is not innocent ? A. 
 I am not prepared to answer that. Q. Why not? A. 
 I do not understand the sentence. 
 
 Q. (Handing book to witness.) Read what he says, 
 and then say if. he does not mean that serum maybe 
 
36 
 
 malignant ? A. (After reading the place alluded to.) 
 Yes, I should judge so from what he says, that he con- 
 siders it such. Q. There can be no doubt about that ? 
 A- No, sir, Q. Your idea was, that the poisonous 
 matter of pus was in the globules ? A. Yes, sir. Q. 
 Is there anything to prevent the lymphatics or ab- 
 sorbents around the gall bladder taking up these 
 globules? A. As pus? Q. Is there anything to pre- 
 vent the lymphatics or absorbents around the gall 
 bladder absorbing the globules ? A. The globules, of 
 what ? 
 
 Q : Of the pus? A. Yes, sir. Q. Why not? A. 1 
 don't know. Q. Why do you say they cannot do it ? 
 A. I do not know, sir; the authorities are not plain 
 on that. Q. What part of the pus is it that the ab- 
 sorbents do take up when they produce pyaemia ? A. / 
 do not Jcnow. Q. Pus consists of" globules and serum ? 
 A. Yes, sir. Q. Y our idea is that serum is innocent ? 
 A. Yes, sir. Q. How does pyaemia arise? A. I do 
 not know ,' I only know it does. Q. It is not known 
 whether from th6 absorption of the serum or globules ? 
 A. It is not from the absorption of the globules. Q. 
 How of the contents of the globules ? A. /don't know, 
 sir. 
 
 Q. Could there be absorption of the contents of the 
 
 f lobules, without an absorption of the globules ? A. 
 don't know. Q. Do you mean to say that experts 
 generally are not somewhat familiar with the process 
 by which pyaemia, is produced? A. I believe it is 
 not known positively how it is produced, any more 
 than how arsenic or morphine is poisonous. Q. Is it 
 not pretty well known how morphine is poisonous ? 
 A. We know its effects. Q. Don't we know the route 
 it takes ? A. Yes, sir, but we do not know how it 
 kills. Q. Is it not equally possible to know how pus 
 produces its effect? A. We do not know how; no, 
 sir. Q. We know it does^poison ? A. Yes, but we 
 
37 
 
 do not know the ultimate process. Q. Your idea is 
 that you are quite sure, the absorbents do not take in 
 the globules ? A. Yes, sir. Q. And the globules are 
 the only poisonous part of the pus ? A. That is my 
 idea. 
 
 Q. How do you reconcile this conflict of ideas. You" 
 think pus may produce the disease ? A. Oh, yes. Q. 
 If there be absorbents around the gall bladder, then 
 pyaemia may as well be produced by pus in that gall 
 bladder as anywhere else? A. If there is ulceration. 
 Q. Could there be a formation of pus without ulcera- 
 tion ? A. Yes, sir. Q. How ? A. By being shut 
 up, and undergoing changes. Q. The bile might be- 
 come pus ? A. Yes, sir. Q. What would prevent 
 the lymphatics taking it ? A. I do not think they 
 would take it up without ulceration. Q. Why not? 
 A- Because they are closed ; bile is not absorbed from 
 the gall bladder. (Appendix m.) Q. It is not accus- 
 tomed to be there without an outlet? A. No, sir. 
 Q. If so, nature would try to get an outlet? A. 
 Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Would not the absorbents become the outlet ? 
 A. No, sir, it would dry up in toto. Q. How can it 
 dry up' without being absorbed ? A. I don't hnow. 
 Q. You know of cases where it has disappeared ? A. 
 I have read of a case where it disappeared. 
 
 Q. Your testimony in reference to post-mortem ap- 
 pearances of the body, was from notes taken at the 
 time ? A. Yes, sir. Q. You had these , notes upon 
 your examination at the Inquest? A. I read them 
 to the Coroner's Jury there. Q. Your testimony then 
 was based on the same foundation as here ? A. Yes, 
 sir. Q. Where was the post-mortem held ? A. At 
 the house. Q. Was there any thermometer in the 
 house? A- I don't hnow. Q. You say the thermom- 
 eter was about 80° ; what do you judge by ? A. I 
 stated yesterday, the report was written by Dr. For- 
 
'38 DOCTOR LUND S TRIAL. 
 
 man. Q. Your testimony was from the notes ? A. I 
 stated yesterday what I read. Q. How was that to 
 be distinguished from recollection ? A. I said what 
 I was about to read was written by Dr.. Forman. 
 Q. Then you read the post-mortem? A. A part 
 of it. 
 
 Q. How much of what you read was from your recol- 
 lection ; do you recollect the thermometer was at 80° ? 
 A. Ida not know how.high it was. Q. The tempera- 
 ture of the room might vary the post mortem appear- 
 ances of the body ? A. I do not know that it would. 
 Q. Why then did you fix upon the temperature ? A. 
 I did not fix upon it. Q. Why did Dr. Forman ? A. 
 I don't know. Q. The body had been upon ice ? A. 
 I think it had ? Q. How long ? A. I don't know. 
 Q. How long before the post-mortem was it removed 
 from the ice ? A. Just before. Q. Would not that 
 produce a variation in the post-mortem appearances ? 
 A. / don't know that it would. Q. You speak about 
 the rigor mortis ; could you distinguish between the 
 rigor mortis and the effects of the ice ? A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. What do you mean by the rigor mortis? A. 
 The stiffness of the muscles. Q. How would you distin- 
 guish between the effects of the ice, and the rigor mor- 
 tis? A. The ice would affect the outer surface, but 
 not make the muscles rigid. Q. It might ? A. I do 
 not think it would. Q. Don't you think it might ? 
 A. I don't think it would ; it might. Q. Possibly 
 what you call rigor mortis, might have been the efiects 
 of the ice upon the body ? A. I think not. Q. Is it 
 not possible? A. Not altogether; no, sir. Q. Why 
 not ? A. Because I do not think the muscles would 
 be so rigid. Q. Do you think ice would have any 
 effect on the rigidity of the muscles \ A. Oh, yes, 
 some. 
 
 Q. Where was this florid congestion ? A. I do not 
 recollect ; the post-mortem being committed to paper, 
 
39 
 
 I did not commit it to memory at the time. Q. Was 
 there any portion of the body where there was no florid 
 congestion ? A. I do not recollect. Q. How was that 
 produced? A. By the blood settling there, owing to 
 the belladonna which we gave before death, sending 
 the blood to the surface. Q. Did the pupil of the eye 
 contract after that ? A. It did not. Q. "W as the cra- 
 nium in this case large or small? A. Rather large. 
 Q. You say on a section of the scalp there was no 
 flow of blood ; was that unusual ? A. No, sir. Q. 
 In what part of the body is the cerebellum ? A. Near 
 the inner surface of the skull. 
 
 Q. What is the dura mater ? A. It is the inner lining 
 of the bone. Q. Where is the arachnoid ? A. It is 
 a serous membrane between the dura mater and pia 
 mater. Q. What is the pia mater ? A. A. branch of 
 blood vessels ; a net work of blood vessels. Q. Are 
 there any blood vessels in the arachnoid ? A. No, sir. 
 Q. Any in the dura mater? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did 
 you not in your examination before the Coroner say 
 there was a marked venous congestion of the vessels 
 qf the arachnoid? A. I will correct my statement; 
 there are vessels in tlie arachnoid. Q. »Was there 
 then that symptom, a marked venous congestion of the 
 arachnoid ? A. From recollection I cannot say. Q. 
 Where is that memorandum you had ? A. I left it at 
 home. 
 
 Mr. Dixon : That is not fair for my client to use such 
 a paper upon your direct examination, and then leave it 
 at home, so as not to give us the benefit of it upon our 
 cross-examination. (The witness here began to search 
 himself for the paper, and finally found it in his 
 pocket.) Q. Tell us whether you find in that paper 
 the statement, that there was a venous congestion of 
 the vessels of the arachnoid ? 
 
 The Court: Was the question in reference to the 
 testimony before, the Coroner's Jury or yesterday? 
 
40 
 
 Mr. Dixon : It is now in reference to the body at the 
 time of the death. 
 
 A. I do not see any such statement here, sir. Q. Did 
 you sign your deposition ? A. That was made before 
 the Coroner ; yes, sir, I acknowledged it ; I do not see 
 it here, sir. Q. (Handing witness his deposition be- 
 fore the Coroner.) Look at that and see if it is a part 
 of your deposition before the Coroner ? A. This is not 
 signed, sir. Q. Look further down, down towards the 
 end. A. It says " being re-examined." 
 
 The Court : Look at it and speak as to your recol- 
 lection .of what is there stated ? 
 
 Witness (discovering his name) : Oh, yes, I signed 
 it. 
 
 The Court : Did you speak of the congestion ? 
 
 A. I do not remember whether I did or not. Q. This 
 is headed as being notes of the post-mortem examination 
 taken by you and your confreres ? A. I do not know, 
 sir, whether it is or not. Q. Is any portion of that re- 
 port your hand-writing at all ? A. ~No, sir. - Q. You 
 now say from your notes the congestion was in the 
 dura mater and the pia mater? A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Could there be a venous congestion of the 
 arachnoid? A. Not very apt to be; no, sir. Q. 
 "What do you suppose was the cause of the flattening 
 of. the convolutions of the brain ? A. I do not know, 
 sir. Q. Is that normal ? A. They were more 
 flattened than ordinary. Q. Can you give any hypo- 
 thesis as to the cause ? A. My idea is, it was caused 
 by the excitement in the first place ; during the state 
 of excitement the blood rushed to the head ; it is a 
 matter of no importance. . Q. Do you think it was of 
 no importance at all in your diagnosis ? A. Yes, sir. 
 Q. You say there was serous effusion along the veins ; 
 whence did that effusion come from ? A. From the 
 veins themselves. Q. It was serum from the blood 
 then, was it? A. Yes, sir. Q. How did it escape 
 
DOCTOR LUND's TRIAL. 41 
 
 from the veins ? A. From pressure on the veins. Q. 
 Was a rupture of the vessels necessary ? A. ~No, 
 sir. 
 
 Q. How did you ascertain the brain was firm? A. 
 By putting my hand on it. Q. Any other experi- 
 ment ? A. By taking it out and handling it, and by 
 cutting it. Q. How much did you cut the brain? A. 
 A good deal. Q. How much ? A. Bight down 
 through. Q. Cut more than once ? A. Sliced right 
 through ; cut to the cerebellum from the cerebrum. 
 Q. How many pieces ? A. Horizontally down to the 
 ventricle. Q. Are there two ventricles in the brain ? 
 A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you cut into them ? A. I think 
 so. Q. Are you sure ? A. I am not sure ; I do not 
 depend upon memory in post-mortems. Q. Are you 
 sure you cut the cerebrum ? A. Yes, sir, I do recol- , 
 lect that. Q. Did you cut the cerebellum ? A.I am 
 not sure about that ; I think I did. 
 
 Q. Did you find any serum in either of the ven- 
 tricles of the brain ? A. YeSj sir. Q. Which one? A. 
 I think the left. Q. Did you measure it? A. No, 
 sir. Q. How much did you guess there was? A. 
 About half an ounce, we thought. Q. Was that 
 abnormal ? A. More than ordinary ; . yes, sir. Q. 
 Could that have had any tendency to cause death ? 
 A. Of itself? Q. Yes. A. I think not ; it was part 
 and parcel of the congestion. Q. Do you know any 
 thing about serous apoplexy ? A. Yes, sir. Q. What 
 is it ? A. It is when we have a large exudation of 
 the serum from the blood vessels of the brain. Q. Is 
 it necessary, for that to be large, to produce apoplexy ? 
 A. Yes, sir. Q. May not its location have very much to 
 do with its fatality ; may not a much smaller quantity 
 be fatal in some parts of the brain than others ? A. I 
 do not know, sir. (The witness is now rusty m his 
 pathology. A very small effusion in some parts of the 
 brain would be quieMry fatal.) 
 
42 
 
 Q. Are you familiar with the disease called arach- 
 nitis? A. Yes, sir. Q. "What is that? A. Inflam- 
 mation of the arachnoid. Q. Do you know what men- 
 ingitis is ? A. That is part of arachnitis. Q. Is that 
 the same disease ? A. Part of the same; yes, sir. Q. 
 "Were there any symptoms of that ? A. Before death ? 
 Q. No, after death, upon post-mortem. A. No, sir. 
 Q. The presence of serum, was hot that a symptom ? 
 A. It is only one; in arachnitis we have a large 
 amount ; the arachnoid fluids sjirround the arachnoid 
 itself. Q. What have you in arachnitis that you 
 have not in this ? A. The arachnoid was not inflamed. 
 Q. Are you sure ? A. I am quite sure. Q. Did you 
 not say that you did not recollect? A. I am quite 
 sure now on that point. 
 
 Q. Did you not say there was no venous congestion 
 of the arachnoid? A. I do not recollect now. Q. If 
 you do not recollect whether there was venous con- 
 gestion of the arachnoid, how do you know there was 
 no inflammation there, as one is only a degree of the 
 other ? A. I simply recollect the latter. Q. "Was 
 your attention called to it ? A. My attention was 
 called to every part. Q. In your examination before 
 the Coroner, do you remember that you stated any 
 thing, about the presence of bloody serum, in any 
 portion of the brain ? A. Yes, sir, I said there was 
 none to the best of my knowledge. ( The witness is 
 now rusty in Ms memory. The post-mortem report, 
 as read by his own TA/ps before the G or oner, stated that 
 the left ventricle contained about half an ounce of 
 
 BLOODY SERUM.) 
 
 Q. The choroid plexus, where is -that? A. It is 
 situated by the side of both of the ventricles. Q. 
 "What was its condition? A. I forget. Q. Was 
 there any other notes taken of the post-mortem besides 
 yours? A. I did not take any; I don't hnow, Q. 
 Did you gather anything from the fact that the right 
 
doctor lund's TKIAX. 4:3 
 
 ventricle was empty, and the left contained serum ? 
 A. Nothing special; no, sir. Q. The. man was pretty 
 fleshy, was he not ? A. Yes, sir, quite so. Q. You 
 found an inch and a half of fat on the chest ? A. 
 Yes, sir. Q. Was the heart fatty ? A. I don't rec- 
 ollect. Q. Did you examine with- a microscope at 
 all ? A. No, sir. Q. Is not that necessary to ascer- 
 tain whether the heart be fatty or not ? A. Well, if 
 the heart be fatty we can see it by natural obser- 
 vation. Q. Can you, always ? A. No, sir. Q. There 
 may be fat and the eye not detect it ? A. Yes, sir, 
 to a certain extent. Q. The presence of fat in the 
 heart would diminish its force ? A. Yes, sir. Q. It 
 . tends to stagnation and venosity of the blood, and con- 
 gestion, and apoplexy? A. Yes, sir, to a certain 
 extent.- 
 
 Q. What do you. gather from the enlargement of 
 the liver ? A. It is simply a mark of congestion. 
 Q. You think it was simply a swelling of the vessels ? 
 A. Simply due, I thought, to the enlargement of the 
 blood vessels there. Q. Was the liver cut ? A. Yes, 
 sir. Q. Did you find an unusual amount of blood 
 there ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Was the gall bladder itself 
 swollen? A. I do not think it was. Q. Did you 
 weigh the heart ? A. No, sir. Q. Did you measure 
 it? A. No, sir. Q. Was it larger than usual or not? 
 A. I do not recollect now, sir ; I do not think it was. 
 Q. Is it not important to notice the size of the heart 
 when a matter of congestion is being considered ; is 
 it not one of the means by which congestion is to be 
 determined as the cause of death ? A. Yes, sir ; but 
 we depend on another cause ; if we do not find that 
 cause present, it is necessary to make- further inquiry. 
 Q. May it not be from a number of causes working 
 together in the system ? A. Yes, sir, it may. 
 
 Q. When you are investigating the cause of death 
 where you see congestion is the proximate cause, should' 
 
44 DOCTOR Lt'TCD's trial. 
 
 you not pursue the line of investigation to each one of 
 the remote causes? A. Yes, sir, certainly. Q. Why. 
 should you not see whether the heart is large or small ? 
 A. In the first place it was not fatty. Q. You say it 
 can he fatty, and not visible to the naked eye ? A. 
 Yes, sir, hut not to a great extent. Q. May it not be 
 to a certain extent sufficient to impede circulation, 
 without being visible to the naked eye ? A. I think 
 not. Q. Not to a degree ? A. Yes, to a degree. Q. 
 Is it not possible that the presence of these venous 
 clots in the heart were the cause of congestion, rather 
 than the result ? A. I think they were the result. Q. 
 Is it not possible they were the cause ? A. No, sir. Q. 
 Might there not be a physical obstruction of the heart . 
 which would produce it ? A There ■ was not ? Q. 
 Might there not be ? A. There was not. Q Might 
 there not be ? A. .No, sir. Q. No physical cause 
 was present ? A. There were not any signs. Q. 
 Could there possibly be any physical catise to prevent 
 the action of these functions of the heart ? A. No, sir. 
 Q. Suppose you should stop the circulation ? A. That 
 would be mechanical cause enough. Q. To produce 
 that effect ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Suppose for some rea- 
 son the heart should be stopped with a clot of blood % 
 A. If a clot be produced in the heart ? Q. It might 
 stop the operation ? A. Yes, sir. Q. In your inves- 
 tigation of the heart you took it out and handled it 
 an/i cut it ? A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. What is the pleura ? A. It is the external lining 
 of the lungs. Q. The adhesion of the pleura to the walls 
 of - the lungs restricts, the action of the lungs? A. To 
 a certain extent. Q. Its tendency would be towards 
 congestion, would it not ? A. No. Q. When you re- 
 strict the operation of the lungs don't you, to some 
 extent, restrict the arteralization of the blood? A. 
 Some. Q. Would it produce venosity, and so conges- 
 tion? A. A little. Q. Does it not tend that way? 
 
DOCTOR LUND'S TRIAL. 45 
 
 A. A little. Q. Must it not from the nature of things 
 tendriii that way ? A. Some. Q. The adhesion here 
 was very, considerable, and very firm ? A. Yery firm. 
 Q. So that it produced physical distortion, flattening of 
 the chest ? A. No, sir. Q. What was the cause of the 
 flattening? A. I don't remember. Q. Don't remem- 
 ber the chest was flattened ? A. Kb, sir. Q. Inves- 
 tigate your notes on that point, will you, Doctor? A. 
 I don't see it stated here, sir. 
 
 Q. Do you know Dr. Forman's hand-writing? A. I 
 would not swear to it. Q. Do you know whether this is 
 it or not ? A. I do not, sir. Q. Would the size of the 
 liver interfere at all with the respiration ? A. No, sir. 
 Q. What is the office of the spleen ? A. I don't 
 know ; it is a safety valve, supposed to be. Q. The 
 closing of the cystic duct could not have been organic, 
 could it ? A. Not very well ; no, sir. Q. And the 
 collection of the pus then, must have resulted'from its 
 being closed for a considerable length of time ? A, 
 Yes, sir. Q. The absorption of any of that pus, that 
 mysterious pus, if it produced pyaemia, would have 
 some tendency towards congestion ? A. Yes, sir. Q. 
 The -structure of this man's body tended towards con- 
 gestion, did it not ? A. I do not know that it did. 
 
 Q. Was he not such a subject as you generally find 
 apoplexy in ? A. If short in the neck he would be. 
 Q. He was short in the neck and stout ? A. Yes, sir. 
 Q. Was there much of anything in the stomach? A. 
 I do not recollect how much. Q. Did you make an 
 effort to detect the contents ? A. To detect ; what do 
 you mean by that? Q. By smell or . otherwise ? A. 
 We cut into it; it was yellowish. Q. Was there any 
 smell? A. I do not recollect that I smellcd of hC Q. 
 What was the condition of the blood in the lungs at 
 the time of the post-mortem ? A. The lower portion 
 of the left lung was the most congested, owing to the 
 position of the body in dying. Q. When you took 
 
46 doctor lund's trial. 
 
 the stomach out of the body what was done with it ? 
 A. It was put into ajar. Q. You think it was taken 
 directly from the body and put into a jar ? A. To the 
 best of my knowledge ; it is possible we may hare taken 
 it out and cut it, after putting it in. Q. What was 
 done with the jar? A. I think it was handed to the 
 Coroner sealed. Q. How sealed; with wax? A. I 
 think with wax ; I did not do it myself. Q. Did you 
 see it done ? A. I think I did ; I am not~positive. 
 
 Q. This serous effusion you speak of in the brain, 
 was it between the arachnoid and pia mater, or one 
 side of the pia mater? A Both, I think. Q. Did 
 you ever make a post-mortem examination of one who 
 died of apoplexy ? A. Yes, sir. Q. What -is the 
 feature about this post-mortem examination that satis- 
 fies you, that death was the result of poison by mor- 
 phine? , A. From- the post-mortem alone I should 
 be unwilling to swear he died from morphine. 
 {Appendix n.) Q. What other disease might 
 have produced the same post-mortem appearances? 
 A. I do not know of any disease, sir; only universal 
 congestion ? Q. What might have produced universal 
 congestion ? A. 1 do not fcnow, sir. Q. Why would 
 you not have concluded from the post-mortem alone 
 that this man did, or did not die from morphine? A. 
 From the ante-post-mortem appearances? Q. Why 
 would you not have been satisfied of the cause of death 
 from morphine, from the post-mortem alone? A. 
 Because morphine leaves no visible traces behind, ex- 
 cept the congestion of the vessels. 
 
 Q. Can any other cause produce the same effect? 
 A. I presume so. Q. What else ? A. I do not Tmow ; 
 anything that would produce universal congestion 
 would, produce the same effects in this case. Q. 
 .Would not apoplexy produce congestion? A. Yes, 
 but in that you have unmistakable evidence of apo- 
 plexy in the brain. Q. Are yon sure you must have 
 
doctoe Lund s tkiaL; 4? 
 
 post-mortem evidence of apoplexy in the brain ? A. 
 Yes, sir. Q. What are the evidences? A. A large 
 amount of serum or blood. Q. Is Watson's Theory 
 and Practice of Physic a reliable authority ? A. Yes, , 
 sir. Q. Suppose you find this : 
 
 Mr. Dixon here read from the work alluded to, page 
 332, the following sentence : "In the second place the 
 apopletic coma may terminate more or less quickly in 
 death. On examining the brain we may find a large 
 quantity of extravasated blood spread over its surface or 
 lying within its broken substance ; or second, a consid- 
 erable effusion of serous fluid collected within its ven- 
 tricles; or we may detect no deviation whatever from the 
 healthy structure and natural appearances of the or- 
 gan. Dr. Abererombie has given to that form of apo- 
 plexy, which destroying life, leaves no traces behind, 
 the name of simple apoplexy. Where blood is found 
 the name is sanguineous apoplexy. Where serum 
 alone, it is serous apoplexy." 
 
 Q. How does that strike you, Doctor ? A. We do 
 not term it apoplexy when there is no effusion. Q. 
 This Dr. Abererombie is a very good author ; one 
 of the lights of the medical profession? A. Yes, sir. 
 But it does not make me think so ; a person under 
 those circumstances might die of a shock to the ner- 
 vous system ; that is my idea. 
 
 Q. What is the author's idea when he calls it 
 " simple apoplexy " ? A. / do not know. Q. Can 
 you jjather from this description the cause of death ? 
 A. Yes, sir;" that he died of shock. Q. By apoplexy 
 you mean what ? A. The rupture of a blood vessel. 
 Q. Do you mean that always ? A. Yes, sir. Q. 
 Whether there may be no blood in the brain, but 
 simply serum | A. Yes,, one might die of serous 
 apoplexy without any effusion of blood. Q. Is not 
 apoplexy divided into simple, sanguineous, and serous 
 apoplexy? A. We are not usually in the habit of 
 doing it. 
 
48 doctor land's trial 
 
 The Court : I would suggest you get from the wit- 
 ness good authorities on the subject. • 
 
 Mr. Dixon : Pereira's Elements of Materia Medica 
 and Therapeutics ; is that good ? 
 
 A. Good. 
 
 Q. Practice of Medicine, by Tanner? A. Good, 
 yes, sir. Q. Gardner's Chemistry? A. I am not 
 familial- with that ? Q. Wood's Therapeutics ? A. 
 Good. Q. Carpenter's Principles of Human Physi- 
 ology ? A. Good. Q. Do you think they are as 
 reliable as Dr. Wilkinson on apoplexy ? A. It might 
 be so. 
 
 Q. Ordinarily, would a grain of morphine produce 
 death ? A. I do not know, sir. Q. Ordinarily, 
 would half an ounce of laudanum produce death.. 
 A. I should judge it would. {Appendix o.) Q. 
 Have you ever known it to ? A. "No, sir ; I never 
 knew half an ounce to produce • death or be taken, 
 except by the opium eater of whom I spoke yester- 
 day, who used to take it in larger quantities than that. 
 Q. To which school of medicine do you belong ? A. 
 Well, I belong to what is ordinarily termed the Allo- 
 pathic. Q. To which does Dr. Lund belong? A. I 
 believe the Homoeopathic. Q. The feeling between 
 these two schools is not ordinarily an amicable one ? 
 
 Objected to; objection sustained. 
 
 Q. I will ask whether these schools are not antago- 
 nistic schools of- medicine ? A. In what respect ? Q. 
 In their principles and. method of practice. A. I 
 believe they are. Q. Dr. Lund's field of practice was 
 about co-extensive with yours ? A. I believe so. Q. 
 Occasionally patients of yours have ceased to employ 
 you, and have employed him ? A. I do not know 
 whether they have or not. Q. Do you know any 
 case of that kind ? A. I do not recollect any at the 
 present moment. Q. Have you been in the habit of 
 meeting him in medical consultation ? A. No, sir. 
 
DOCTOE LTTNd's TRIAL. 49 
 
 Q. The Allopathic School does not . consent to meet 
 the Homoeopathic School in consultation? A. Wo, 
 sir. Q. They scarcely recognize them as physicians ? 
 A. / do not fonow how that is ? Q. You do not ? A. 
 I do not meet them in consultation. Q. Yon decline 
 to meet them in consultation ? A. Yes, sir. Q. On 
 what ground ? A. According to our rules in ethics. 
 Q. What do you mean by " our rules " ? A. The 
 Allopathic code of medical ethics. Q. It is a part of 
 the Allopathic ethics not to meet them in consultation ? 
 A. Yes. Q. What is your object in observing the rules ? 
 A. Because I promisee! to obey certain rules. Q.' 
 Blind obedience without any purpose? A. It is a 
 rule I agreed to follow, not to consult. Q. Are you 
 , in favor of the rule ? A. Yes, sir. Q. For what 
 cause ? A. Our systems are different as far as I 
 understand it ; it would lead to nothing but conflict 
 of opinion. Q. You think you would t not be likely 
 to agree at all ? A. No, sir. Q. You could not give 
 each other any light at all ? A. I do not know about 
 that. 
 
 , Q. You were present at Mr. Coates' house, when 
 Dr. Lund came there that morning? A. Yes, sir. 
 Q. Did you see him approach the house ? A. I can 
 not say now whether I did or not. Q. Who was in 
 the room with you ? . A. At the time ? Q. Yes, sir. 
 A. Dr. Forman, Dr. Bock, and Mr. Welch, and I 
 think Haslett ; that is all I recollect. Q. Do you rec- 
 ollect saying anything to the physicians there assem- 
 bled, at Dr. Lund's approach, in reference to paying 
 no attention to him when he came in ? A. JSTo, sir, I 
 do not. Q. Was anything of that kind said? A. I 
 do not remember. (Appendix p.) Q. Don't remem- 
 ber whether anything was said or not ? A . No, sir 
 
 Q. Did you take possession of the two powders of 
 morphine. which were left after Mr. Coates died? A. 
 I took possession of one. Q. Who took the other ? 
 3 
 
50 
 
 A. Dr. Formati. "Q. "What did you do with the 
 powders ? A. Dr. Forman and I wet our fingers, and 
 put them in and tasted of one. Q. Which one did 
 you' taste ? A. To the best of my knowledge the one 
 I took. Q. What did you do with .it after tasting? 
 A. Put it in my pocket-book. Q. What then? A- 
 Took it with me. Q. How long did you keep it in 
 your pocket-book ? A. Several days ; / do not know. 
 Q. What day did you get it from Mr. Wells? A. I 
 do not recollect. 
 
 Q. How many days after .Coates' death, did Mr. 
 Cook weigh it, or Wells' clerk ? A. I do not" know 
 how long it was. Q. Those scales were the ordinary 
 scales in dispensing drugs ? A. I do not know, but 
 believe they were. Q. Mr. Wells is a druggist on 
 Monticello Avenue? A. Yes, sir. Q. You send 
 prescriptions there to him ? A. Yes, sir. Q. When 
 you came in, and asked Mr. Cook to weigh the 
 powder, what did you say ? A. I do not think I made 
 any remarks, none that I remember. Q. Simply 
 asked him to weigh it ? A. To the best of my knowl- 
 edge. Q. Was it weighed ? A. Yes, sir. Q. How 
 large were those scales ? A. They were small scales. 
 Q. In a case by themselves ? A. No, sir. Q. Where 
 were they? A. Outside of the counter, behind a 
 little screen which he had. Q. Did you go behind 
 the screen? A. I went behind. Q. You were 
 desirous of ascertaining the exact weight ? A. Yes, 
 sir. Q. You saw them weighed at that time? A. 
 Yes, sir. Q. How much ? A. Cook did not say how 
 much ; he could not weigh so small a quantity. Q. 
 Was it any weight ? A. A weight was put on the 
 scales ; he did not say how large a weight. Q. Was 
 it not put on the scale, and a balance put on the 
 opposite scale ? A. I do not recollect. Q. Was you 
 not looking? A. My opinion is it was. Q. Do you 
 recollect what" weight was put there? A, I do not. 
 
DOOTOE LUND'S TBIAL. M 
 
 Q. "What were the scales made of? A. Brass, I 
 presume, sir. Q. They were ordinary druggist's 
 scales? A. Yes, hut they were not in perfect con- 
 dition. Q. How do you know ? A. Because he 
 said they were not. Q. Did he say what they needed 
 to he put in perfect condition ? A. !N"o, sir ; I asked 
 him how he weighed morphine there ; he said four 
 grains at a time, and then divided by.the eye for the 
 quantity needed. Q. Is it common to" divide mor- 
 phine by the eye among druggists ? A. I do not 
 think it is. Q. Is it' possible, io divide it pretty 
 accurately ? A. You cannot divide it accurately. 
 Q. How large in bulk would four grains be? A; 
 Pretty large, sir. Q. It would cover what size coin ? 
 A. 1 don't know, sir ; I never measured it that way. 
 Q. Did you weigh the paper also on the scales ? A. 
 No, sir. Q. The paper was emptied on the scales? 
 A. Yes, sir. Q. Then the powder was returned to 
 you? A. Yes, sir, put back into the same paper. Q. 
 What was done with it then ? . A. I put it in my 
 pocket-book again. Q. How long after that was it 
 weighed again ? A. I cannot say, it was not the same 
 day. Q'. Who weighed it the second time ? A. Mr. 
 Gardner. Q. Where is that ? A. On Monticello 
 Avenue. Q. It lacked something of being a grain? 
 A. Yes, sir. Q. "Was it weighed with the paper 
 there ? A. ISTo, sir. Q. Did you see it weighed ? A. 
 Yes, sir. Q. "Were the scales correct? A. So Mr. 
 Gardner said, sir. 
 
 Q. Do you think you could tell a grain flora half 
 a grain of morphine, by looking at it ? A. I think 
 I could ; morphine is exceedingly deceptive in appear- 
 ance, though. Q. If you had half a grain of mor- 
 phine, and a grain, along side of each other, could you 
 detect the difference in size? A. I think so. Q. 
 Quite easilv ? A. I think so. Q. After you got it 
 weighed at Mr. Gardner's, did you speak to Mi\ 
 
52 
 
 Cook about his weight? A. Yes, sir. Q. How 
 soon ? A. I do not recollect ; one evening I was 
 passing. Q. What did you say ? " A. I do not recol- 
 lect ; I recollect telling Mr. Wells.' Q. Did you ask 
 him whether he told any one about the weight of the 
 powder? A. No, sir. Q. Did you tell him not to 
 tell ? A. No, sir ; I told him to tell Mr. Wells. Q. 
 Did you tell him it would hurt his drug store, if it got 
 out that the powder weighed only half a grain there ? 
 A.- I do not recollect. Q. What time of night was it 
 when you were passing, and stepped in there ? A. 
 Quite iate ; it must have been ten or eleven o'clock. 
 'Q. Did you call the clerk outside? A. Yes, sir. Q. 
 Why did you ? A. To speak with him in reference 
 to the matter ; there was a number of people in the 
 store. Q: Why did you think it important he should 
 tell ,Mr. Wells ? • A. So he would have better scales. 
 Q. Did you think they were not aware their scales 
 were out of order ? A. He did not know anything 
 about it. Q. Did he not tell you about it ? A. Mr. 
 Cook told me at the time, he could not weigh so small 
 a quantity. Q. What new light did you get ? A. 
 Simply I could not swear to the weight of this pow- 
 der ; if Mr. Cook had said it weighed half a grain, I 
 should have been satisfied. {Appendix q.) Q. Did 
 you not know, when you left Mr. Cook, you could not 
 swear to the weight of it ? A. Yes, sir ; that is the 
 reason I took it to Mr. Gardner's. Q. What reason 
 did you have for telling Cook to tell Mr. Wells ? A. 
 No particular reason, simply a matter of information. 
 
 Q. Did you ever say to any one, that this transaction . 
 served Dr. Lund just right, and you hoped he would 
 get his deserts ? A. No, sir. Q. Anything to that 
 effect ? A. No, sir. Q. Did you advise Mrs. Coates 
 to commence an action against Dr. Lund ? A. No, 
 sir. Q. Did you give her a letter of introduction to 
 an attorney % A. No, sir. (Appendix r.) 
 
DOCTOR LUND'S TRIAL. 53 
 
 Q. Did you ever tell any one, that there was enough 
 morphine given to Coates to kill a hundred men ? A. 
 No, sir. 
 
 Q. Do you recollect whether you told Cook, at the 
 time the powder was weighed, that this was " one of 
 the powders that killed Coates ?" A. I told him that 
 this was one of the powders that Dr. Lund had pre- 
 scribed. Q. At the time the powder was weighed ? 
 A. I think he asked the question first. 
 
 Q. After Mr. Gardner had weighed the powder, 
 what then became of it ? A. I put it in my pocket- 
 book again. Q. What then? A. I gave it to the 
 Coroner. 
 
 Q. Did you ever see Dr. Forman's powder after Mr. 
 Coates died ? A. No, sir. Q. You don't know what ' 
 became of that ? A. Wo, sir. 
 
 Q. Who weighed the powder at Gardner's? A. 
 Mr. Gardner himself. 
 
 Q. Belladonna, you say, is an antidote for morphine % 
 A. It is considered so. Q. And the effects of the 
 morphine are to produce the florid congestion of the 
 surface, and the contraction of the pupil of the eye ? 
 A. Yes. Q. I understand the effect of the morphine 
 was to contract the pupil of the eye, and produce a 
 livid condition of the surface ; that after you gave the 
 belladonna, the effect was seen in the dilation of the 
 pupil of the eye, and the florid congestion of the sur- 
 face ; did not that indicate the belladonna Lad .over- 
 come the effects of the morphine ? A. No, sir ; it only 
 indicated it had overcome the cpntraction of the pupil, 
 as far as that is concerned. Q. And the livid condi- 
 tion of the skin ? A. That only showed an increase 
 of the circulation of the blood. Q. Was not that in 
 opposition to the effect of the morphine ? A. Yes, in 
 opposition. Q. And that opposition was throughout 
 the system'? A. I suppose so. Q. It must have per- 
 meated the system ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Showing, then, 
 
54 DOCTOR 
 
 the effect of the belladonna through the system had 
 overcome the effect of the morphine ? A. No, sir. Q. 
 Why not ? A. We know it had not, by the continued 
 stupor. Q. That is, if the continued stupor was due 
 to the morphine, you would know it ; but if the stu- 
 por was due to something else than the morphine, 
 then would it be any indication that the belladonna had 
 overcome the force of the morphine ? A. No, sir. Q. 
 Certainly these effects were overcome by the bella- 
 donna? A. That contraction of the pupil was over- 
 come. Q. So with the lividity of the skin ? < A. For 
 the time being. Q. That florid suffusion of the skin 
 continued until death, and dilation of the pupil ? A. 
 The dilation of the pupil did, but I do not recollect 
 about the other. Q. Is there any reason why bella- 
 donna should overcome the effect in the pupil of the 
 eye, and not the other effect ? A. Oh ! yes ; that it 
 may do. Q. How ? A. J do not knovj. Q. How 
 do you know it can ? A. From experience ; if the 
 belladonna completely counteracts the poisonous effects 
 of the opium, the patient wakes up out of the stu- 
 por, as far as I understand it. Q. The fact of the 
 patient's waking up indicates what? A. That the 
 poison has been neutralized. Q. That would be true 
 when the poison produced stupor ? A. Certainly. Q. 
 But if the stupor were produced from other causes, 
 would it not show it ? A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. Can you think of any sound reason why t^he bel- 
 ladonna should overcome the force of the poison over 
 the eye, and not overcome the other effects ? A. I 
 cannot tell you anything about its action ; I do not 
 know anything about it. Q. Is that contraction of 
 the pupil never the result of any other cause of coma 
 than narcotic poison ? A. I do not know of any other 
 that it is peculiar to. Q. No, I did not say yjeculfar 
 to ; is it never the result of anything else? A. It 1 is 
 not usually. Q. Is it not sometimes ? A. / do not 
 
55 
 
 know. Q. Does not morphine produce sometimes a 
 dilation of the pupil ? A. I have read it so. 
 
 Q. In your judgment what single item of the ante- 
 mortem symptoms conclusively satisfies you that this 
 trouble was the result of morphine ? A. In the first 
 place, the acknowledgment that morphine had been 
 given ; in the second place, the effects were all those 
 of m or pi vine. . ' 
 
 Q. Were there any symptoms that exclusively be- 
 long to narcotic poison ? A. The contraction of the 
 pupil. Q. You think that belongs exclusively to nar- 
 cotic poison ?' A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Re-direct examination by Mr. Garretson : 
 
 Q. What was this fluid stuff in the gall bladder ? 
 A. It was a dirty, milky fluid. Q. In what did it re- 
 semble pus ? A. In its peculiar rnilkiness. Q. Could 
 you tell whether it was pus or not ? A. Not posi- 
 tively, without putting it under a microscope. 
 
 Q. If the cystic duct was closed and there were no 
 absorbents in the gall bladder, how could this fluid 
 get out ? A. . I do not know how it could get out. Q. 
 If there were absorbents and the duct closed, how 
 then could it get out ? , A. Be absorbed there. Q. 
 What indication would there be in the gall bladder ? 
 A. No Special one ; if it was all absorbed, the gall 
 bladder would- contract. ' Q. If taken up by the ab- 
 sorbents, where would it be found ? A. Throughout 
 the circulation. 
 
 Q. Is there serum in the blood ? A. Yes, sir. Q. 
 How does that differ from serum in the pus ? A. I 
 do not know. Q. Is there a difference ? A. I do not 
 know. 
 
 Q. If you had not seen this man before his death, 
 and upon the examination of the contents of the stom- 
 ach had found morphine, what would have been your 
 conclusion ? A. That congestion was due to the mor- 
 phine probably. 
 
56 doctor lund's trial. 
 
 Q. What symptoms of pyaemia did you see ? A. I 
 did not see any. Q. Before his death ? A. I did not 
 see any, 
 
 Q. Ton are acquainted with Christison on Poisons ? 
 A. I am. Q. Is that a' good work ? A. Tes r sir. 
 
 Re-cross examination : 
 
 Q. If yon had been called to see Mr. Goates, and 
 had found him suffering from intense pain in the head, 
 would you not have thought morphine a proper pre- 
 scription ? A. That would depend upon his general 
 condition. Q. On what in his general condition ? A. 
 It would depend upon how he was in other respects ; 
 if he was suffering from congestion, it would not he a 
 proper remedy, even though he had pain. Q. Sup- 
 pose you had seen no symptoms of congestion ? A. 
 And still suffering from pain in the bowels ? Q. Pain 
 in the bowels and head ? A. I do not think I should 
 have given morphine on account of pain in the head; 
 without pain in the head, I should unhesitatingly have 
 given morphine. 
 
 Q. You found trouble in the bowels ; at the post- 
 mortem they were twisted ? A. The colon was loaded 
 with faecal matter, more than is usual. 
 
 Q. To what do you attribute this pain in the head 
 from which Mr. Coates suffered? A. I do not know, 
 sir. Q. Your diagnosis did not extend to that ; you 
 are unaware of any cause for that intense pain in the 
 head ? A. I am not aware of any cause. Q. Are you 
 aware of any cause for the swelling in the face and of 
 the hands ? A. Except congestion ; no, sir. 
 
 "William Burns, 
 
 Examined by Mr. G-arretson, testified that he was one 
 of the Coroners of the county, and was called upon in 
 July last, by Dr. Lewis, to visit the house of the late 
 John D. Coates. He reached there between nine and 
 ten o'clock, and found the man not dead. 
 
 
doctor lund's trial. 57 
 
 Q. What did you do then ? A. The first thing I 
 did was to inquire about the medicine; the family 
 told me about the medicine, and I think Dr. "Wilkin- 
 son offered me one of the powders, and Dr. Forman 
 the other. Q. Were they both there at that time ? A. 
 Yes, sir. Q. At ten "o'clock ? A. Yes, sir ; I sent for 
 them. Q. They came when you sent ? A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. What about the powders ? A. I told Dr. For- 
 man I would keep his ; I told Dr. Wilkinson to weigh 
 his, and see what it was. Q. What did you do with 
 yours ? ■ A. I had mine weighed by Joseph A. Moore, 
 of Jersey City. Q. Dr. Forman gave you that pow- 
 der ? A. Yes, sir. Q. You had it weighed at that 
 time ? A. That same day. Q. What did it weigh ? 
 A. A grain, strong.. Q. What was done with it after 
 weighing? A. I put it in my pocket. Q. How long 
 did you keep it there ? A. Until I got the other from 
 Dr. Wilkinson. Q. When did you get the other from 
 Dr. Wilkinson ? A. I- cannot say ; perhaps a day or 
 two. Q. After you got the second one from Dr. Wil- 
 kinson, what did you do with them ? A. The Coro- 
 ner's Jury recommended I should have a man examine 
 as to the contents of the stomach ; I took that over to 
 Professor Doremus, of New York. Q. He was away 
 at that time ? A. He was at that time. Q. What 
 did you do with the powders ? A. I put the powders 
 in a paper, and left the jar sealed, and left a note for 
 him to subject them to a chemical analysis, and let me 
 know when he could have them done., (Appendix s.) 
 Q. When did you see Professor Doremus after that ? 
 A. It was over a month after. that when he came over 
 and gave his evidence before the Coroner's Jury. Q. 
 Did you see him from the time you left the powders 
 until he came over ? A. ~No, sir ; he wrote me a letter 
 when be got the stomach, and when he would have 
 them done.' Q. He wrote that letter to you? A. 
 Yes, sir. 
 
58 doctor lujnd's trial. 
 
 Q. What was done with the body of Ooates ? A. I 
 ordered the doctors to make a post-mortem examina- 
 tion on the body, and find out the cause of his death, 
 if possible. Q. Well, what was done? _ A. They 
 made a post-mortem — -Dr. Wilkinson, Dr. Forman, 
 and I think Dr. Bock. Q. When? A. The same 
 clay ; I could not say the same day he died, or the 
 next morning ; I gave them the order on that day. 
 
 Q. How soon, after you took the powders over to 
 
 Dr. Dorenras, did you hear from him ? A. The 
 
 second day, I think. Q. By letter? A. By letter. 
 
 Q. Have you his letter ? A. I think so, down at my 
 
 -office. 
 
 Gross-examination by Mr. Dixon : 
 
 Q. Who weighed the one powder which you' took 
 with you ? A. The one powder was weighed by Jo- 
 seph A. Moore, a druggist in Jersey Avenue. Q. 
 You don't know the weight? A. JSTot except by 
 what he told me. Q. Did you know of your own 
 knowledge what the weight represented ? A. No, sir ; 
 I did not see its mark. Q. You only know what he 
 said about it % A. That is all. Q. That is the one 
 Dr. Forman had ? A. That is the one Dr. Forman 
 gave me. Q. When you went there about ten o'clock ; 
 you say nine or ten ? A. I think it was not quite 
 ten. Q. Who was there at the time ? A. The family 
 were there, and I think the daughter and a man 
 named Mr. Kelly ; a gentleman named Mr. Welch, I 
 think ;. I am not positive as to whether Mr. Welch 
 was there or not? Q. Anybody else ? A. I cannot 
 now say whether the doctors were there at this time 
 or not ; however, they were there a short time after- 
 wards. Q. Were they sent for ? A. The gentleman 
 who told me, said they would be there at ten o'clock. 
 Q. What doctors came there at ten o'clock ? A. Dr. 
 Wilkinson and Dr, Forman, 
 
DOCTOR LtrWs TRIALi 59* 
 
 • Q. After the doctors came there what did they do ? 
 A. I asked them if they did all they could ; they said 
 they did, of course ; I asked how they gave the medi- 
 cine, and I said perhaps it would not do any harm to 
 try again ; they took him to another room, got some 
 clothing on, and tried medicine in different ways. Q. 
 They wrapped him up warm? A. Yes, sir. Q. 
 What medicine did they give him ? A. I forget now. 
 Q. Who gave the medicine ? A. Dr. Wilkinson. Q. 
 Did you see how he gave the medicine which he gave 
 while you were there ? 
 
 The Court : Did you say you saw him give medi- 
 cine ? A. I saw him send out of the room. 
 
 The Court : The question is did you see him give 
 medicine ? A. No, sir, I did not see him. 
 
 Q. Did you see him do anything but wrap him up 
 warm? A. A. I did not. Q. Then that is all yon 
 saw? A. They might have done more. ' Q. Plow 
 long did you stay there? A. I did not stay in the 
 room very long, because the man was not dead and I 
 had no authority there except by permission of the 
 doctors. Q. Then you thought they were rather in a 
 hurry to send for you; how long did you stay? A. 
 It might" have been half an hour. Q. How soon after 
 did the doctors go away ? A. I could not say whether 
 they were there or not. Q. How long after ten did 
 they stay ? A. When I ' came away they were there. 
 Q. Did they try any slapping while you were there ? 
 A. No, sir, they did not. Q. Or walking him about i 
 A. They walked — no, they carried him into the 
 room. Q. Simply carried him into the room and 
 wrapped him up warm ; did not drag him about ? A. 
 No, sir, not that I saw. Q. Did you notice how many 
 blankets they put on to wrap him up warm ? A. I\ T o, 
 sir, I did not notice. Q. Was it a pretty warm day? 
 A- It was, sir, a very warm day. 
 
 Q. Are these the notes of the Inquest ? (Handing 
 
60 doctor lund's trial. 
 
 paper to witness.) A. Yes, sir. Q. Where did you 
 get this statement ? (Alluding to the post-mortem re- 
 port.) A. It was fetched into the Inquest by one of 
 the doctors. Q,. Do you recollect which one? A. 
 No, sir. Q. Do you know whtise hand-writing it is ? 
 A. It looks to me like Dr. Wilkinson's hand-writing ; 
 I do not know who wrote it 5 this was already written 
 and read to the jury. Q. As the result of the post- 
 mortem examination? A. Yes, sir. Q. Do^you rec- 
 ollect who read it ? A. I do not. Q. Were the 
 doctors there when it was read? A. Yes, sir. Q. 
 Which doctors ? A. Dr. Forman was there and Dr. 
 Wilkinson. Q. Any other? A. Dr. Bock; I could 
 not say whether he was there at the time ; he was' 
 there before ; I handed him the evidence, written by 
 one of the other physicians, and lie looked over it and 
 said he would corroborate it. Q. Did either of the 
 other physicians who were there object to the result of 
 the post-mortem ; did they assent to it, or say it was 
 wrong ? A. It was corroborated by them. 
 
 Dr. Samuel R. Forman, 
 
 Examined by Mr. Garretson, testified : 
 
 I am a practicing physician in Jersey City, and was 
 called to see John D. Coates, in July last, early in the 
 morning, I think about six o'clock. Q. What was he 
 suffering from ? A. Shall I describe his condition ? 
 Q. Yes, sir. A. I found him sitting in a high-back 
 rocking chair, reclining in a comatose condition ; deep, 
 heavy sleep ; unconscious ; labored breathing ; respirar 
 tion, I believe, about twelve in • the minute ; pulse 
 slow ; skin cold, clammy and livid. Q. Well ? A. 
 The pupil contracted. Q. Anything else ? A. These 
 were all the symptoms I can recollect that were present 
 at the time. 
 
 Q. Who was there when you got, there ? A. Dr. 
 Wilkinson and the man, I think, Welch, who came for ' 
 
booTOK Lund's trial, 6i 
 
 me, and I think probably his wife ; she was in and out 
 every minute or two. Q. From your observations of 
 the symptoms what do you suppose was the matter 
 with him ? A. I inquired into the history of the ease 
 a little, and was shown a. powder such as he had taken 
 a short time before, which was represented to me to be 
 morphine; I tasted it. Q. What did you conclude 
 from the taste? A. I concluded from the symptoms 
 and the taste of the powder, that he was suffering from 
 the effects of morphine. 
 
 Q. What was done for him? .A. His treatment 
 occupied continuously the whole forenoon ; a variety 
 ■of means were used to arouse him ; first, an attempt 
 was made to raise him up, but he could not walk nor 
 ■stand. Q. Well ? A. Then we attempted it by fric- 
 tion and mustard, by flagellation, and by exciting vom- 
 iting ; that is all. I think of now ; we tried to administer 
 medicine by the mouth, but he could not swallow ; we 
 sent almost immediately for some belladonna, which we 
 administered by injection under the skin ; we attempted 
 cold effusions. Q. What else? A. None of these 
 haying perceptible effect except the belladonna. Q. 
 What effect did that have? A. In a short time after 
 its administration the lividity disappeared, and a florid 
 congestion was observed to come over the face, 
 and . the pupil dilated. Q. How long did" you re- 
 main with him % A. With the exception of from nine 
 to ten, I was with him till he died, except about fifteen 
 minutes I believe, when' I went for an oxygen appara- 
 tus. Q. What time was that % A. I thh^J: it was a 
 little after twelve. Q. Did you go back with the 
 apparatus ? A. Yes, I do not think i went into the 
 house, because the man was dead ; we also used elec- 
 tricity in the latter part of it, as the respiration flagged. 
 
 Q. Tou have spoken of the powder you tasted; 
 what was done with the powder you tasted ? A. I do 
 not know what was done with the identical one ; there 
 
62 doctor lund's trial, 
 
 were two powders there, of which I took one and Dr. 
 Wilkinson the other. Q. What did you do with the 
 one yon had ? A. When the Coroner came I handed 
 it to him. Q: Were you present at the post-mortem ? 
 A. I was. Q. When was that made? A.. The next 
 morning. Q. Where ? . A. At the house. Q. By 
 whom? A. By Dr. Wilkinson and two or three 
 others. Q. (Handing paper containing the post-mor- 
 tem report read before the Coroner's Jury.) Look at 
 these notes ; whose hand-writing are they ? A. I 
 wrote them, sir. Q. Are those the observations made 
 at the post-mortem ? A. They are taken from the 
 notes I made at the post-mortem, and from my recol- 
 lection together. 
 
 Q. From your examination previous to the death of 
 the man, and from the post-mortem examination, 
 what did you conclude was the cause of his death ? 
 A. From the symptoms on the post-mortem examina- 
 tion, and the history of the case, I concluded he died 
 from an over dose of morphine. Q. How soon after 
 the post-mortem examination was that written out ? 
 A. I think the next day, sir; very soon after, at any 
 rate. 
 
 Q. What is the usual dose of morphine ? A. It 
 depends upon the effect it produces upon the patient. 
 Q. What is the largest dose you have known to be 
 given to produce good effects '{ A. Four grains. Q. 
 What sort of a patient was that ? A. It was a woman 
 who had just ruptured her uterus in confinement. Q. 
 What was the effect of the dose ? A. Simply to allay 
 in some degree her pain. Q. Did the woman live ? 
 A. No, -sir. 
 
 Q. What is the ordinary dose — you understand 
 what I mean — between the extremes ?' A. From one- 
 sixth to one-quarter of a grain; sometimes even 
 larger, if in violent pain ; it depends somewhat on the 
 condition. Q. In what case do you give as large a 
 
63 
 
 dose as a grain ? A. It is hard to state in what 
 cases ; I can state the cases in which I have given it. 
 Q. Is it the usual dosej A. It is not an ordinary 
 dose ; it is an exceptional dose ; it may be given. 0j. 
 Is it administered, or- usually administered, without 
 seeing the patient ? A. A grain dose ? Q. Yes, sir. 
 A. I think not. 
 
 Q. What is the smallest amount of morphine that 
 ' has been known to have proved fatal ? A. I heard 
 the testimony yesterday ; I speak as much from my 
 recollection of that as from any knowledge of my 
 own ; I cannot speak from my own experience. Q. 
 What is the smallest amount" you have known ? A. 
 I do not know the exact amount ; I cannot state it, it 
 is so long since I have seen a case in which I knew the 
 exact amount that was given. 
 
 Q. What kind of practice would it be to prescribe a 
 grain of morphine in the absence of the patient % 
 
 Mr'. Dixon here objected to the question. The 
 Court 'overruled the objection, but gave Mr. Dixon 
 the exception. 
 
 A. It would have to be under some very peculiar 
 circumstances or extraordinary, under which any one 
 would be justified in doing ft. 
 
 Q. Would the growing together of the side of the 
 lungs, spoken of in the post-mortem, have any effect ■ 
 in producing congestion in the head ? A. None 
 whatever; none that could be appreciated at all. = Q. 
 How long had that growing together probably ex- 
 isted ? A. It is hard to say the exact time, but 
 certainly several , months ; it might have been years. 
 
 Q. What disease was there about the lungs ? A. 
 Congestion? Q. What else? A. No other disease. 
 
 Q. What quantity of fluid was there in the gall 
 bladder ? A.I think about three or four ounces. Q. 
 What was this fluid ? A. It was a greenish-yellowish 
 fluid, milky in appearance. Q. In what respect did 
 
64 doctor ltjnd's trial. 
 
 it resemble pus ? A. Some in appearance, and under 
 the microscope, exhibited globules. 
 - Q. What effect would the absorption of that matter 
 produce on the brain and lungs? A. I should suppose 
 it would produce what is termed multiple abscesses. 
 Q. Anything else ? A. Morbid irritation, I should 
 think, and great depression. 
 
 Q. What is pyaemia ? A. It is a disease resulting 
 from poisoning of the blood by purulent matter. Q. 
 What are the symptoms of pyaemia ? A. Great de- 
 pression, rigors, fever, profuse sweats, prostration. Q. 
 What symptoms of pyaemia did you observe in the 
 case of Mr. Ooates ? A. Perhaps none, unless I ex- 
 cept that his body was frequently covered with per- 
 spiration. Q. That was the only symptom? A. The 
 only one. 
 
 Q. Is it possible to guess at the weight of morphine 
 with-any accuracy by pouring it out of a bottle ? A. 
 No, sir ; not accurately. 
 
 The notes of the post-mortem examination were 
 offered in evidence by the prosecution. 
 
 Oross-exammation by Mr. Dixon : 
 
 Q. Have you ever seen 'a case of pysemia ? A. Yes, 
 sir. Q. Where was the source of the pus in that case ? 
 A. I have seen several cases ; the last case I saw, the 
 source was in the leg. Q.,Where were the others ? A. 
 I have seen it in the bowels, and I have seen it in the 
 head. Q. What other cases. A. A variety ; wounds, 
 injuries, ulcerations, erysipelas, carbuncles. Q. Could 
 it not come from any collection of pus in the system ? 
 A. If there is ulceration. Q. If absorbed? A. Not 
 necessarily. Q. I say may it not? A. It might. Q. 
 Are you sure that ulceration is a necessary condition 
 of absorption ? A. I am not sure about it. Q. Have 
 you ever seen a case where there was a collection of 
 pus in the gall bladder, such as there was in this case 
 
65 
 
 of Mr. Goates? A.. No, sir. Q. You are satisfied 
 there was pus globules in it? A. Yes, sir. Q. What 
 part of the pus is poisonous in your estimation? A. 
 I do not know, sir. 
 
 . Q. Is it the serum? A. I do not know, sir. Q. 
 Don't you know that serum is innocent; harmless? 
 A. Pure serum is, yes, sir. Q. But the serum of pus? 
 A. No, I don't know it. Q. Your opinion of the cause 
 of this man's death was dependent, to some extent, 
 upon the history of the case ; from whom did you 
 learn the history? A. From Mr. Welch; I think 
 the gentleman who came for me, and those other 
 persons that were in the room. Q. What did you 
 learn of the history of the case ? A. I learned that 
 he was taken suddenly with the symptoms that we 
 saw ; that he had pains in the bowels — pretty severe 
 pains in his bowels — before he had taken a powder. 
 Q. Any other symptoms ; any other facts of the 
 history ? A. I do not recollect any at present. 
 
 Q. Did you learn what the progress of the coma 
 had been ? A. Yes, sir, I think so. Q. What did 
 you hear about that ? A. It is hard for me to separate 
 what I heard prior from what I heard since. I do 
 not know that I can testify whether it was before I 
 formed an opinion, or whether I heard it afterwards. 
 Q. Well ? A. I heard he had taken a powder sent 
 by Dr. Lund, and he had woke up somewhat relieved 
 and then gone off into a comatose condition. Q. 
 How long after he had taken the powder did he wake 
 up? A. I do not know, sir, now; my impression is 
 merely that he had an hour or two of sleep. Q. He 
 had taken the powder, had slept, woke up, and then 
 gone into coma ? A. That was his last symptom of 
 sensibility. 
 
 Q. Did you ever know of any case where a man 
 had passed under the power of morphine, had ardused 
 himself, and then relapsed and died? A. Yes, sir. 
 
66 doctor lund's tbial. 
 
 Q. What case did you ever know of that kind ? A. 
 It is not a very uncommon thing, I believe ; it is not 
 an universal result, but I cannot put my finger on 
 the case. Q. How can you account for the awaken- 
 ing from unconsciousness ? A. I cannot account for 
 it; sometimes a man is aroused by external means. 
 Q. But that is not the case I am talking about % A. 
 I understood you to ask whether I knew of a case 
 where they had been aroused. Q. I did not say had 
 been aroused, but had aroused himself, had come out ? 
 A. I cannot swear to that, that I ever did know of 
 a case." Q. Can you account, in such a state of affairs, 
 upon the hypothesis that the medicine — the poison — 
 which produced the first coma produced the second ? 
 A. I do not know that there was any first coma. Q. 
 Well, we will have to look at the testimony again 
 if you cannot account for it? A. I cannot account 
 for it. Q. You have told us, Doctor, that you once 
 gave four grains of morphine to a woman who had 
 rupture of the uterus, and she died ; did she die of the 
 morphine ? A. I did not say I had given it, I had seen 
 it given. Q. Did she die of the morphine ? A. Ko, 
 sir, I think not. Q. Why was so much given to her? 
 A. Because of the necessarily fatal nature of the 
 disease, less would not have produced the effect. Q. 
 What was the condition in which less would not have 
 produced the effect ? A. The great extent of pain. 
 Q. Then you would to some extent regulate the dose 
 by the extent of pain ? A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Suppose you were called to a man suffering ex- 
 treme agony ; would take a dose whether it killed or 
 cured ; he was going about the house wildly ; squeez- 
 ing his intestines ; tearing his hair ; holding his head ; 
 pressing his bowels ; putting his hands on the table ; 
 would you think a grain of morphine was a dangerous 
 dose ? A. My first 'visit to him ? Q. Yes. A. I 
 would not give it. Q. Would yon think it likely to 
 
DOCTOR LUND'S TRIAL. 67 
 
 prove fatal? A. No, sir, I do not think it would 
 prove fatal. Q. Would you prescribe half a grain 
 under those circumstances ? A. I might, yes, sir. Q. 
 Would you think that a dangerous dose ? A. No, sir, 
 not if he was in that condition. Q. If you had been 
 called to make this post-mortem examination of Mr. 
 Coates, and had had no information of the history of 
 the case, and been asked simply at the post-mortem as 
 to- the cause of death, what would' your answer have 
 been ? A. I should say he died from venous conges- 
 tion. Q. Would you have given the cause of venous 
 congestion ? A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. If you had been called to prescribe for Mr. 
 Coates during the afternoon and evening of Tuesday, 
 while he was suffering with intense pain, I believe I 
 understand you to say that you might have given him 
 half a grain ; would you not probably have prescribed 
 morphine to allay the pain? A. I do not think I 
 would have given him half a grain. 
 
 By the Court : Would you have given morphine ? 
 A. I might ; yes, sir. 
 
 Q. And it was a fair matter of judgment as to the 
 amount to be given, was it not, when the man was suffer- 
 ing with extreme pain? A. Yes, sir. Q. You think 
 the effect would have been unusual if death was the 
 result from the half of a grain ? A. Half a grain, yes, 
 sir. Q. Would it be an unusual effect if the dose was 
 a grain ? A. Well, I think it is about on the bound- 
 ary. Q. Between what is usual and what is unusual? 
 A. Yes, sir. Q. It is scarcely fair to ask whether it is 
 usual, but whether it is occasional, for physicians to 
 discover that the medicine which they prescribe has 
 an unusual effect? A. Sometimes. Q. And some- 
 times the unusual effect is even death ? A. Yes, sir. 
 Q. Have you not in your own practice had cases or a 
 case where death might have been unusual ? A. No, 
 sir. . 
 
68 doctor lund's trial. 
 
 Q. Do you know Mrs. Baines? A. I had a patient 
 who was represented to be the daughter of Mrs. 
 Baines. Q. Were yon called to prescribe for her? 
 A. Yes, sir. Q. And you prescribed? A, Yes, sir. 
 Q. Morphine? A. No, sir. Q. What? A. Opium, 
 which is the base of morphine. Q. And the patient 
 died? A. Yes, sir. Q. Died in coma? A. Yes, sir. 
 Q. Is it impossible for that opium to have produced 
 death in that case? A. Not impossible. Q. You 
 made no post-mortem? A. No, sir. Q. You exer- 
 cised your best judgment? A. Certainly, sir. Q. 
 Usually how much morphine would produce death 
 upon a man not in pain ? A. I cannot state, sir. Q. 
 Cannot state ? A. No, sir. Q. How much would be 
 usual if a man was suffering intense pain ? A. How 
 mutch would I give? Q. No, how much usually 
 would be likely to cause death ? A. It would take 
 more to produce death if he was in pain. Q. Would 
 a grain usually produce death ? A. I do not know, 
 sir. Q. Have not people recovered from the adminis- 
 tration of much larger doses ? A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. What is the most you have known of in your 
 experience, or read of in the text books to be given to 
 a person without fatal result? A. Or to be taken? 
 Q. Yes, or to be taken without fatal result? A. I 
 think I heard a case mentioned here yesterday of 
 twenty-four grains. Q. Are there not cases in the 
 books where thirty -nine grains have been given ? A. 
 I should think so. Q. So there is a pretty wide 
 sphere for judgment as to the amount of morphine? 
 A. I do not think that judgment would lead to thirty- 
 nine grains. Q. Don't you think there would be a 
 scope for judgment; you yourself have given four 
 grains ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Because of the pain ? A. 
 Yes, sir. Q. The judgment may range from one-sixth 
 of a grain to four ? A. Yes, sir. Q. But are there 
 not cases in which the judgment may justify more 
 
69 
 
 than four grains ? A. No, sir, I do not believe if you 
 do not get an effect from that you can expect any. 
 Q. Nothing would produce stupor if that did not ? A. 
 I should not expect it if that did not. 
 
 Q. Do you think you could tell the difference be- 
 tween the bulk of a grain and a half grain of mor- 
 phine, lying side by side ? A. No, sir ; I am sure 
 I could not. {Appendix t.) Q. If you saw them 
 lying along side of each other ? A. Not necessarily 
 then. 
 
 Q. I want to ask you whether half a grain of mor- 
 phine is not sufficient bulk to be readily distinguished 
 from agrain ? A. No, sir ; I think not. 
 
 Q. You were present at the time of the administer- 
 ing of that belladonna, were you? A- Yes, sir. Q. 
 How much was given ? A. 1 am uncertain just now 
 as to the exact amount ; I think now about eight 
 grains' in the morning. Q. It is an antidote to mor- 
 phine ? A. It is so considered. Q. That is not sure? 
 A. No, sir. Q. Physicians are not determined, in 
 cases of morphine poisoning, whether it is an antidote ? 
 A. No, sir. Q. They are not perfectly satisfied of it ? 
 A. No, sir. Q. So that when you physicians admin- 
 istered belladonna to Mr. Coates, you were taking the 
 risk of its soimdness ; some physicians might nave 
 thought you were not taking the proper remedy T ( A. 
 Some might ; they might deny the antidotal prop- 
 erties. Q. Plow do you account for its prevailing 
 over the morphine, dilating the pupil, and not remov- 
 ing the coma % A. I dp hot account for it. Q. Would 
 you not expect, after prevailing over one effect of 
 morphine, it would over them all ? A. Yes, sir ; I 
 would expect it would. Q. The fact, then, that the 
 man continued in the coma, you think, was unusual 
 after you saw the dilation and the effusion of the 
 blood over the body? A. I cannot say about that; 
 my experience has not been large. Q. It was con- 
 
70 
 
 trary to your expectations ? A. Yes_; I expected, 
 when I saw the flush, that the other properties would 
 be brought* out. Q. Now, if the coma was owing to 
 something else, other than the morphine, you would 
 not have expected its removal by the antidotal effects, 
 would you ? A. Not so far as that is an antidote ; no, 
 sir. 
 
 Q. "What was the object of wrapping him up warm? 
 A. The circulation was flagging, and he was -getting 
 cold. Q. Do you not think that is, on the whole, an- 
 tagonistical to the idea that cold effusions are more 
 proper? A. No, sir ; I do not think so ; we had tried 
 cold effusions; they did no good, and we tried some- 
 thing else. Q. Did you ever hear that it would be 
 proper, on a hot July day, to wrap a man up and put 
 him to bed ; is there not in that a tendency in the di- 
 rection of coma ? A. It was not done with that sole 
 object. Q. I may ask whether it would not tend in 
 that direction ; your object was, of course, to save the 
 man's life? A. It was not merely tolseep him warm. 
 Q. But it had that effect? A. Yes, sir. Q. And in 
 itself, did not that tend to coma ? A. I did not think 
 so at that time. 
 
 Q. Is it your idea that there can never be pyaemia 
 without ulceration ? A. I would not say it can never 
 be, and yet I have never seen a case. 
 
 Q. Can you account for the swelling of the face and 
 hands ? A. I did not see any, sir. Q. Did you see 
 any cause which would account for it ? A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. Those circumstances are left out of your judg- 
 ment, when you say morphine caused death? A. Yes, 
 sir, altogether. 
 
 Q. "Would pyaemia produce a swelling of the face 
 and hands ? A. I never saw such a symptom. Q. 
 Would it produce pain in the head ? A. I think it 
 might; it might produce delirium. Q. Might it pro- 
 duce pain in the bowels ? A, It might ; T do not 
 
DOCTOR LUJSd's TRIAL. Ti 
 
 thimk.it is likely it would. Q. Might it not % A. I 
 do not know. 
 
 Q. Miglit not corrupt blood in the system produce 
 pains in any part of the system in which blood went % 
 A. I do not know about that, sir. 
 
 Q. The symptoms of the pain in any disease are 
 not uniform ? A. Not universal. Q. I suppose there 
 are not two cases exactly alike, because there are not 
 two people exactly alike % A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. Would an over dose of belladonna produce con- 
 gestion ? A. Yes, sir. Q. And coma ? A. No, sir ; 
 it would not. Q. Is not coma the direct result of 
 congestion ? A. Not necessarily. Q. How would 
 the congestion produced by belladonna be different 
 from the congestion produeed by morphine ? A. I do 
 not know, sir ; the distinction is not made by conges- 
 tion. Q. Why do you think the congestion of bella- 
 donna would not cause coma ? A. The congestion, 
 or the effect of belladonna, is delirium rather than 
 coma. 
 
 Q. Delirium is one of the primary effects of mor- 
 phine ? A. Sometimes. Q. Now step beyond deli- 
 rium, don't you produce coma ? A. You may. Q. 
 If there be a tendency to congestion in the system, is 
 not belladonna rather an imprudent remedy ? A. It 
 depends upon the cause of the congestion ? Q. If the 
 congestion is universal ? A. I do not then consider 
 it an imprudent remedy. 
 
 Mr. Dixon here read from Beck's Medical Juris- 
 prudence a case quoted, of death from belladonna. 
 
 Q. In this case tha patient died twelve hours after 
 eating the berry; this seems to be a case where death 
 was caused by eating belladonna berry ; you are not 
 now willing 1 to say it does not produce coma, are you ? 
 A. I do not know, sir, the effect of 'the berries of bella- 
 donna. Q. Is not the same active principle in the 
 berries as in the extract ? A. I don't know, sir. Q. 
 
?2 DOCTOK LUND'S TEIAt. 
 
 What is your extract from ? A. From the leaves. 
 Q. How much belladonna would you consider a 
 dangerous dose? A. It would depend upon circum- 
 stances. Q. Well, take a patient who is healthy ? A. 
 Well, sir, it would depend upon the disease. Q. It 
 would not be a healthy person if he had disease ? A. 
 I would not give it to a healthy patient. Q. I am 
 not now speaking of a prescription but of a dose ; you 
 are avoiding the question ; how much could you give 
 reasonably without danger from death resulting ? A. 
 I do not know what a poisonous dose is ; we do not 
 usually give more than a grain. 
 
 Q. Do you know the chemical composition of bella- 
 donna ? A. No, sir. Q. The chemical composition 
 of morphine ? A. 'No, sir. They are carboniferous ? 
 A. Yes, sir.- Q. Is not carbon poison ? A. I never 
 saw the statement. Q. Is not carbonic acid gas poi- 
 sonous? A. I never saw it. Q. If you carbonize the 
 blood is it not poisonous ? A. Yes, sir. 
 
 By the Court : You had one of the powders ? A. 
 Yes, sir. Q. Whom did you give it to ? A. Coroner 
 Burns. 
 
 Dk. Emmanuel Book, 
 
 Examined by Mr. Garretson, testified : 
 . I live in Jersey City, and am a practicing physician ; 
 I was called to see Mr. Coates the same day Drs. Wil- 
 kinson and Formah were there ; I got there about six 
 o'clock in the morning, and remained very near up to 
 twelve o'clock. Q. When you first saw Mr. Coates 
 what was the matter with him ? A. He was qwite 
 comatose; insensible; he was stertorous breathing, 
 snoring ; pulse very slow ; he was leaning in a rocking 
 chair, that is the way I found him. Q. What did you 
 suppose was the trouble with him ? A. Well, I could 
 not quite make up my mind, but from the history of 
 the case I think he died from an over dose of morphine ; 
 
uoctok ltjnd's trial. 73 
 
 there were two po.wders left, and I ta&ted one, and I 
 made myself sure that the one I tasted was morphine. 
 Q. -"What was done for Mr. Ooates? A. I suggested 
 coffee, but there was no place to get it ; we tickled his 
 throat, but he did not vomit; some cold water we 
 threw over him, but it had no effect whatever ; it was 
 no use ; there were injections of belladonna, which 
 had a little effect, but no great deal ; some of the 
 physicians went away ; I stopped there ; they came 
 back ; removed him to bed ; gave him injections of 
 brandy, but it had no effect. 
 
 Q. Were you present at the post-mortem ? A. 
 Partly. Q. What do you mean ? A. I was called 
 away — note came — other physicians there — -took my 
 place — I went away. Q. At what portion of it did 
 you go away ? A. At the opening of the cranium. 
 Q: What was the cause of death? A. Congestion. 
 Q. Produced by what? A. Over dose of morphine. 
 
 Q. How much morphine do you usually give? 
 A. I have never given over one-quarter of a grain. 
 Q. What sort of a dose would one grain be ? A. A 
 dangerous dose. 
 
 Cross-examined by Col. Kogers : 
 
 Q. How long have you been practicing medicine ? 
 A. Since 1854.. Q. Where did you graduate? A. 
 Here. Q. When ? A. About two years ago. Q. 
 Whereabout ? A. At the University of New York. 
 Q. Did you get a diploma ? A. Yes. Q. Did you * 
 commence, practicing before you got your diploma ? 
 A. Yes. Q. Where did you practice before you 
 graduated? A. In Scotland and England. Q. How 
 long did you practice in Scotland ? A. About two 
 years. Q. Did you keep a cigar store there? A. 
 No, sir. Q. Not in Glasgow ? A. No, sir. Q. Was 
 not your place of business burned , out in Glasgow 
 under suspicious circumstances ? 
 4 
 
74: DOCTOE LUND's TEIAL. 
 
 Mr. Garretson objected to the question. 
 
 Col. Rogers stated to the Court, .that his object was 
 to find out how much Dr. Bock's previous medical ex- 
 perience qualified him for coming before the Court as 
 an expert. He claims to have been in practice since 
 1854, although the only diploma he has is not yet two 
 years old. The defense would simply like to know 
 how much experience in the practice of medicine^ a 
 man can have who is at one time a block printer of 
 cheap handkerchiefs, and engaged in various other 
 occupations at various other -times. A man under 
 these circumstances is not supposed to have a very 
 exact knowledge of differential diagnosis. 
 
 The Court admitted the question, as it was perfectly 
 proper for the defense to ascertain the previous medi- 
 cal knowledge of the experts brought by the prosecu- 
 tion. 
 
 A.. No, sir, I was not. Q. You had no connection 
 with the cigar business in Glasgow ? A. I won't an- 
 swer. 
 
 The Court : You must. 
 
 A. I was not. Q. You were practicing medicine 
 in Glasgow ? A. I was. Q. How long ? A. Two 
 years. Q. "Where did you then go? A. Liver- 
 pool. Q. Did you practice medicine there ? A. Yes. 
 Q. Keep a thread and needle store? A- No. Q. 
 When did you come to this country ? A. Four years 
 ago. Q. Was medicine the first business you went 
 into ? A. Yes: Q. Have you ever before this seen a 
 ease of poisoning by morphine? A. No, sir, but by 
 opium. Q. Where? A. In Liverpool; it was. a 
 child about a year old. Q. Do you know the amount 
 taken? A. No. Q. "Was it fatal? A. No. Q. 
 Then I suppose yon never saw a post-mortem after 
 opium poisoning? A. No. Q. All you know then 
 is by reading ; have you frequently given opium or 
 morphine? A. Earely. Q. What is the largest dose 
 
DOCTOR LUNd's TRIAL. 75 
 
 you know of being given without a fatal result ? A. 
 In consultation of physicians I haye given as much as 
 a grain. 
 
 Q. Upon what do you base your opinion that Mr. 
 Coates was poisoned by morphine ? A. I was told 
 he had taken a powder and had become very 
 much excited, and then 'coma came. Q. Did you 
 hear of his going to sleep and waking up voluntarily? 
 A. Wo. Q. Was then' your opinion based on coma? 
 A. No. Q. Then it was because he was excited and 
 then coma came? A. Yes. Q. You got at the 
 house about six o'clock; when did you leave? A. 
 About twelve.. Q. You were there all that time? 
 A. Yes, sir. Q. Are you sure you was in the house 
 all that time ? A. I think so. Q. As sure as you 
 are of any statement you have made ? A. Yes, sir. 
 Q. Did the other physicians stay away an hour? A. 
 No. Q. Do you know it is one of the common 
 effects of narcotic poisons for the mouth to be open, 
 and the lower jaw to fall ? A. No. Q. You don't ? 
 A. No. Q. You have never read it ? A. No. Q. 
 What is your opinion ? A. My opinion is that they 
 do not open their mouth. Q/Why not? A. My 
 opinion is that the muscles get rigid, so that they can- 
 not open their mouth. {Appendix v.) Q. Before 
 death are the muscles rigid ? A. Yes. Q. Doctor, 
 what is your religious belief? A. I think the Court 
 will not oblige me to answer that. I do not know 
 what that has to do with it. I came here to testify 
 that this man died of poison from morphine. (A 
 heautiful example of ingenuousness^) 
 
 Col. Rogers stated that his object in asking the ques- 
 tion was to find out how much reliance could be placed 
 upon the Doctor's testimony, as far as his oath was 
 concerned. The defense believed him to be a Jew, 
 and so not qualified to swear upon the New Testa- 
 ment, 
 
76 doctor lund's trial. 
 
 A. I believe my oath to be as good upon the New 
 as upon the Old Testament. 
 
 By the Court : Do you consider the oath you have 
 taken binding upon your conscience before (rod ? A. 
 Yes, sir. 
 
 Col. Rogers: That will do.- (As the witness takes 
 his seat, he gives the Counsel a polite invitation to 
 come down to his house, and he will teach him about 
 his religion.) 
 
 Dr. W. Buck, 
 
 Examined by Mr. Garretson, testified : 
 
 I live on Communipaw Avenue, Jersey City, and 
 am a practicing physician. I was present at the post- 
 mortem examination of Mr. Coates. Q. From the 
 post-mortem examination, what did you conclude was 
 the cause of death ? A. I could form no conclusion, 
 sir. Q. If you had been told that he had taken a 
 grain of morphine, what then would you have 
 thought ? A. I should have had a right to presume 
 that that had accelerated his death ; it might not have 
 though ; I would not be positive. I should have had 
 to have known the idiosyncracies of the person. The 
 post-mortem appearances of all narcotic poisons are 
 unreliable. Q. "What evidences of disease were 
 there in the body ? A. 'The adhesions of the lungs 
 were all I saw ; I was called away before the stricture 
 of the cystic duct was found. None of the evidences 
 of disease I saw were sufficient to have caused death ; 
 there was great congestion of the brain. Q. What 
 could have caused that congestion ? A. It is utterly 
 impossible to say from the appearances alone what 
 caused it ; it may have been caused by a great 
 number of things ; I don't think it could have been 
 caused by anything I saw. 
 
 . Q. What did the gall bladder contain? A. A 
 yellowish milky looking substance, resembling de- 
 
DOCTOR LUND'S TRIAL. Y7 
 
 composed pus ; there was no evidence of ulcer^jipn 
 in the gall bladder that I saw. Pyaemia is absorption 
 of pus from any ulcerating surface. Q. Did you ever 
 know a case where pus was absorbed from the gall 
 bladder? A. No, sir; but I could not say that it 
 might not occur ; I do not think that absorption of 
 this matter could have produced the congestion. Q. 
 Is morphine ever prescribed for pyaemia? A. ETo, 
 sir ; it is given principally to allay pain, and I hardly 
 think that pain would be a prominent, symptom of 
 pyaemia. Q. What are the symptoms of pyaemia ? 
 A. Great and alarming prostration, chills, cold per- 
 spiration, rapid pulse, and delirium. 
 
 Q. "What is an ordinary dose of morphine? A. An 
 eighth, a third, a quarter, perhaps a half grain, and in 
 extreme cases the dose may be largely increased ; I 
 don't think though that I, niyself, have ever given 
 over a grain at one dose." Q. Have you ever pre- 
 scribed that when absent ? A. No. Q. Why do you 
 not prescribe that amount when away from the 
 patient ? 
 
 Mr. Dixon objected to this question, as in order to 
 answer it the witness must forsee every possible con- 
 catenation of , symptoms that could ever possibly arise 
 under any possible circumstances or contingency. 
 Admitted. 
 
 A. I should simply say that if I had a patient so 
 ill as to need a grain of morphine, I would'regard it 
 as my duty to be beside him. Q. Would it be safe to 
 give a dose of a grain of morphine without being with 
 the patient ? A. That is a pretty hard question to 
 answer ; if I had known the patient previously, and 
 was familiar with his symptoms and peculiarities, I 
 might have done as Dr. Lund did under the circutn- 
 stances, because I do not know the circumstances, nor 
 the condition the man was in. Q. You would re- 
 quire considerable knowledge of the patient, would 
 
78 doctor ltjnd's tkial. 
 
 you? A. Oh, yes. Q. Suppose you had never been 
 caUed to attend him before the previous day ? 
 
 Mr. Dixon objected to the question, as one out of 
 the range of the testimony of experts. 
 
 Q. Suppose you had been "called to prescribe for a 
 man at three o'clock in the afternoon, and upon being 
 called upon again at eleven at night, would you con- 
 sider it safe to give him a grain of morphine, without 
 knowing more of him than what you had learned in 
 your first visit ? 
 
 Mr. Dixon objected to the question, because objec- 
 tionable in the answer it sought, and because it sup- 
 posed a condition of facta that were not in accordance 
 with the testimony in the case. Admitted, and ex- 
 ception taken. 
 
 A. I should call it heroic treatment, which means 
 risky ; I would not call it dangerous, but say a man 
 takes his own risk ; but if I had seen the case at the 
 time, and the sufferings had been as great as I under- 
 stand they were, I might not have hesitated to have 
 given even more. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Dixon : 
 
 Q. The question of risk would be materially modi- 
 fied by the amount of information you got at your 
 first visit ? A. Yes, sir ; very much. Q. And very 
 much by the knowledge that the patient was suffering 
 from very extreme intense pain, would it not ? A. 
 Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. How does pus, in a case of pyaemia, get into the 
 circulation ? A. It is absorbed directly from the ul- 
 cerated part into the veins. 
 
 Q. Are not absorbents present in the gall bladder ? 
 A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. To what do you attribute the presence of the pus 
 in the gall bladder ? A. The cystic duct being closed, 
 and the bile retained there a long time, it had under- 
 
doctor lttctd's teial. 79 
 
 gone alteration and become puriform. Q. A sort of 
 putrefaction ? A. Yes, sir ; I think that the interfer- 
 , ence of the functions of the gall bladder may have 
 caused that terrible sickness ; I think that the man 
 might have died of colic, without any morphine ; a 
 man may die of bilious colic Q. In what way. A: 
 There is no greater pain in the world than bilious 
 colic ; it is intolerable, and shocks the nervous system, 
 stays the circulation and causes death with congestion. 
 Q. For colic, morphine is a proper remedy. A. Tes. 
 Q. And in large doses? A, Tes, sir; but it is proper 
 to divide the doses. 
 
 Q. Can belladonna produce coma ? A. Yes; sir. 
 Q. Suppose you had been told that Mr. Coates had 
 had eight grains of belladonna infused into his system, 
 and then had made or seen, as you did, the post-mor- 
 tem, may you not have thought it possible that the 
 belladonna was the cause of death? A. Well, I may 
 have thought it possible, knowing no more of the pre- 
 vious history than that. 
 Q. Belladonna is a narcotic poison ? A. Yes, sir. 
 Q. Where is the foramen of Monro ? A. I do not 
 remember. 
 
 Q. Is there not a little channel connecting the lat- 
 eral ventricles with each other? A. I remember now ; 
 I am not expert oh that point, as the brain is a diffi- 
 cult thing to study and remember. Q. But you carry 
 a foramen of Monro about with you ? A. Yes ; and I 
 venture to say I know as little of it as I do of yours. 
 Q. Would it not be likely to establish an equilibrium 
 between the ventricles, so that when there was serum 
 in one, the other would not be empty? A. Yes, sir; 
 I think so. 
 
 Q. Did you see the stomach taken out of the body ? 
 A. I did. Q. Do you remember where it was laid ? 
 A. I do not. Q. Did you see it sealed up? A. Eb, 
 sir. Q. It must have been laid down somewhere ? 
 
80 DOCTOE LUND's TRIAL. 
 
 A. Yes, sir ; it could have been laid on the table. Q. 
 Was any special care taken that no foreign substances 
 should trouble it ? A. No special care, only ordinary 
 care. 
 
 Re-direct examination : 
 
 Q. What would be the post-mortem appearances of 
 a man who died of colic ? A: General congestion 
 about the parts affected. Q. Would it produce con- 
 gestion of the brain ? A. I think not. Q. It would 
 not ? A. I think not. 
 
 Q. In a man dying from colic, would the pupil of 
 the eye be affected ? A. I think not from that alone. 
 Q. Any perspiration ? A. There might be. Q. 
 Would he be sensible or not? A. Semi-conscious; 
 there are always, though, in those cases, towards death, 
 more or less congestion about the vital organs, as brain 
 and lungs ; so there would be a comatose state. Q. 
 How long before death would that continue ? A. It 
 is hard to state ; perhaps several hours. 
 
 Cross-examination continued : 
 
 Q. Simple apoplexy may occur from congestion of 
 the brain alone ? A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. What do you think was here the cause of the 
 swelling of the face and hands ? A. I doubted, when 
 I heard it, that there was any such symptom ; it may 
 have been an incorrect observation. 
 
 Q. Could there be an effusion of bloody serum in 
 the lateral ventricles without injury? A. No, sir; it 
 would he apoplexy. Q. Could it result from mor- 
 phine ? A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. How many drops of laudanum in an ounce? A. 
 One hundred and twenty in a drachm and eight, 
 drachms in the ounce. Q. So Dr. Wilkinson was 
 wrong when he said there was sixty drops in a 
 drachm ? A. Yes, sir. Q. As to the other proportions 
 he named, are they correct? A. Yes, sir. " 
 
81. 
 
 De. Culveb. 
 
 Examined by Mr. Garretson, testified : 
 
 I am a practicing physician in Jersey City, and was 
 present at the post-mortem examination of Mr. Ooates, 
 by invitation ; did not see him before his death ; "could 
 hardly form any opinion as to the. cause of death from 
 the appearance of the body before the examination 
 was commenced ; the lividity of the skin might have 
 given a clue perhaps ; it would indicate a congestion 
 of the superficial vessels, but it would not indicate the 
 cause of the congestion. I was a close observer dur- 
 ing the post-mortem examination, although I did not 
 expect to be called upon to testify ; I first looked for 
 something that would cause the ante-mortem symp- 
 toms, but saw nothing that could have caused pain in 
 the head or thorax ; in the abdomen the gall bladder 
 was distended with a liquid, and could not be emptied 
 . by pressure upon it ; the descending colon, more par- 
 ticularly at its junction with the rectum (the lower 
 part of the bowels), presented a striated injected 
 appearance, as if of inflammation ; this was sufficient 
 to account for pain, not a mere ordinary colic, but the 
 pain of inflammation; moreover, the gall bladder was on 
 the stretch, and the cystic duct closed ; upon the 
 principle that the distending power of liquids, in 
 cylindrical tubes, is as the squares of their diameters, 
 if we consider the diameter of the gall bladder a 
 thousand times the diameter of the vessels that emptied 
 into it, we ' would have a distending power, in this 
 case, a thousand times a thousand as much as the. 
 force of the inflowing current. The distension of the 
 gall bladder under such circumstances would cause in- 
 tense pain ; it would tend to reopen the cystic duct, 
 and as the distension of the cystic duct, in the passage 
 of gall stones, causes pain of the worst kind, the pain 
 here would be similar ; it is possible that within a few 
 hours pf the man's death there might have been a 
 
82 doctor i/totd's trial. 
 
 slight reopening of the cystic duct, enough for a drop 
 or two of pus to have passed through into the small 
 intestine, and produced precisely the condition of 
 things observed ; also, in this case, the formation of 
 sulphurated and phosphorated hydrogen would have 
 produced pain. As I understood the man had pain 
 before he died, I looked for something to account for 
 the pain, and the causes above alluded to are, in my 
 opinion, r sufficient to have caused pain ; I also formed • 
 a conclusion as to the cause of death ; the inflammation 
 of the lower part of the bowels had not progressed to 
 an extent sufficient to have caused death. Our con- 
 clusion in regard to the gall bladder would/depend upon 
 the quality of its contents ; my -impression then, from 
 mere ocular inspection, was that "there was pus there, 
 pus in a state of some degree of putrefaction ; the 
 question here might arise whether absorption from the 
 walls of the gall bladder, of its contents, might not 
 have occurred, and contaminating the system, with the 
 septic matter, have thus caused septicaemia. In 
 answering this question we had to notice how the con- 
 ditions found coincided with those that would be found 
 in death from that cause. Septic matter added to the 
 blood coagulates the fibrin at once ; this takes place 
 first where the blood moves the slowest, or in the capil- 
 lary circulation. Matters absorbed from the gall 
 bladder would ultimately reach the blood in the he- • 
 patic vein, which carries the, blood from the liver to 
 the heart ; they might also enter some of the smaller 
 vessels in the portal circulation; if this took place we 
 would have coagulation of the blood in the liver, a 
 blocking up of the circulation, and hence a congestion 
 of the liver and of the portal circulation ; this conges- 
 tion existed, but not to a greater extent than it did in 
 the other parts of the system ; if any of the septic 
 matter reached the lungs we would have congestion 
 there, and during life difficult breathing; congestion 
 
DOCTOR LUNd's TRIAl. 8$ 
 
 there also existed, but to no greater extent than in 
 other parts of the system. I do not think that the 
 post-mortem appearances would leave any other indi- 
 cation to guide us in determining whether septicaemia 
 had existed, except perhaps this : if septic matter is 
 absorbed the liver is always easily broken ; on lifting 
 it up the 'fingers crush into it; this fragility of the 
 liver did not exist. Therefore, in regard to the theory 
 of septicaemia, I would say that it is but a theory. We 
 did not observe where any pus had escaped through 
 • the cystic duct into the intestines, and yet it is proper 
 to state that this might occur, and we might not be 
 able to observe it afterward. The general venosity of 
 the blood, and the obstruction to its circulation, would 
 account for the congestion of the brain ; we have 
 these two causes where we have anything paralyzing 
 the. vital powers, and at the same time allowing life to 
 continue for awhile. As the congestion was general 
 the cause must have also been general, and this seem 8 
 to me to narrow the cause of death down to septicae- 
 mia, and to poisoning by morphine. What I have 
 stated is the result of my observation, and perhaps for 
 the rest you had better question me. 
 
 Q. How could you decide the question between the 
 two ? A. In deciding the question we have, first, 
 the fragile liver wanting, for the theory of septicaemia, 
 and also a too well marked lividity of the surface for 
 that disease. The differential diagnosis, as based upon 
 the post-mortem, would end about there, and leave the 
 matter with a doubt. To go further we would have 
 to look to the symptoms and history before death. 
 Q. What are the symptoms of septicaemia before 
 death? A. First, impairment of the vital powers 
 and prostration ; more or less perspiration ; there is no 
 reaction, but steady progression ; in this stage there is 
 never coma, but often a little delirium. When coma 
 comes, the patient has but a few minutes to live : 
 
84 toocTOE 
 
 there may be more or less epigastric pairiy naUSea, 
 vomiting, and diarrhoea. Q. How lyng could these 5 
 symptoms be observed before death? A, Several 
 days ; cases of puerperal fever are mostly septicaemia 
 cases. Q. Wherein do the symptoms of septfesemia' 
 resemble those of poisoning by morphine? • A. The : 
 post-mortem appearances of congestion would be ; 
 similar, only there would be a less degree of con- 
 gestion of the surface in the former. The general 
 impairment of the contractility of the muscles would 
 be similar, but in septicaemia it would be slower than 
 in poisoning by morphine. I have observed a case : 
 where a patient had taken an overdose of opium, had 
 become conscious for a little while, and then soon' 
 after died ; that is, I depended upon the statement of 
 the family, which- I presume to have been , true. 
 The coma which comes on from septicaemia, though', 
 generally not prolonged, may be present where there 1 
 is any effusion in the brain of blood or serum. 
 
 Q. What symptoms are there in poisoning by mor- 
 phine which are not found in septicaemia? A. The* 
 fragility of the liver would not exist in poisoning by" 
 morphine ; there would be a general congestion of the 
 surface in the former, but not in the lattei'. Q. "What 
 would be the symptoms in poisoning by morphine ? 
 A. First, a comfortable fullness of the circulation, 
 perhaps giddiness or headache ; constipation instead of 
 diarrhoea, as in septicaemia ; a gradual increasing im- 
 pairment of the sensory functions, to an entire arrest 
 of the senses ; the impairment of the muscular con- 
 tractility would arrest the po'wer that urges on the 
 circulation, causing thus congestion. 
 
 Q. If you observed these symptoms : a patient totally 
 insensible ; pupil of eye contracted ; surface of body 
 blue and livid; large beads of cold perspiration all 
 over the body ; disturbed breathing ; respiration about 
 twelve to a minute ; pulse, slow and laboring ; what . 
 
doctor Lund's TRiAl, 85 
 
 "would these indicate ? A. If both pupils were equally 
 contracted, I should feel almost sure that poisoning 
 by morphine, or by some of the preparations of opium, 
 was the cause of them ; the contraction of the pupil 
 might occur from a degree of congestion that would 
 follow apoplexy ; as there was no apoplexy, my con- 
 clusion is that it was morphia. 
 
 Q. As diarrhoea is one of the symptoms of septi- 
 caemia, was there any indications of diarrhoea present ? 
 A. No, sir, on the contrary, the colon was impacted 
 with faecal matter. Q. What is the difference be- 
 tween pyaemia and septicasmia ? A. Pyaemia is an 
 older name used before it was known that pus could 
 not be absorbed at all ; the pus corpuscles are not 
 absorbed through intact tissues. The liquor puris, 
 especially when the pus was rendered liquid by putre- 
 faction, may readily be absorbed, and then we have 
 septicaemia. When pus gets into the blood it gen- 
 erally produces small abscesses wherever it finds a 
 lodgment, especially in the liver. We found none 
 here. Q. Would morphine be given for septicaemia ? 
 A. Not for the septicaemia itself, but might be given 
 to allay pain. Q. In that ease in what dose would it 
 -be given? A. It would depend upon the condition 
 of the patient, and upon the views of the prescriber. 
 Qr What do you consider the largest dose safe to be 
 given? A. My habit is to give it in small doses, 
 and repeat if necessary, giving it, as it is called, ten- 
 tatively. 
 
 •By Mr. Dixon : What do you call a large amount ? 
 A. It is a very indefinite thing, according to the case. 
 I have given in the course of some four hours, to a 
 child eight years old, an entire ounce of laudanum 
 (Appendix wj," and he is living yet. 
 
 Q. What is the smallest dose' of morphine that 
 would be liable to prove fatal ? A. The smallest dose 
 ..of morphine I have read of 
 
86 D0CT0& LTTND's TElAt. 
 
 Mr. Dixon interrupting the witness : The Court will 
 understand that this is subject to the same objection as 
 already given in the case of the other witnesses. 
 
 Witness continues : The smallest dose I have read 
 of is in the foot note of Beck's Medical Jurisprudence, 
 where it is stated, I believe, that a quarter of a grain 
 caused that effect ; the better way for that testimony 
 would be to refer to the book itself. 
 
 The Court : It would not be testimony. 
 
 Mr. Garretson : What kind of practice would it be 
 to prescribe a grain of morphine in the absence of the 
 patient ? A. I should look upon it as careless practice. 
 Q. Careless "under all circumstances ? A. To pre- 
 scribe without knowing the condition of the patient is 
 careless under all circumstances; I believe a good 
 many physicians do it. 
 
 Q. Were the lungs healthy, excepting the adhesions.? 
 A. I think they were ; I cannot say how long the ad- 
 hesion had lasted ; I should say that the small size of 
 the lungs and the adhesions impaired the vital vigor, 
 and so made him an easier prey to any of the death pro- 
 ducing causes I have mentioned. Q. Should a smaller 
 dose of morphine be given to a man in that condi- 
 tion ? A. It should. 
 
 Q. What effect would a dose of morphine have on, 
 a person suffering from congestion of the lungs ? A. 
 It might prodiice a fatal effect ; it would retard the 
 circulation where we ought to give stimulants to 
 hasten it: 
 
 Q. How many cases of septicaemia have you 
 known ? A. I cannot recollect ; it is not a common 
 disease. Q. In the cases you have spoken of, where did 
 the poisonous matter originate ? A. In one case from 
 drinking water that contained a putrefying toad ; in 
 another from a sloughing syphylitic sore ; in another 
 from using Passaic water, containing putrid matter. Q. 
 Which of these proved fatal ? A. The one drinking 
 
TKIAL. 87 
 
 the water containing the toad recovered; the other 
 two proved 'fatal. Q. Did you ever know a case 
 where the poisonous matter originated in the gall 
 bladder ? A. No, sir, I have never known such a case ; 
 some patients, however, have died without my having 
 known the exact cause. 
 
 Mr. Garretson here rested in his direct examination 
 of the witness. As Mr. Dixon was preparing to cross- 
 examine, the witness desired to be excused. The de- 
 fense allowed him to go home, with the understanding 
 that he was to return the next day. His cross-exami- 
 nation therefore properly comes after that of James 
 Kelly, but for convenience, is inserted here. 
 
 By Mr. Dixon : Are you familiar with Magendie's 
 Solution cf Morphine ?• A. I am familiar with it to 
 a certain extent, but am not in the habit of prescrib- 
 ing it. Q. Do you know how much is an ordinary 
 dose ? . A. The exact dose I should probably have to 
 
 figure up ; it is about Q. (Interrupting.) Do 
 
 you not know what an ordinary dose among physicians 
 is? A. Not until I count it up. Q. Then you do 
 not know ? A. Not from mere recollection ; it is of 
 that strength that I dislike to use it. Q. Physicians, 
 allopathic physicians, quite frequently use it? A. I 
 am not an allopathic physician. Q. Are you not? A. 
 Nor homoeopathic. Q. Indeed ; you then belong, I 
 'suppose, to the Culver school? A. No, sir, I am a 
 graduate of the College of Physicians of New York ; 
 the term allopathic is given in derision to all other 
 schools by homceopathists ; my school is to practice 
 what we can learn both of diseases and the effects of- 
 medicines upon them. Q. For, "we" I presume you 
 mean to substitute " I " ? A. No, sir, I said the school, 
 if you wish to distinguish it as a school. 
 
 Q. I did not exactly understand your theory about 
 the distending power of liquids ; explain yourself; do 
 you mean the elasticity of liquids ? A. I mean the 
 
88 doctok lund's trial, 
 
 bursting power which they exert on tubes> containing; 
 them. Q. Is it anything more than the wei^it of thee 
 liquid? A. It has scarcely anything to db with its 
 weight ; it-depends upon the pressure at the fountain ' 
 head, as "the gas in the street pipes depends upon the 
 pressure of the gasometer. Q. Well, is not the burst- 
 ing power of a gas largely due to its elasticity, to its 
 tendency to expand ? A. Not at all ; because no 
 matter how much elasticity the gas may have, the same 
 pressure will be exerted upon the tubes throughout, 
 proportionately to the squares of their diameters. Q. 
 That is true enough ; but that pressure which you are 
 to exert, must it not be exerted through the elasticity 
 of the body which is producing the pressure, or through 
 weight ? A. No, not necessarily ; it is from the power 
 which the particles have to move upon each other ; all 
 forces are opposed to other forces, and if the pressing 
 power of the atmosphere upon the earth were not 
 arrested by an equal pressure of the earth upon the 
 atmosphere, the earth would shrink to nothing ; of 
 course you understand me. Q. I confess I do not un- 
 derstand you ; the shrinking of matter to nothing, that is 
 an annihilation which I always supposed impossible. A. 
 We have no knowledge of matter, except the force it 
 exerts upon us. Q. Do you mean to say that' matter 
 and force are identical? A. I do. Q. Then you 
 would call motion, matter ? A. Motion is a mode of the 
 exertion of force. Q. Is it not force ? A. It is the - 
 resultant of force. - Q. Is. it not force itself ? A. It is 
 not proper to confound the two terms. Q. No, be- 
 cause force is broader than motion, but is not motion 
 -force ? A. Yes, it may be said to be under certain 
 circumstances. 
 
 Q. Explain to us the distending power of liquids, as 
 you meant to apply it to the gall bladder ; we may, 
 perhaps, find out better what you mean, by the appli- 
 cation of your idea, A-. The' gall bladder was being 
 
TRIAL. 
 
 distended by the secretion of a substance into it. Q. 
 What was the last position of this substance before it 
 entered the gall bladder? A. The metaphysics we 
 have been on — Q. Never mind metaphysics ; we 
 are on the gall bladder now. A. If I recollect right, 
 I was going to explain — Q. The last position of the 
 secretion before it reaches the gall bladder. A. There 
 is a thin tissue between the cavity of the-gall bladder 
 and the blood, and the secretion is in a state of osmosis 
 through that intervening tissue. Q. Well, go on 
 with your explanation of the " distending power ?" 
 A. The secretion passes through this membrane, as 
 through a filter, from the blood into the gall bladder, 
 which, being distended with the incoming liquid, 
 would be enlarged more and more; that enlarging 
 power is identical with what I have called the distend- 
 ing power ; as soon as the fibres are put upon the 
 stretch, they begin to exert a compressing power upon 
 the liquid, and the liquid to resist that power. 
 
 Q. In regard now to the brain, may not there be a 
 congestion so general as to cause apoplexy ? A. True, 
 if at some point, at the same .time, the tissues give 
 way. Q. Can there not be apoplexy without the tis- 
 sue giving way ? A. That is said in the books, by the 
 later books more especially ? Q. If that existed, 
 would not the contraction of both pupils be alike ? A. 
 It is an apoplexy impossible of proof ; we never find it 
 in post-mortem examinations ; if, however, there were 
 such an apoplexy, and the hyperemia were alike 
 throughout the brain, we might have an equal con- 
 traction or equal dilation of the pupils. 
 
 Q. The books talk aboSt simple apoplexy % A. 
 They do. Q. Talk about it as if it had an existence ? 
 A. They do ; I will not deny that ; I only say I never 
 knew such a case. Q. So we must, I suppose, con- 
 sider it so ; simply, it never came under your observa- 
 tion ? A. If it did, I should consider myself careless 
 in that respect. 
 
90 doctoe ltind's trial. 
 
 Q. Is fragility of the liver existent, except where 
 the septicaemia lias been considerable ? A. In cases 
 where septicaemia kills, we always expect to find it. 
 
 Q. You did not handle this liver, I believe ? A. I 
 think I did not ; I believe, however, I called for a 
 towel to wipe my hands with, and so may have punched 
 my fingers into it. 
 
 Q. Does brandy accelerate or retard the action of 
 morphine if taken upon an empty stomach ? A. It 
 would intensify the fatal effects of the morphine most 
 certainly. 
 
 Q. Was the inside coat of the gall bladder in the 
 condition you would call intact? A. I cannot say 
 certainly, as it was not examined microscopically. 
 
 Q. D'o you know a young lady named Miss Cope- 
 land? A. I don't think I know her. Q. Did you 
 ever know a young lady by that name ? A.- I have 
 known a family by that name ; I am not sure whether 
 they had a daughter or not.- Q. Did you not, some 
 two or three years ago, attend a member of that fam- 
 ily? A. I could not tell that; I attended a Mrs. 
 Copeland, who died in child-birth. Q. "What did she 
 die of? A. I have not a distinct recollection of the 
 case ; I think there was diarrhoea, a condition indicat- 
 ing an absorption of pus, and some irritation of the 
 intestinal canal from improper food. Q. You think, 
 then, that septicaemia was present there ? A. I think 
 there was. Q. Did she die in a state of coma ? A. I 
 think she did. Q. Did you not administer morphine 
 in that case ? A. -I don't know whether. I did or not ; 
 very likely morphine was given, as the diarrhoea 
 came on with pain ; an opiate in some shape may 
 have been given. Q. If the diarrhoea and pain had 
 occurred from septicaemia, and you had known it, 
 would you have given an opiate ? A.I might ; we 
 would, if there was extensive septicaemia, as we would 
 not then expect a recovery, and it would only be a 
 
DOCTOR LUND'S TRIAL. 91 
 
 palliative. Q. The coma which came on, was that the 
 result of the morphine f A. I do not know but what 
 it may have been, from the general prostration of the 
 vital powers. 
 
 Robert Ogden Doremus, 
 
 Examined by Mr. Grarreteon, testified : I reside in the 
 city of New York, and am Professor of Chemistry in 
 the College of the city of New York, and also in the 
 Bellevue Hospital Medical College. 
 
 Q. Did you receive any communication from Coro- 
 ner Burns in July last ? " A. On the 25th of last July 
 I received a glass jar from Coroner William Burns, 
 containing a stomach which had been opened, and 
 three and a quarter ounces of a brownish liquid ; I 
 also received two white powders ; I was requested to 
 analyze the stomach and powders ; the powders were 
 weighed, one weighing one grain and eight hundreths 
 and the other six-tenths of a ■ grain ; they were then 
 submitted .to. the proper tests, which proved them to 
 be the sulphate of morphine ; the stomach was then 
 analyzed, all of the experiments being performed in a 
 pla.ce specially provided for such investigations, and 
 with new vessels purchased for the purpose. {The 
 Professor here gave the different steps of the analysis.) 
 The result of the analysis showed traces of morphine ; 
 the quantity, however, was exceedingly small, only 
 enough to give clear indications, and not enough to be 
 weighed. 
 
 Gross-examined by Mr. Dixon : 
 
 Morphine was the only pois<pi found in the stomach. 
 Pus consists principally of water and certain fatty sub- 
 stances, and salts ; there is nothing in its formation that 
 would indicate its being poisonous, any more than there 
 is in morphine ; its effects upon the system has nothing 
 to do with the carbon in it. 
 
92 
 
 Q. How did you get these powders you weighed? 
 A. I received them from Coroner Burns. Q. Directly 
 from him ? A. Yes, sir, from his own hands, Q. 
 He did not leave them at your place for you ? A. No, 
 sir, he 'gave them to- me .out of his own pocket. 
 (Appendix x.) Q. The morphine which you found 
 in the stomach had produced no injurious effect upon 
 the system, had it? A. No, sir. Q. How. much 
 morphine is a dangerous dose for a, man to take % _ A. 
 Less than a grain under some circumstances might 
 cause death, and under other circumstances very 
 much more might be' taken. In a person of very 
 feeble constitution, a very little might blow the candle 
 out. Q. If a man was healthy, but was suffering 
 violent pain — intense pain in the abdomen — would 
 you expect a grain to be fatal ? A. Morphine may 
 be administered judiciously for the relief of great 
 pain, in doses depending upon the degree of pain. 
 Q. Could you detect by the eye the difference in bulk 
 between a grain, and a half grain of morphine, lying 
 side by side % A. Certainly, one would be twice as 
 large as the other. Q. If they were both exhibited 
 at the same time, and laid side by side upon the 
 mantel ? A. Certainly, sir. Q. You think you 
 would not make a mistake ? A. I think not. Q. 
 And that would not be because of any peculiar 
 expertness ? A. No, sir. 
 
 Db. Charles A. Yeirs, 
 
 Examined by Mr. Garretson, testified : 
 
 I am a practicing pj|ysician living in Jersey City, 
 and was present at the post-mortem examination of 
 Mr. Coates. Q. Did you form any opinion as to the 
 cause of death ? A. I came to the conclusion that it 
 was due to general congestion. Q. Did you form any 
 conclusion as to the cause of the congestion ? A. No, 
 sir. Q. You have heard the testimony here as to the 
 
DOCTOR LUND'S TRIAL. 93 
 
 symptoms? A. Yes, sir. Q. Taking these in con- 
 nection with the post-mortem- appearances, what do 
 you think was the cause of death ? A. I think it was 
 due to morphine. Q. What is the usual dose of mor- 
 phine? A. From an eighth to a quarter of a grain. 
 Q. What sort of practice is it to prescribe morphine 
 without seeing the patient ? 
 
 Objected to as before, and exception taken. 
 
 A. It is careless. Q. What effect would the ad- 
 hesions of the lungs have upon Mr. Coates' health ? 
 ,A. I think they would have no material effect. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Dixon : 
 
 Q. Do you know what Magendie's Solution is? A. 
 Yes, sir. Q. Do you ever give it ? A. Yes, sir. Q. 
 How much at a dose ? A. From ten to fifteen drops. 
 Q. What is an ordinary dose ? A. From five to 
 "fifteen drops. Q. Then sometimes fifteen drops is an 
 ordinary dosel A. Yes, sir; perhaps.it is rather 
 large for an ordinary dose though. Q. How much 
 then is an ordinary dose ? A. From five to ten drops. 
 Q. In what cases have you given fifteen drops ? A: 
 In a case of facial neuralgia. Q. -What is neuralgia ? 
 A. An affection of the nerve ? Q. Is there any pain 
 without an affection of the nerve? A. No, sir. Q. 
 What then do you mean by neuralgia ; you say pain 
 is always due to some cause affecting the- nerve ; how 
 then do you distinguish the pain you speak of from 
 any other pain ? A. It is an acute local pain. Q. 
 By local pain, you mean a pain having a habitation ? 
 A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you ever know a pain that had 
 no habitation ? A. I have known pains that would 
 change about. Q. They would only change their habi- 
 tation? A. Yes, sir; if a person complained of a 
 certain portion of the body, where there was an 
 affection of the nerve, I should call it neuralgia. Q. 
 How do you distinguish then between the different 
 
94' doctor lund's trial. 
 
 kinds of pain; gout is neuralgia, is it not? A. You 
 may call it so. Q. Toothache is ? A. Yes, sir. Q. 
 And stomachache also? A. Yes, sir. Q. Rheuma- 
 tism ? A. Yes, sir. Q. And earache ? A. Yes, sir. 
 Q. And headache? A. Yes, sir. Q. "What then is 
 neuralgia ? A. It is an affection acting on the ner- 
 vous system. Q. Are not all pains caused by some 
 influence acting on the nervous system ? A. Yes, sir. 
 Q. What then was there about this case, other than 
 the pain, for which you gave the fifteen drops ? A. 
 Nothing. Q. Would you not just the same give 
 Magendie's Solution for pain, if it was located in the 
 cystic duct ? A. Yes, if it was not contra-indicated.' 
 Q. What' is the strength of Magendie's Solution? A. 
 Sixteen grains of morphine to the ounce of water. 
 
 Q. How much morphine would there be then in 
 ten drops of Magendie's Solution ? A. In the neigh- 
 borhood of an eighth of a grain. Q. How do you 
 figure that up ? A. By taking the number of drops 
 there is in a drachm, and then reducing it. Q. How 
 many drops are there in a drachm ? A. About 
 seventy-two. Q. That- is of the distilled water con- 
 taining the morphine? A.. Yes, sir. Q. Well; we 
 will see whether you are right ; are you acquainted 
 with Ellis' Medical Formulary (taking a book from 
 his client's hand)? A. Yes, sir. Q. What should 
 you say if he said there was only forty-five drops of 
 distilled water in a drachm ? A. Well, I should think 
 it correct as far as Ellis is concerned ; there are a good 
 many authors besides him, though he is a standard 
 author. Q. He is probably right, is he not ? A. Yes, 
 sir. Q. That reads " Ellis' Medical Formulary," does 
 it not (exhibiting the back of the book to the witness) ? 
 A. Yes, sir. Q. And that reads forty-five drops, 
 does it not (opening the book and pointing out the 
 place to the witness)? A. Yes, sir. Q. Well, now 
 go on ; there are forty-five drops instead of seventy- 
 
dootob lund's tbial. 95 
 
 two to a drachm : how many grains of morphine in a 
 drachm? A. Two. Q. That is two grains of mor- 
 phine in forty-five drops of Magendie's Solution ; ten 
 drops would then be almost one quarter of forty five 
 drops, or of two grains of morphine, equal to almost 
 one-half ' grain ? A. Yes, sir. Q. We are now on 
 mathematics, not medicine ; then your dose of fifteen 
 drops was over one-half a grain ? A. Yes, sir ; but I 
 have given more than that. Q. How much ? A. I 
 have given three grains at a time of morphine. Q. 
 How much of Magendie's Solution have you given ? 
 A. I have taken a drachm myself (two grains). 
 
 Q. Suppose you had called upon a patient and 
 knew the trouble ; you believed it to be one likely to 
 cause pain ; in a few hours afterwards his wife should 
 come and inform you that he was in very intens.e pain ; 
 it was very late at night, you had been up before that 
 night and for previous nights ; you were sick, tired, 
 wearied, and worn out — would you then consider it a 
 very dangerous thing if you were to send ten or fifteen 
 drops of Magendie's Solution ? A. I don't know as I 
 should do it under those circumstances. 
 
 Q. Did you never prescribe morphine without stay- 
 ing with the patient and watching its effects ? A. I 
 have,; yes, sir. Q. And if there were severe pain, 
 you would prescribe it with less fear than as if there 
 were no pain ? A. Yes, sir. Q. What, then, would 
 be the reason that you should fear to prescribe mor- 
 phine without going to the bedside of the patient and 
 watching its effects ? A. I would consider it my 
 place to go and see the patient, and see what was the 
 matter with him. Q. Oh ! but we are supposing that 
 you had seen the patient but a short time before, had 
 formed your conclusions as to what the trouble was, 
 that it was likely to cause pain, and the messenger had 
 told you that the intense pain had come — would it not 
 be common among physicians, under these circum- 
 
9$ doctok lund's TfeliX. 
 
 •stances, to send a dose of morphine ? A. I don't 
 know as it would ? Q. "Would it never be done? A. 
 I think it would ; yes, sir ; but I don't think I should 
 do it myself. 
 
 Q. Is it at all unusual for physicians to err in judg- 
 ment as to the cause of the symptoms ? A. No. Q. 
 It is so common, that if you should be held responsi- 
 ble for manslaughter every time you erred in deter- 
 mining the cause of the disease, while prescribing for 
 it,, you would quit the profession, would you not ? A. 
 You bet I would. 
 
 Q. How long have you, been in practice? A. 
 About three and a half years. Q. And so soon 
 learned that lesson ? A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. "Was fragility of the liver spoken of at the post- 
 mortem? A. No, sir; it was not. Q. "What was 
 said about it? A. That it was normally healthy. 
 
 Q. Does morphine produce rigidity or relaxation 
 of the muscles ? A. Relaxation. Q. Does it produce 
 stiffness of the jaws, so that you cannot open the 
 mouth ? A. I never knew that it did. Q. That 
 would not be a symptom of morphine poisoning, would 
 it? A. I think not ; no, sir. 
 
 Q. Does belladonna produce that effect? A.. Yes, 
 sir. Q. Relaxation ? A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. "Was the heart weighed ? A. No, sir. Q. "Was 
 it measured? A. I think it was. Q. How? A. By 
 holding it in the hand, so. (Illustrating with his 
 hand.) Q. Do you mean to give us that as the way 
 it was measured ; that is weighing, not measuring ? 
 A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. May apoplexy spring from any other cause than 
 the presence of a clot of blood in the brain ? A. The 
 brain may be congested, and so produce apoplexy. Q. 
 Death might come from the presence of apoplexy of 
 that sort, without the presence of a clot of blood ? A. 
 Yes, sir. 
 
97 
 
 Q. Now, the congested condition of the brain may 
 be produced by anything that retards the circulation"? 
 A. Yes, sir. Q. Anything that would retard the 
 arterialization of the blood ? A. Yes. Q. Might it 
 be caused by the introduction of pus into the blood ? 
 A. It might be. Q. And there might be such a con- 
 dition of the system as that the purulent matter, al- 
 though not present in sufficient quantities to cause 
 pyaemia, might yet retard the circulation enough to 
 produce stagnation, and congestion of the brain, and so 
 apoplexy, might there not ? A. I don't know whether 
 it could be so or not. 
 
 Q. Well, just apply these things to your knowledge 
 of the system ; a venous condition of blood in the 
 brain can produce apoplexy ? A. Yes. Q. Anything 
 that retards the circulation, that carbonizes the blood, 
 would produce that venous condition ? A. Yes. Q. 
 The introduction of purulent matter into the blood 
 will produce that condition ? A. Yes. Q. If the puru- 
 lent matter be present ia sufficient quantities it will 
 produce pyaemia? A. Yes. Q. "But suppose it is not 
 present in sufficient quantities to cause pyaemia, but 
 sufficient to retard the circulation ; the man is pre- 
 disposed to apoplexy, by his age and condition, arid 
 has a trouble with the lungs, binding them down so 
 that they cannot properly act, and arterialize the blood 
 sufficiently ; may not these causes so combine as to 
 cause that venosity of the brain which would produce 
 apoplexy ? A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. All these causes, that is -the slight impurity of 
 the blood, not sufficient to produce the ordinary symp- 
 toms of pysamia, might exist in the blood and not be 
 noticed by the physician called upon to prescribe for 
 the more patent symptom of pain? A. Yes, sir. Q. 
 The physician would not be careless who here 
 prescribed morphine ? A. No, sir. Q. And if 
 such circumstances should occur, and a post-mor- 
 
 5 
 
98 doctor ltjnd's trial. 
 
 tern should reveal death from congestion and apo- 
 pletic conditions, and you happened to have been the 
 doctor who prescribed the morphine, would you then 
 been willing to say that your conduct had been crim- 
 inally responsible ? A. No, sir, I would not. Q. 
 Are you sure that some such thing has not happened 
 to you in your practice, but it was not revealed for 
 want of a post-mortem examination ? A. I think not, 
 sir. Q. Did you never have a patient die? A. Yes, 
 sir, several. Q. Could you be always sure without a 
 post-mortem examination that your medicine had not 
 accelerated the trouble? A. "Well, no, sir, I could 
 not. Q. If you gave the medicine with a pure inten- 
 tion to check the disease, you would consider "your re- 
 sponsibility gone ? A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Horace Bowen, 
 
 Being examined by Mr. Garretson, testified : 
 
 I live in Jersey City, and have been practicing 
 medicine nineteen years ; I am now a homceopathist. 
 Q. What is the ordinary dose of morphine in your 
 practice ? A. "Well, sir, the system of medicine has 
 so changed that a dose loses its relative quantity. Q. 
 You give morphine, don't you? A. Yes, sir. Q. 
 Give us some idea what the usual amount in an ordi- 
 nary dose is ? A. "We usually give it in dilutions ; we 
 take a grain of morphine and ten or one hundred 
 drops of alcohol, and that makes the first dilution, one 
 drop of that to ten or a hundred more of alcohol mat 
 ing the second, and so on, and of this we give two or 
 three drops at a dose if we wish. Q. How much 
 morphine would that be equal to? A. The thousandth 
 part of a grain probably ; it is considered a medium 
 dose. Q. Do you ever prescribe the morphine itself in 
 powder ? A. JSfo, sir, not now I don't. {The reason 
 for this is evident. The witness has hilled, according 
 to his own public confession, so many unsuspecting 
 
DOCTOR LUND'S TRIAL. 99 
 
 patients m former times, by " bUnd, blundering, un- 
 scientific prescribing," that he now clings for very 
 safety to the highest dilutions he can get.) 
 
 Q. "What sort of practice would it be to prescribe a 
 grain of morphine without seeing the patient ? A. I 
 would call it allopathic practice. Q. And to be 
 governed by the opinion, of allopathic physicians ? 
 A. -Yes, sir. Q. Is it safe ? A. I do not consider it 
 very safe under any circumstances ; it might be as far 
 as life is concerned. 
 
 Cross-examination : 
 
 Q. Do you know Dr. Lund ? A. I met him once 
 and had some conversation with him. Q. Do you 
 know whether he is educated allopathically or not ? A. 
 I do not know anything about it ? Q. The principles 
 upon which homoeopathists practice is diametrically 
 opposite to those upon which allopathists practice, is it 
 not ? A. I believe so, sir. Q. Have you ever seen 
 any cases of opium poisoning? A. Yes, sir. Q. Do 
 you know how much morphine tie system of a healthy 
 male adult can bear without a fatal result ? A. It de- 
 pends upon the state of the system ; one can take a 
 large amount without danger, and another cannot take 
 a small amount. Q. How large an amount can be 
 given? A. The best authority upon that subject I 
 know "of is Dr. Alonzo Clark, who has given forty 
 grains of opium in a dose, equivalent to about eight 
 grains of morphine. Q. The use of tobacco would 
 tend to make the system tolerant of opium, would it 
 not? A. It would. Q. "Would you anticipate a fatal 
 result from a grain of morphine ? A. Not in a strong, 
 well man, I would not, sir. 
 
 Dr. J. J. Yotjlin, 
 
 Examined by Mr. Grarretsbn, testified : 
 
 I am a practicing physician in Jersey City, and 
 am a homoeopathist. Q. What is an ordinary dose of 
 
100 DOCTOK LUND'S TRIAL. 
 
 morphine according to that system ? A. There is no 
 " ordinary " dose. Q. How much do you give when 
 you give morphine ? A. Morphine is generally pre- 
 scribed by homoeopathists in what is called potencies or 
 dilutions ; morphine as a salt is always prepared by 
 trituration with sugar of milk ; opium, on the other 
 hand, is prepared in dilutions, in alcohol. Q. How 
 much do you give of the salt ? A. I generally use 
 the decimal trituration, made by one grain to ten of 
 sugar of milk ; the dose of that varies in different- 
 persons, according to their condition. I cannot state 
 accurately how much morphine there would be in a 
 dose of the first decimal ; perhaps the one-hundredth of 
 a grain. Q. Then the largest dose of morphine given 
 by a homceopathist is the first decimal ? A. Yes, sir ; 
 although, understand me, the drug, even morphine 
 itself, may be given homceopathically as a salt. Q. In 
 what cases do you give it homosopathically ? A. I 
 would give it in a case of disease bearing and present- 
 ing a large group of symptoms, such as would appear 
 in a case of poisoning by morphine. Q. Do you 
 mean to say that you would give a person poisoned 
 by morphine, more morphine ? A. ~No', sir ; I said 
 the symptoms of disease resembling morphine poison- 
 ing. 
 
 Q. How much in such cases would you give? A. 
 Rarely higher than the fourth of a grain, following 
 the homoeopathic law. Q. Would you give as much 
 as a grain in any case ? A. Not in such a case, no, 
 sir. Q. Would you in any case ? A. Yes, sir ; I 
 would in some cases give a grain or more. Q. What 
 kind of a case ? A. In any case of severe suffering, as 
 from cancer, or biliary calculus. Q. Have you ever 
 given that much ? A. I have given three grains in a 
 single night, one hour after another — a grain at a 
 time— in a case of cancer of the breast. Q. Were you 
 present when that was given? A, I was not; I did 
 
DOOTOB LTWd's TRIAL. 101 
 
 not see it given. Q. Would you think it safe to pre 
 scribe that amount of morphine without seeing the 
 patient ? A. Not unless I had seen him very recently, 
 within a few hours ; in a chronic case the time might 
 be longer than in an acute case. Q. How in a case of 
 colic, if you had not seen the patient for five or six 
 hours ■'{ A. I never give it for colic, so I don't think 
 I would prescribe it under those circumstances. Q. 
 "Would you consider it safe ? A. It might be under 
 some circumstances, as for instance, in a case of bilious 
 colic. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Dixon : 
 
 Q. The reason you do not give it in colic, is be- 
 cause it is not consistent with your homoeopathic 
 theory ? A. That is it ; I have other remedies that 
 answer my purpose as well. Q. Some physicians in 
 their practice combine the theories, do they not ? A. 
 Yes, sir. Q. Many homoeopathic physicians have 
 allopathic educations and training? A. Yes, sir. Q. 
 Do you know whether that is true of Dr. Lund % A. 
 Dr. Lund Avas educated in an allopathic college. Q. 
 Where he could have learned allopathic theories 
 only ? A. Yes, sir. ' Q. Do you know what college 
 that was ? A. When he joined the State Medical 
 Society, he presented a diploma from Harvard College 
 of Cambridge, Mass. Also, he did the same in the 
 Eastern District Medical Society. Q. He is a phy- 
 sician in good standing in these societies ? A. We 
 have considered him excellent. Q. Do you know 
 how long he has been practicing ? A. I cannot say 
 exactly ; some three or four years. Q. Has he met 
 with fair success in his practice ? A.I think very 
 excellent success. 
 
 Q. What is the largest amount of morphine you 
 have known a person to take ? A. I have met within 
 the year of a case of intended suicide^ where the 
 
102 doctoe lttnd's teial. 
 
 patient must have taken about three ounces of lauda- 
 num (2,880 drops); she recovered. Q. What was 
 her condition when you was called ? A. I found her 
 in a chair, sleeping heavily, and apparently uncon- 
 scious, and her lower jaw fallen down ; it was three 
 or four hours since she had taken the laudanum. Q. 
 What did you do ? A. I poured mustard and water 
 down her throat in large quantities. Q. Which she 
 swallowed ? A. The fluid went down, whether she 
 swallowed or not; she 'began to rally very soon, and 
 then by flaggellation, walking, dashing cold water 
 upon -her, we finally were able to consider her safe, 
 and to leave her. Q. You consider keeping the 
 patient in constant physical motion as very important ? 
 A- Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Would you think of administering belladonna? 
 A. I never would. Q. Would you think it dangei-- 
 ous ? A.I would ; I don't consider it an antidote of 
 morphine". Q. Do homoeopathic physicians generally 
 weigh their medicines ? A. I think they never do ; 
 but proportion them by their eye. Q. How is it with 
 allopathic physicians, in the country for instance, who 
 carry their own medicines with them? A. Their 
 habit, I believe, always is to measure medicines' out 
 by the eye ; I know my preceptorj who was an allo- 
 pathist, always did. Q. They measured them with 
 considerable accuracy, did they not? A. I think 
 they did. Q. Do you think that there would be any 
 difficulty in distinguishing, by the eye, the difference 
 in bulk between two powders, taken from the same 
 bottle, and lying side by side, one of which weighed 
 one grain and the other one-half a grain ? A. I 
 don't think that there would be any difficulty what- 
 ever. Q. Are you familiar with simple apoplexy? 
 
 Mr. Garretson objected to Mr. Dixon examining. 
 Dr. Youlin on matters not gone over in the direct 
 examination. 
 
DOCTOR LTTNd's TRIAL. 103 
 
 Question allowed by the Court. 
 
 A. I am, sir ; there may be congestion alone with 
 no effusion and no post-mortem changes from a 
 healthy appearance. Q." Would you conclude from 
 the contraction of the pupils the cause of the con 
 gestion ? A.I would not. Q. You would look for it in 
 congestion of any kind from any cause ? A. I would. 
 Q. Are there any absorbents in the gall bladder ? A. 
 There are, and they are numerous. Q. Is there any- 
 thing to prevent the absorption of pus from the gall 
 bladder by these absorbents? A. No, sir. Q. And 
 the absorptions of pus from that place might produce 
 congestion of the brain ? A. Tes, sir. Q. General 
 congestion throughout. the system ? A. Yes, sir. Q. 
 You have heard the testimony of the witnesses, in 
 regard to the symptoms before death ? A. I have, sir. 
 Q. Did you detect anything in these symptoms that 
 was, in your opinion, antagonistic to the idea that 
 Mr. Coates had died from apoplexy, produced by 
 corruption of the blood through the pus ? A .'-I did 
 not, sir. Q. Were the symptoms such as you would 
 anticipate from such . a cause ? A. To a great 
 measure they were. Q. You cannot always by ante- 
 mortem examination of a patient, determine the cause 
 of death ? A. No, sir. Q. Skillful and most ex- 
 perienced physicians often make mistakes ? A. Yes, 
 sir ; I have known a consultation of six physicians to 
 be mistaken, and not discover it until after death. 
 
 Q. Are you familiar with bryonia alba? A. Yes, 
 sir. Q. Could it produce pain in the head or bowels ? 
 A. No, sir. Q. It is a homoeopathic medicine ? A. 
 Yes, sir. 
 
 Re-direct examination by Mr. Garretson : 
 
 Q. You say Dr. Lund's reputation was excellent ; 
 do you mean his homoeopathic or allopathic repu- 
 tation ? A. Homoeopathic. Q. How long after Dr. 
 
104 
 
 Lund came to Bergen did he join your society ? A. I 
 cannot say ; I was acquainted with him some time 
 before -he presented himself. . Q. Do you know where 
 he got his homoeopathic, education ? A. From his 
 preceptor in Boston. Q. Do you administer morphine 
 as a salt by the eye ? A. No, I always weigh it. Q. 
 Were your cases of simple apoplexy fatal cases ? A. 
 No, sir. Q. Have you known cases of pyaemia ? A. 
 Two that I remember. Q. What was the source of 
 the pus ? A. In one it was in the womb, and in the 
 other from erysipelas and abscess of the face and nose. 
 Q. There was ulceration in both cases? A. Yes, sir. 
 Q. You have heard the symptoms spoken of in this 
 case ; suppose you further knew that morphine had 
 been given, do yon find anything in those symptoms 
 inconsistent with morphine? A. No, sir, I should 
 not. if I did not have anything else to govern me. 
 
 James Kelly, 
 
 Examined by Mr. Garretson, testified : 
 
 I used to board with Mrs. Coates. I am her brother. 
 I was living at Mr. Coates' house at the time of his 
 death. He was first taken sick the Sunday before he 
 died, and complained of his stomach. On Monday morn- 
 ing he told me to go down and tell his foreman that 
 he felt a little sick, and could not come to his work 
 that day. I came home early in the afternoon, and 
 saw him on the ball ground. When I went home 
 Mr. Coates told me he did not like Dr. Wilkinson 
 very well. Tuesday morning he felt worse, complain- 
 ing more of his insides. I went away about eight 
 o'clock, and returned about four o'clock, and he said 
 he was still worse. Ho said he had changed his 
 doctor, and had Dr. Lund, and said he liked him a 
 great deal more than Dr. Wilkinson. Dr. Lund . had 
 conversed freely with him, and had prescribed some 
 powders ; he did not come down stairs that night to 
 
DOCTOR LOAD'S TRIAL. 105 
 
 supper. Some neighbors came in during the evening. 
 About nine o'clock I laid down on the sofa, and went 
 to sleep. At about eleven o'clock Mrs. Coates awoke 
 me, and asked me to go up and stay with her husband 
 until the Doctor came, and that he would be there in 
 a few minutes. Mr. Ooates seemed worse, and was 
 nervous and impatient for the Doctor to come, and 
 finally as he did not come, Mrs. Coates and myself 
 went back for him, at about twelve o'clock. Mrs. 
 CoateS went up to the front door and rang the bell ; 
 some one came to the door, but I could not see who it 
 was. She asked if the Doctor was in, and the reply 
 was " yes." She said " tell him I want him directly." 
 The reply was, " who shall I say wants him," and 
 she said " Mrs. Coates." At the same time a voice 
 from some one I could not see, from the inside, cried 
 out, " what is the matter now ? " She said " Doctor, 
 I thought you were to be at my house in a quarter of 
 an hour, and you have not been there yet." At that 
 time I could see Dr. Lund. He said, " hold on for a 
 few minutes." He. went away and then came back in 
 a short time, and said, " here is three powders, give 
 him one as soon as you get home." She said " Doctor, 
 I want you to come yourself and see 'my husband." 
 He said, " can't you mix up a powder ; put it in a table v 
 spoonful of water, and see that. he takes it all; the 
 last* powders I -gave were too weak." She caid 
 again, "Doctor, I want you to come and give them 
 yourself." Three times she asked him to come, and the 
 last time he said he would not ; he told her not to 
 come to the door again, nor ring the bell, for he would 
 not answer her ; she said she would not trouble him 
 again, and went home and gave the powder ; when she 
 gave it to him she said, the Doctor says you must take 
 rt all ; he sat quietly then from ten to fifteen minutes, 
 when he got up and looked very wild, walked round 
 the room a few minutes and then went into the bed- 
 
106 DOCTOR LUND'S TRIAL. 
 
 room and threw himself upon the bed; he rolled 
 round there awhile, and then came out in the front 
 room again. 
 
 Mrs. Ooates said, " John, what is the matter ; " he 
 waved her off with his hand, and said, " go away, I 
 am mad, I am crazy ; " he then walked round for a 
 considerable time, quieting down all the time ; finally 
 he said he would like a little brandy ; I gave him a 
 table-spoonful of brandy, the best I could get at the 
 druggists ; we~ fixed him in his chair very comfortably, 
 and in a few moments he was sound asleep. 
 
 Mrs. Ooates was suddenly taken pretty bad with 
 cramps in her stomach and legs, and I was left almost 
 alone with him ; she had gone down stairs and laid 
 down on the sofa ; he slept very quiet, a natural and 
 easy looking sleep, breathing as easy as any one would, 
 for a while, I cannot say how long, when he woke 
 up again and asked me to give him a drink ; as I went 
 down stairs to get him a drink, his daughter came up ; 
 I went into the kitchen and filled a large sized coffee 
 cup half full of tea ; he told me before I went down 
 stairs not to get him anything too cold or hot, as it 
 " would cut his insides ; " I then filled the cup up with 
 warm water, sweetened it, and carried it up stairs to 
 him. 
 
 His daughter was standing along side of him, and I 
 heard him say, in answer to some question of here, 
 " I am in heaven beside what I was an hour ago ; " 
 she told him her mother was very sick, and he motioned 
 her off with his hand, the same as to say, go ; I gave 
 him the tea, and he drank it all down and said, " that is 
 first rate; " he then sat a few moments without saying 
 anything, when he said, "Jim, I would like to see Mr. 
 Gross ; " Mr. Gross was his boss on the Cunard Dock ; 
 I told him I would go down the first thing in the 
 morning and tell him so ; he said I need not do it, as 
 he would be very busy on account of one ship that was 
 
DOCiTOE LttWs TBlAl. 107 
 
 to come in and another to go out ; he then sat a few 
 moments without saying anything, when he looked 
 right at me, and said, " Jim, the grand crisis has come, 
 I am at the turning point." That was, I believe, his 
 last words ; he sat there then for a little while, his 
 eyes closed, and his head fell to the left ; I got up and 
 fixed the pillow under his head ; I then watched him for 
 about half an hour, when I noticed that he was breath- 
 ing with difficulty ; I saw then that he had changed 
 color, and I thought his eyes had sunk a little ; with 
 every breath he would have a slight hiccough ; I then 
 called his daughter, and told her to call Mr. "Welch, 
 while I would go down to Jersey City and try to get 
 either Dr. McDowell or Dr. Lutkins ; it was a little be- 
 fore four o'clock when I started, and I got back about 
 seven ; I could not get either- of them ; when I got 
 back,.! went up stairs and looked at Mr. Ooates and 
 saw he was pretty much as I left him ; I then went 
 down stairs, when I saw Dr. Lund there and my niece ; 
 I heard Dr., Lund say that the case was taken out of 
 his hands ; I went up to him and said it was not, I 
 went with my sister myself at twelve o'clock ; he said, I 
 begin to see that there was a mistake ; the medicine Mr. 
 Coates took was put up for a man by the name of 
 Noonan, with delirium tremens ; I don't know what 
 then became of Dr. Lund; I had. seen Dr. Lund be- 
 fore, when he had been calling -.the other side of the 
 street ; Drs. Wilkinson, Forman and Bock were there ; 
 they all left about nine o'clock, and came back after ten ; 
 the undertaker, Mr. Hughes, then came up and put 
 the body on ice. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Dixon : 
 
 I believe it was the left side of Mr. Coates that 
 pained him so much ; I have not known Mr. Coates 
 to be sick for twenty years, but during that time I 
 have been away much of the time, and so he may 
 
l08 toocxoR tusn's triaL. 
 
 have been sick ; while Mrs. Coates was at the Doctor's 
 house the second time, I was standing at the bottom 
 step going up to his front door ; I could not see who 
 opened the door, whether it was a man or a boy, white 
 or colored. 
 
 Q. At the Coroner's Inquest did you not swear that 
 a black boy opened the door ? A. I think not ; I could 
 not swear that, because the door was only opened on a 
 crack, and I could not see any one there. 
 
 Mr. Dixon gave the witness his deposition before 
 the Coroner. 
 
 Q. Is that your signature ? A. Yes, sir. Q. And 
 that is your testimony before the Coroner ? A. Yes, 
 sir. 
 
 Q. I see here this expression : " Mrs. Coates went 
 up the steps and rang the bell ; a colored boy came to 
 the door ;" I suppose you cannot testify to that now ? 
 A. Well, I must have said it by hearsay, because I 
 did not see him. 
 
 Q. Did the Doctor come down stair^ before he 
 came down with the powders ? A. I did not see 
 hini.. 
 
 Q. In your examination at the Inquest I find this 
 expression : " She said, go and tell him I want him im- 
 mediately ; he went up stairs and the Doctor came 
 right down ;" is that true ? A. I cannot say whether 
 the person went up stairs or not. Q. And can you 
 tell whether the Doctor came "right down?" A. I 
 cannot., Q. You did not see any one come down? 
 A. I did not. 
 
 Q. What was said after she said she wanted the 
 •Doctor immediately '. A. He asked her what name; 
 she said Mrs. Coates. Q. Have you talked this mat- 
 ter over with Mrs. Coates ? A. I have not. Q. Your 
 recollection of these things was as good before the 
 Coroner as it is now? A. I don't know about 
 that ; there were some things I know I missed then. 
 
I)OCTOK LTjWs TRIAL. 1.09 
 
 Q. Did the Doctor say that the powders would 
 quiet him down, and if one quieted him, she need not 
 give him another one ? A. No, sir ; he said, give 
 another in an hour after the first. Q. "Was she to 
 give them after he got quiet % A. I believe so ; I 
 don't know. Q. You did not give him the second 
 powder I A. No. Q. Why % A. Because he was 
 quiet enough before the hour was up. Q. Then your 
 understanding of the directions was, if he got quiet 
 enough after you had given him the first powder, that 
 you need not give the second ? A. I did not hear 
 that mentioned.. Q. Was not that your understand- 
 ing of what was said 2 A. It was not. Q. Did you 
 not act upon that idea ? A. I did ; but was very near 
 not doing it. 
 
 Q. How was Mr. Coates' when you got home ? A. 
 He was still suffering*from pain. 
 
 Q. When was it you gave Mr. Coates the brandy ? 
 A. About a half hour, I think, after he took the 
 medicine; I gave him two table-spoonsful of it; I 
 went for it after we got the powders, and got it at Mr. 
 Wells' drug store ;. he said he would take it, kill or 
 cure ; it was more than twenty minutes, after taking 
 the powder, before he asked me for the brandy ; he 
 went right to sleep after he took the brandy. Q. 
 What became of the rest of the brandy ; did Mrs. 
 Coates get it ? A. I cannot say. 
 
 Q. Mr. Coates did not use tobacco, did he ? A. 
 Oh yes, he did ; lie was a pretty heavy smoker ; he 
 did not chew that I knew of; he might now and 
 then ; he used the cut plug tobacco. 
 
 Q. What was the reason that Dr. Lutkins would 
 not come with you ? A. He sent down word he was 
 otherwise engaged. 
 
 Q. What was the. trouble with Dr. McDowell ! A. 
 I cannot say ; he would not or could not come. 
 
 Q. Dr. Lutkins is a physician in large practice, one 
 
110 doctor Lund's trial. 
 
 of the leading men in his profession, is he not ? A. I 
 always understood so ? 
 
 Q.' How is it with Dr. McDowell % A. I cannot 
 say ; I have never seen him in my life, to my knowl- 
 edge ; I believe he was a Mason, and belonged to the 
 same lodge that Mr. Coates did. 
 
 By Mr. Garretson : Did- Dr. Lutkins or Dr. Mc- 
 Dowell send any powders ? A. No, sir. 
 
 Mrs. Elizabeth Hassell, 
 
 Examined by Mr. Garretson, testified : I live in South 
 Bergen, and was a daughter of Mr. Coates, and was 
 living there at the time of his death ; he was first 
 taken sick on the Sunday evening previous to his 
 death, complaining of pain between his bowels and his 
 chest ; he sent for the doctor between three and four 
 on Monday morning ; Dr. Wilkinson came and pre- 
 scribed for him ; Monday night he was pretty well ; 
 Tuesday morning he complained again, and sent for 
 Dr. Lund ; my little sister Grace went after him ; he" 
 came, and told father he thought he understood his 
 case ; he did not have his medicines with him, and 
 wanted us to send to his house for them ; we did so, 
 and she brought back an envelop, containing some 
 powders, and a small phial containing a liquid ; I don't 
 know whether they were given or not ; I think I saw 
 my mother give the liquid ; in the evening I sat with 
 him, during the time my mother had gone for Dr. 
 Lund ; when she returned she said the Doctor would 
 be there in fifteen minutes ; we waited awhile, and as 
 he did not come, she said she would go for him again, 
 and did so, my uncle going with her ; when she came 
 back she said the Doctor would not come, but he had 
 sent powders, to be taken every hour until all were 
 taken ; she then gave him one of the powders ; I then 
 retired ; in the night T was- awakened by my mother 
 moaning down stairs, and on the way down.stairs I 
 
DOCTOR. LUND'S TRIAL. Ill 
 
 asked my uncle how father was ; I did not stay down 
 stairs more than ten minutes, when I came up to see 
 father ; in going in I passed my uncle coming out ; 
 my father was sitting in the same position ; when I 
 went in, he was getting up out of his chair to fix- himself 
 more comfortably ; I told him mother was sick ; he 
 motioned me away, and told me not to bother him ; I ' 
 asked him if he was in pain ; he said, no, he felt as 
 though he was in heaven to what he was an hour ago ; 
 I then went down stairs to my mother, who was suf- 
 fering very much, and stayed with her until about half- 
 past four in the morning ; I then went up to see 
 father ; he was breathing very hard ; his face was 
 swelled almost twice its usual size, and his hands also ; 
 his face was of a deep purple color, and the perspira- 
 tion was pouring off him ; I shook him as hard as I 
 could, but could not wake him ; I then woke Mr. 
 "Welch, living next door, and asked him to go for Dr. 
 Wilkinson ; the' Doctor came ; he stayed until about 
 nine o'clock, then went away, and came back in about 
 an hour ; I saw no other doctors there as I went for 
 one of the neighbors ; I saw Dr. Lund on Wednesday 
 morning, about seven o'clock, come in the house and 
 go up in the room where father was ; I followed him 
 up, but did not hear him say anything ; my mother 
 said to him that it was a very great loss to her, and he 
 said she had not lost him yet ; he asked me to go 
 down stairs with him ; I did so ; he asked me who 
 sent for those doctors ; I said we did ; he asked me, 
 " "Why was not I sent for ?" I said, " "Why, Doctor, you 
 told us not to come after you again to-night;" he 
 asked me who said so ; I told him my mother ; he said 
 " your mother," and looked very much surprised ; I 
 said yes; he said "that is a mistake, I have said 
 nothing of the kind ;" I said " O, yes, Doctor, for my 
 uncle was with her ;" he asked me who my uncle was 
 or where he was ; my uncle then stepped forward and 
 
112 
 
 told him that he did tell my mother not to come back 
 that night ; he then said that he saw it all, that the 
 
 Sowders were intended for a man by the name of Mike 
 [oonan, suffering from delirium tremens, and that he 
 had mistaken mother for Mrs. Noonan ; he then went 
 away ; I again saw him at Mrs. Welch's gate, when he 
 said he was not used fairly at all, that he ought to 
 have been sent for • Mrs. Welch asked him if he could 
 do anything for father, for, if he could, she was sure 
 the other doctors would give him up ; he said that the 
 other doctors had taken it entirely out of his hands ; I 
 don't think I saw him again ; Dr. Lund, when I was 
 down at the door, asked me to be careful of the medi- 
 cine that was left up stairs, but gave no reason why 
 he wanted me to be careful of them. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Dixon : 
 
 There was a clock in the front room, and I looked 
 at the time when I went from mother up to see father ; 
 it was then between two and half-past; I am not sure 
 about the second time, but it was between four and 
 half-past ; my father complained of pain in his bowels 
 that night ; after he took the powder, I went to my 
 room, but I heard mother say, " John, what is the 
 matter ?" and I heard him answer, " Go away, I am 
 mad, I am crazy." 
 
 Mes: Ann Welch, 
 
 Examined by Mr. Garretson, testified : 
 
 I live in Atlantic Street, Bergen, next door Trnt one 
 to the house occupied in July last by Mr. Coates ; I 
 saw him the Monday before he died, complaining of pain; 
 he was in his own house ; I saw him next, Tuesday 
 evening, he, as before, being in his own house ; he was 
 not well then, but did not complain to me of anything 
 special'; it was about nine o'clock when I left. 
 
 Q. When did you see him next \ A, I don't think 
 
DOCTOR LUND'S TRIAL. 113 
 
 I saw -him again until 1 was called in Wednesday 
 morning. Q. What time? A. It was then between 
 half-past three and four o'clock ; Mr. Kelly called me 
 at that time in the morning. Q : How was Mr. Ooates 
 when 'you went in ? A. I was not called to see Mr. 
 Coates ; I was called to see Mrs. Ooates, she was sick. 
 Q. Where did you find her? A. On the sofa, 
 in the front room down stairs. Q. Did you see Mr. 
 Coates ? A. When I had stopped a little while with Mrs. 
 Coates, Mr. Kelly came into the room, and I asked him 
 how Mr. Coates was, and he said he was very bad, and 
 I said I must go up stairs and see him ; I went up stairs 
 and saw him. Q. How did he seem then ? A. I went to 
 him and spoke to him, and asked him how he felt, but 
 he did. not speak ; I spoke the second time and he did 
 not speak ; Mr. Kelly came into the room and I said 
 to him I think Mr. ' Coates is dying, for he seemed to 
 have great pain when breathing ; I said to Mr. 
 Kelly it would be well to have a doctor ; he said he 
 was just going down to the city to get the lodge doc- 
 tor ; his daughter, Lizzie, came into the room ; I said to 
 her I think your father is dying ; she said, " don't say 
 that ; " she seemed excited when I spoke to her ; I 
 said it would be well to send for a doctor, and asked 
 her would I go ; she said she would wait for Mr. 
 Welch to go ; Mr. Welch went for Dr. Wilkinson ; 
 that was a little before five o'clock ; I think Dr. Wil- 
 kinson must have been in the house about five o'clock ; 
 I was there when he came. 
 
 Q. Did you see Dr. Lund there? A. I did ; I was 
 there when he came into the room ; I couldn't say 
 what time that was ; I think it must have been about 
 seven o'clock, but I wouldn't say sure. Q. What did 
 he do when he came in ? A. t don't know as Dr. 
 Lund did anything to Mr. Coates ; Mrs. Coates came 
 into the room, and said to Dr. Lund it was a loss for her, 
 and the doctor said, that she hadn't lost him yet ; Dr. 
 
114 
 
 * 
 
 Lund didn't say anything else that I remember ; I don't 
 think he staid there long ; when he went out I went 
 down stairs and spoke to him at the door. Q. What did 
 you say to him ? A. I asked the Doctor if there was any 
 danger of Mr. Coates, and he said he had just found 
 out his mistake, that he made those powders for a man 
 who was a very hard drinker, by the name of Ebonan ; 
 I saw Dr. Lund after that ; I couldn't say how long, 
 but I saw him just as I was going into my own house. 
 Q. Did you have any conversation with him there? 
 A. Yes ; Dr. Lund said, " Is there any change in Mr. 
 Coates ? " I said no, and asked Dr. Lund if there was 
 any danger of Mr. Coates ; he said the case was entirely 
 out of his hands ; I said if he thought he could do 
 anything for Mr. Coates that I had no doubt the other 
 doctors would give him up, and he said, " Not now, 
 it is too late." 
 
 Cross-examination by Mr. Dixon : 
 
 Q. Was Lizzie present at the conversation as you 
 were going- into your own house ? A. She was with 
 me, but I don't know whether she went into the house 
 or stopped with me! Q. Did Dr. Lund say anything 
 to you about Mr. Coates getting better ; whether he 
 thought he would get .better or not? A. Yes, he said 
 he thought he would. 'Q. When was that? A. I 
 think it was when we were standing at the door. Q. 
 The first talk ? A. I think it was the first ; I am not 
 sure. Q. What door do you mean ? A. The front 
 door of Mr. Coates' house. Q. That is where you had 
 the first talk, was it not? A. Yes, sir. Q. Who 
 called you for Mrs. Coates ? A. Mr. Kelly, her 
 brother. Q. How long were you with Mrs. Coates 
 before Mr. Kelly came into the room ? A. Only a 
 few minutes. Q. Was Mrs. Coates asleep when you 
 went into the room ? A. No, sir. Q. Was she lying 
 down? A. Yes, sir. Q". Undressed? A. No, sir, 
 
DOCTOE LUND'S TRIAL. 115 
 
 she was not undressed. Q. What was the .matter 
 with her ? A. She had cramps. Q. Anything else 
 the matter ? A. That is all ; she said to me she was 
 taken with cramps. Q. Did anything else seem to he 
 the matter with her ? A. No, sir. Q. Had she taken 
 anything for the cramps, did she say ? A. She didn't 
 say to me ; she asked me to rub her with some dry 
 mustard. Q. Did you? A. I did. Q. Anything 
 else done for her ? A. I did not do anything else for 
 her. 
 
 Q. Did yo a give her anything for the pain ? A. 
 Yes, sir. Q. What did you give her ? A. There was 
 a tumbler with a little brandy on the table in the 
 room where she was lying; she asked me to hand it to 
 her, and I did so. Q. where was the tumbler? A. 
 On the table. Q. Near her ? A. Not very near ; it 
 was on the table ; she was lying on the sofa. Q. In 
 the same room ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did she drink it ? 
 A. Yes, sir, she took a little of it, not all of it. (Appen- 
 dm y.) • Q. What was done with the rest ? A. It re- 
 mained on the table. Q. Do you know where vthe 
 brandy came from? A. I do not. Q. Did you do any- 
 thing else for her or give her anything else ? A. Not 
 then. Q. W7ien did you? A. Well, she got- up to 
 her bed-room then; I did not help her up,,nor I don't 
 remember of seeing her come up, but the next time I 
 saw her, she was in the bed-room. Q. Do you mean 
 Mr. Ooates' bed-room ? A. Yes, sir. Q. What then ? 
 A. Well, I went into the room where Mr. Coates was ; 
 he always remained in the front room, sitting in the 
 rocking-ehair. 
 
 By the Court : Which room did Mrs. Ooates go into 
 when she came up stairs ? A. In the back bed room ; 
 Mr. Coates was in the front room ;. there was no bed 
 in the front room. 
 
 Q. What else was done for Mrs. Ooates ? A. I 
 did not do anything then. Q. When did you next 
 
116 DOCTOK LUNd's TKIAL. 
 
 do anything for Mrs. Coates? A. Well, Mrs. Coates 
 sent into the room where I was for me. Q. She 
 sent out -of the back room into the front room? 
 A. Yes, sir. Q. How did she send ? A. "Well, I 
 think she sent my sister-in-law, or her own daughter. 
 Q. She sent for you ; did yon go in ? A. I did ; she 
 asked me. if I would not go to the corner store, a 
 saloon, for her ; I went to Mr. Bayers. 
 
 By the Court : Was that the corner store? A. Yes, 
 sir. 
 
 Q. Did she say what she wanted you to go for? 
 A. Yes, sir. Q. What was it? A. She wanted me 
 to go for some.brandy ; I went to Mr. Bayers and got 
 twenty cents worth of brandy ; I got it with some 
 peppermint, and I came home to Mrs. Coates. 
 
 By the Court : Was the peppermint- put in the 
 brandy then, or did you put it in afterwards ? A. In 
 the store. 
 
 Q. What was ~ done with 'it? A. I gave her a 
 little of it. Q. Did she ask you for it ? A. Yes, sir ; 
 I put the other, that was in the bottle, in a closet that 
 stands in the lower hall. Q. Did you see anything 
 more of it ? A. I did not. Q. Did you see any 
 brandy in the back room, or front bed room, while 
 you was there ? A. None, except what I brought in. 
 Q. What sort of a store is Mr. Bayers ? A. It is a 
 liquor store, a saloon. Q. Grocery store ? A. No, 
 no groceries. Q. When you went up stairs and saw 
 Mr. Coates on Wednesday morning, how did he look ? 
 A. He was breathing very loud, and seemed to be 
 distressed with the breathing. Q. Do you mean as if 
 he was snoring? A. Yes, a kind of hiccough I 
 believe he had. Q. Did you notice anything peculiar 
 about his appearance except that? A. He was very 
 warm, looked very hot and bluish. Q. Was he per- 
 spiring ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you touch him ? A. 
 I did. Q. Where ? A. I put my hand on his fore- 
 
TKIAL. 117 
 
 head. Q. Warm ? A. Yery. warm. Q. W*e.re his 
 eyes shut, or open ? A. Shut. Q. Did you notice 
 whether his appearance changed during the morning ? 
 A. He looked blue when I went in, but on in the day 
 he did not look so blue. Q. What time in the day 
 did you notice he did not look so blue? A. Early in 
 the morning. Q. How late in the morning ? A. I 
 could not say. Q. Did he look so blue when he died '. 
 A. I don't "think he did. 
 
 Q. When Dr. Lund came there, were any physicians 
 there ? A. Dr. Wilkinson and Dr. Forman were 
 there, and, I think, Dr. Bock was there. Q. In the 
 room with Mr. Ooates? A. Yes, sir. Q. That was 
 when he came there about seven o'clock ? A. Yes, 
 sir. Q. What djd they say to Dr. Lund ? A. I don't 
 remember their saying anything to Dr. Lund. Q. 
 You went in fight behind Dr. Lund, did you ? A. 
 When Dr. Lund came out, I came after him ; I don't 
 know whether I went in with him or not, but I was 
 in there when he was. Q. Do you recollect whether 
 you were in, there at the time Dr. Lund came inj or 
 not? A. I think I was;. yes, I was. Q. In the room 
 where Mr. ~Coates was ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you 
 hear any of the physicians say anything about Dr. 
 Lund, just before he came in ? A. I don't remember 
 if I did' ; I think I heard some one say, " Here comes 
 Dr." Lund ; " which of them it was I don't know, but 
 some one in the room said, " Here comes Dr. Lund." 
 Q. Did you hear them say anything about speaking 
 fo him ? A. I don't remember anything said. Q. 
 Have you talked with any of those physicians since '( 
 A. Well, I have talked with Dr. Wilkinson, because 
 he is our physician, and my husband has been sick 
 lately; he has been there pretty much every' day. 
 Q. Talked with him about this matter ? A. I think 
 we merely named it ; but I qould not tell anything 
 lie talked' about. Q. Talked abput it often? A. JSTo, 
 
118 DOCTOR LUND'S TRIAL. 
 
 Q. More than once? .A. Well, I think the most we 
 said, was this — the trial was coming on a week ago, 
 at least we thought so, and I said if it came off, it 
 would be bad if I had to go and leave him. Q. 
 Have you talked with Dr. Avery about it ? A. Dr. 
 Avery has been in our house, but I don't know that 
 we have talked about it ? Q. Dr. Avery did not 
 attend you ? A. No, sir. Q. What did he come for ? 
 A. We called him in to see my husbaild ; he has 
 been there several times ; we might have talked it 
 over, but I don't remember; we did not like Dr. 
 Avery, and we called Dr. Wilkinson. Q. Had you 
 anything . else to talk about with Dr. Avery, except 
 the trial of Dr. Lund ; was there anything' to bring 
 him to your house, except the time yQu called him for 
 your husband ? A. Wo, nothing. • 
 
 Re-direct examination by Mr. Garretson : 
 
 Q. What sized bottle was that down stairs that had 
 brandy in ? A. It was a soda water bottle. Q. That 
 was the bottle down stairs that you found standing on 
 the table ? A. No ; it was a tumbler standing on the 
 table down stairs ; when I went out for the brandy I 
 took the bottle. Q. There was no bottle at all down 
 stairs when you gave her the brandy ? A. No ; it 
 was in a tumbler. 
 
 By Mr. Dixon : How much did you get in the soda 
 water bottle? A. Twenty' cents worth. Q. Much? 
 A. Yery little ; I asked for the best brandy ; I told 
 him Mrs. Coates was sick, and he asked me if I wanted 
 some peppermint in it, and I told him I thought it 
 would be good, and he put some into it. 
 
 William Welch, 
 
 Examined by Mr. Garretson, testified : 
 
 Q. Where do you live ? A. Atlantic Street, South 
 Bergen, 
 
DOOTOfc LUNd'8 TEIAL. 119 
 
 Q. What relation is the last witness to you ? A. 
 ' Sister-in-law. 
 
 Q. How near did you live to Mr. Coates ? A. Next 
 door. 
 
 Q. Do you remember the time he was sick ? A. 
 Yes, sir. Q. What time did you see him after he was 
 ■first taken sick ? A. The first I knew of his*sickness 
 was somewhere near ten o'clock Tuesday night ; when 
 I got home from New York, my wife told me he had 
 been very sick, had to send for the doctor, and asked 
 me to go and see him. Q. Did you go and see him ? 
 A. Yes ; I think it must have been in the neighbor- ' 
 hood of ten o'clock. Q. Where did you find him ? 
 A. Up stairs, in the front room ; when I went ,iri at 
 the door I was in darkness ; I did not know whether 
 he was up stairs or down stairs ; I rapped at the door, 
 and he sung out to come up stairs, and I went up 
 stairs; I did not know where he was, and I asked, 
 " Are you alone, Mr. Coates ?" says he, " Yes, come 
 right in here ;" I went in and had a talk with him for 
 about twenty-five minutes, and thgn went home and 
 went to bed. 
 
 Q. How did he seem while you were there % A. 
 He said he was sick'; he told me he had had the doc- 
 tors ; that he had had Dr. Wilkinson before that, and 
 he did not think he waspaying much attention to his 
 case, and he had quit him and got Dr. Lund. 
 
 Q. What did he complain of? A. He complained, 
 I think, of his bowels ; I did not think he was a very 
 sick man ; I thought he was more nervous and fidgety " 
 than anything else. > 
 
 Q. When o^id you see him next ? A. About four 
 o'clock in the morning ; I said, when I saw the state 
 he was in, " Why didn't you call me sooner ? the man 
 is dying, send for a doctor immediately," and somer 
 body said, " Dr. Wilkinson ;" I went out and down 
 the plank road, when it jumped into my head, that he 
 
120 doctor lund's trial. 
 
 told me the night before that he had quit Wilkinson 
 and had got Dr. Lund; I went back, and on my way 
 back I met James Kelly, and he told me to get Wil- 
 kinson, so I went for Wilkinson and roused him. Q. 
 Where did you find him ? A. I think he was in bed. 
 
 Q. How did Mr. Coates appear when you went in 
 first 'i A. He appeared to me to be a dying man. Q. 
 What color was his face ? A. It was a bluish color. 
 Q. How was he breathing ? A. He was breathing 
 pretty hard. Q. What time did lie die ? A.I think 
 it was a little after twelve. 
 
 Q. Did you see Dr. Lund there ? A. I saw him 
 down stairs on the stoop. Q. What time? A. Well, 
 it was after these doctors had been there, for I saw 
 him then talking with Lizzie Coates. Q. Did you 
 hear what he said ? A. I heard him ask her what 
 became of the rest of the powders ; she said they were 
 up stairs, and that he wished to get them to preserve 
 them, or for something of that kind ; I passed on and 
 went up stairs, and she came directly up after me. 
 
 By the Court : "State precisely what he did say ? A. 
 That is, as near as I can recollect, that he wished to 
 preserve them. 
 
 By the Court : State again all that he said % A. 
 She asked Dr. Wilkinson what he had done with the 
 powders ; he said, " Who wants them ?" she said 
 Dr. Lund wanted to preserve them ; he said, " We 
 toill save him the troiMe, we will do it for him." 
 
 Q. Where did Dr. Lund go after he said this at the 
 door? A. I don't know, sir. Q. Did you see him 
 up 'stairs before you saw him down stairs ? A. No, 
 sir. . 
 
 Gross-examination by Mr. Dixon : 
 
 Q. Where were you when Lizzie and* the Doctor 
 were talking on the stoop ? A. I was passing, going 
 out the door. Q. Did you stop ? A. No, sir. 
 
doctor Lund's triau 121 
 
 Q. Did you notice whether Mr. Coates continued to 
 look bluish until J*e died ? A. I cannot say whether 
 he continued in that same state all the time or not ; 
 he was not a good color all the time ; but whether lie 
 was as bad up to his death, I could not swear to it. 
 
 Q. You say he was fidgety ? A. Yes, sir. Q. 
 What do you mean by that ? A. I thought he was 
 kind o' cankered when he hollowed to me to " come 
 right up here ;" he says, " My folks don't think 
 enough of me to stay in the^house with me," and I 
 think he was a little put out at the time. 
 
 Q. How long had you known Mr. Coates ? A. It 
 will be four years next April. 
 
 By the Court: "What was the particular business 
 Mr. Coates had to do ? A. He run a dummy engine 
 on the Cunard dock. 
 
 By the Court: That is hoisting? A. Yes, a hoist- 
 ing apparatus; he had another man, a foreman, who 
 knew the business as well as he did, and he could, 
 trust him with it. 
 
 Mrs. Mart Noonan, 
 
 Examined by Mr. Garretson, testified : 
 
 I live in Jersey City, foot of Madison Avenue. Q. 
 Do you remember the time Mr. Coates died ? A. I 
 heard tell of it. Q. Was your husband sick about 
 that time ? A. Yes, sir. Q, Who attended him '( 
 *A. Dr. Lund. Q. On Tuesday night, near the 
 twentieth of July, or on Tuesday, during the day, 
 did he call to see your husband ? A. I went for 
 him between twelve and one, Tuesday. Q.'Did he 
 come ? A. Yes, sir. Q. What did he prescribe for 
 your husband ? A. Well, I could not say, but he gave 
 me a prescription. Q. What did you do with it ? A. 
 I went to . Mr. Gardner's drug store. Q. What did 
 you get? A. I got a liquid in a bottle for it. Q. 
 Did you see the Doctor again? A. Yes, sir. Q. 
 6 
 
122 
 
 What time? A. As near as I can think, it was be- 
 tween ten and twelve at night. Q. At the time yon 
 got the-first prescription, what else did yon get? A. 
 Nothing else. Q. When he came between ten and 
 twelve at night, what did he do ? A. He gave me 
 the same prescription. Q. What did you do then ? 
 A. I went and got the same bottle renewed. Q. What 
 else did he give you ? A. Nothing else. Q. What 
 did he say when he was at your house between ten 
 and twelve? A. I could not tell you what conver- 
 sation he had with my husband, for I was not in 
 when he came. Q. Did he have any conversation 
 with you ? A. He made some remarks. Q. What 
 were they ? A. Something about my husband being 
 under the influence of liquor at the time. Q. Any- 
 thing else? A. No, sir, not as I remember. Q. 
 When did you see him next ? A. I never had any 
 more conversation with- him ; to my knowledge he 
 was never in the house again. Q. He did not come 
 there again ? A. No, sir, not to my knowledge, nor 
 I did not go after him when he came that night. 
 
 By the Court : You say you went for him the first 
 time? A. Yes, sir. 
 
 By the Court': Did he then go to your house ? A. 
 Yes, in a few minutes afterwards. 
 
 By the Court : He then gave you a prescription ? 
 A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. And then came to your house again between 
 ten and twelve at night ? A. Yes, as near as I can 
 say. 
 
 Cross-exatnmation by Mr. Dixon : 
 
 Q. Did Dr. Lund ever attend in your family before ? 
 A. No, sir. Q. What was the matter with your 
 husband? A. I could not say. Q. He had been 
 drinking ? A. Well, he was not at the time when 
 Dr. Lund left him, but he was afterwards. Q. He 
 
123 
 
 had been drinking some time previous to that ?. A. 
 Yes, sir. Q. Drinking pretty hard ? A. I suppose 
 so ; it is pretty hard to say. Q. What was the matter 
 with him when you went for Dr. Lund on Tuesday ? 
 A. I could not say ; if I knew I would not have to go 
 for a doctor. Q. Don't you think it was because he 
 had been drinking? A. I don't know, sir. Q. Do you 
 ever" drink ? A. I drink tea and coffee sometimes. 
 Q. Ever drink liquor ? A. No, sir. Q.. Never 
 drink? A. "Well, if I need it I suppose. Q. Do you 
 need it often? A. No, sir, if I did I suppose I 
 would. 
 
 By the Court : The question is whether you do 
 drink ? A. No, sir, I don't. 
 
 Q. Have you children ? A. No, sir. Q. How long 
 have, you been married ? A. Thirteen years. Q. 
 Ever had children? A- No, sir. Q. "What is your 
 husband's business ? A. Carting. Q. He drank after 
 Dr. Lund was there with the medicine ? A. Oh,.yes. 
 Q. You did not go for him when he came on Tuesday 
 night ? A. No, sir, I did not. Q. Did you send for 
 him ? A. No, sir. Q. "Where were you when he 
 came? A. I was away for some water. Q. Try and 
 recollect whether you saw him in your house that 
 evening, or whether it was not by the gate you saw 
 him ? A. I saw him in both places ; the conversation 
 that Dr. Lund and I had, was at our gate, in regard 
 to drinking. Q. Had you taken anything to drink 
 that day? A. No, sir. Q. When, did ^your husband 
 commence to drink ? A. Not -till after the Doctor 
 was with him. ■ Q. At noon ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Was 
 he pretty bad at night when the Doctor came ? A. 
 Well, he was. Q. Pretty wild? A. Yes, sir. Q. 
 Do 'you know when last he drank before the Doctor 
 came ? A. No, sir, I could not say. * Q. Had he been 
 out ? A. No, -sir. Q. Wha't he had taken, he had 
 taken in the house? A. Yes, sir. Q. When the 
 
124 doctor ltjnd's tkial. 
 
 Doctor came, was there any liquor in the house ? A. 
 Yes, sir ; but he did not have more at the time. Q. 
 Do you recollect how long before the Doctor came in 
 ■ that night, that he had had liquor '( A. I could not 
 say ; I judge he was taking it pretty often. 
 
 By the Court : How long before ? A.I could notsay. 
 
 By the Court : More than four hours, or less ? A. 
 It was less than four. 
 
 Q. Before the Doctor came in ? A. Yes, sir. 
 
 By the Court: He was drinking all along you say ? 
 A. Yes, sir, drinking all along that afternoon. 
 
 Q. Where had the liquor been procured? A. 
 Jersey City, I believe. Q. What was your husband's 
 name? A. Michael. 
 
 By the Court : When the Doctor was there the second 
 time, did he say anything to you about your having 
 been there for him that night ?" A. I forget, indeed. 
 
 By the Court : Just recollect., it ? A. I could not 
 say, indeed ; I suppose he, made a mistake in coming, 
 for I did not see him, or go after him. , ' 
 
 By the Court : Was anything said about your 
 having been there after him that night ? A. Not to 
 my recollection. 
 
 By the Court : Either to you or to your husband ? 
 A. I don't know, sir ; I don't remember if he said 
 anything to me about it. 
 
 Q. Where is your husband ? A. The dear only 
 knows ; I don't know where he is now. Q. Is ha 
 about here? A. He may be around someplace. Q. 
 He was home to breakfast this morning? A. Yes, 
 sir ; I could not exactly tell where he is now. Q. He 
 is a little uncertain I suppose? A. Sometimes. Q. 
 Is your husband a large man ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Over" 
 six feet is'nt he? A.Weil, I don't know the length 
 of him, I never measured him. 
 
 The State heke rested. 
 
DOCTOR LUND'S TRIAL, 125 
 
 Col. Vm. E. Sogers opened the ease on the part of 
 the defense, by stating a few facts he hoped to prove. 
 The defendant occupied to himself the doubly d«ar 
 position of client and of valued friend ; the jury had per- 
 haps gathered, from the line of cross-examination pur- 
 sued, an idea of the course which the defense were go- 
 ing to take ; he claimed that the present trial 'was, in 
 reality, a prosecution on the part of jealous rivals, a 
 conspiracy to injure the defendant's reputation ; he 
 had little doubt in his own mind, but that a motion 
 made here to take the case from the jury would pre- 
 vail; his client, however, wished more than a mere 
 acquittal; he wished to show his friends and the 
 public all the facts, from the very first day when he 
 was summoned to the bedside of a dying man, and 
 found there his bitterest enemies, being met on their 
 part with cold looks and averted faces ; he desired to 
 show how the same evidences of malignity and hatred 
 followed him to the Coroner's Inquest ; by some leger- 
 demain, not yet understood, one of his most important 
 witnesses was not allowed to testify; the one-sided 
 medical testimony, with no opportunity of eliciting 
 truth or shaking falsehood by cross-examination, was 
 all so strong that, the only result was a verdict of 
 guilty ; here, at length, before an able and impartial 
 judge and an intelligent jury, he hoped for justice, aiyl 
 expected to prove that John D. Coates did not die 
 from an over dose of morphine. 
 
 Dr. Joseph Palmer, 
 
 Examined by Col. Eogers, testified : 
 
 I live in Bergen, and have been an allopathic phy- 
 sician thirty-five years ; I am practicing now, although 
 I was not during the Inquest ; I saw Mr. Coates about 
 nine o'clock the morning of his death ; there were no 
 physicians with him at that time; he was sitting in a 
 rocking-chair, his face flushed, warm and moist skin, 
 
126 .doctor lund's trial. 
 
 nnd a slow, full, regular pulse, being perhaps sixty- 
 .five beats to the minute ; his mouth and tongue were 
 moist, the latter having a slight fur ; nothing was 
 being done for him at that time ; Dr Lewis and my- 
 self then went round to where Dr. Bock lived, and 
 asked him where the doctors were ; he said they had 
 gone home, but would be back at about ten o'elock-; 
 we then went back to Mr. Coates ; the physicians got 
 there about half-past ten o'clock ; I think I asked them 
 if they had given stimulants ; they said they had not, 
 because he could not swallow ; the question was then 
 asked, if in that case, they could not be injected into 
 the bowels ; I think they then sent for some whiskey ; 
 I remained there until about one o'clock, but saw 
 nothing done for Mr. Coates. 
 
 J next saw him at the post-mortem ; the brain was 
 congested, and one of the lateral ventricles contained 
 bloody serum, there being as much or more blood as 
 serum ; the lateral ventricles are connected ; the brain 
 was not sliced very carefully, not enough to determine 
 with absolute certainty that there was no effusion ; 
 the lungs were much congested and very adherent to 
 the walls of the chest ; the crepitation of the Lungs 
 was not so distinct as in health ; the liver was much 
 enlarged, and the gall bladder filled with a dirty, yel- 
 lowish, milky fluid ; the cystic duct was completely 
 closed up ; an attempt was made to find an opening 
 with a small probe, but it did not.sucGeed, and the duct 
 being opened with the knife was found entirely closed ; 
 the effect -of the adhesion of the lungs would be the 
 same in effect as tying down a blacksmith's bellows ; 
 it would prevent the admission of as much air as in 
 health, and so the blood would not get all the oxygen 
 it needs ; the carbonic acid in the bipod also not es- 
 caping entirely, would tend to poison the blood, retard 
 the circulation and so cause congestion ; all these 
 causes working together, would obstruct the return of 
 
127 
 
 blood from the head, the congestion would increase 
 and apoplexy would be the result ; I don't know how 
 the bloody serum could be found in the brain, except 
 from the rftpture of some small vessel ; that would 
 cause apoplexy and death ; there can be apoplexy and 
 after death no trace whatever of it be found, so it 
 does not necessarily mean an effusion of blood in the 
 brain ; the pus in the gall bladder could be absorbed;, 
 and of course would have a material effect upon the 
 blood ; it would poison the blood, and not going to 
 the extent of causing absolute pysemia would still be- 
 numb the brain, paralyze the heart, retard the circu- 
 lation, cause congestion, apoplexy and death; the 
 serum of pus is as poisonous as the pus itself, and the 
 serum is the part that would be likely to be absorbed ; 
 the absorption of the pus can cause a great many 
 things : peritonitis, pleurisy, congestion of the brain, 
 multiple abscesses, erysipelas and boils ; I have seen 
 cases of narcotic poisoning ; in one case a man took as 
 much as twelve grains of opium; I found him with 
 cold extremities, pulse feeble and quick, and all the 
 appearances of a dying man ; he was entirely insen- 
 sible and could not be aroused; I gave him some 
 brandy, of the kind called cider brandy ; I put some 
 on his tongue, and although he could not swallow, 
 still in a few moments it went down his throat of itself; 
 it was entirely involuntary on his part ; he recovered. 
 Another case, a woman was poisoned by lobelia, 
 and I found her in a state of coma, pulseless and no 
 sign of beating in the heart ; I gave her brandy and 
 she finally recovered ; in other cases I applied the 
 same remedies with the same results ; the difference 
 between the symptoms of apoplexy and narcotic poi- 
 soning, are a smaller and more rapid pulse in the latter 
 than in the former, and also a drier skin ; I should 
 also expect in poisoning by opiates a dry mouth and 
 tongue ; it was moist in Mr. Ooates ; my theory of the 
 
128 doctor ltjnd's trial. 
 
 cause of death in Lis case was this, the lungs did not 
 properly oxygenate the blood, and absorption of some 
 of the serum of the pus contained in the gall bladder 
 still more poisoned the blood ; the result "was a conges- 
 tion of the brain, gradually increasing, all the vital 
 forces being clogged by the stagnating blood, until 
 death came; I should not under ordinary circum- 
 stances, as in a strong man accustomed to the use of 
 tobacco and suffering severe pain, consider a grain of 
 morphine as a dangerous dose. 
 
 I have given myself four large teaspoonsful of lauda- 
 num in an hour, a teaspoonful'at a dose; a teaspoon - 
 ful of laudanum contains one hundred and twenty 
 drops, equal to almost five grains of opium or one 
 grain of morphine ; it had very happy effects ; I have 
 always been in the habit of giving my own medicines, 
 and to measure them out by the eye, and could do it 
 with the utmost accuracy ; I do not think that in put- 
 ting up two powders of morphine, side by side, from 
 one bottle, that they would vary one-sixteenth in size ; 
 I have given morphine in two-third grain doses, once 
 in four hours, for three days at a time ; I had become 
 so accustomed to measuring it ont by the eye, that I 
 could shake it out in papers, and then equalize the 
 powders by the eye, so that there would be no differ- 
 ence in their weight ; if a person had taken a grain of 
 morphine and gone to sleep, slept for awhile, and 
 then woke up of his own accord, asked for a drink and 
 talked intelligently, I should not expect ha would go 
 to sleep again from the morphine, but should consider 
 that its effect as a narcotic had ceased ; if after that, 
 the person should go into a coma, T should look for 
 some other cause of the coma ; I am the father-in- 
 law of Dr. Lund, and attended the post-mortem as a 
 friend of Dr. Lund's, to see that he met with fair 
 treatment. 
 
DOCTOR LTHSTD's TRIAL. 129 
 
 Gross-exammed by Mr. Garretson : 
 
 I resumed practice four or five weeks ago, by myself 
 and not in connection with Dr. Lund ; I was living 
 with Dr. Lund at the time of Mr. Coates' death ; I 
 commenced practice with my father, in Ashford, 
 Conn., having graduated in medicine at New Haven ; ■ 
 I then practiced three and a half years in Eastford 
 and twenty-nine and a half years in Canterbury, 
 Gonn. ; I first h%ard of the trouble by hearing it talked 
 over either by Dr. Lund or Dr. Lewis at the house ; it 
 was about eight o'clock, but I am not sure about the 
 .exact time ; it was about nine o'clock when we went 
 to Mr. Coates', but I am not sure what makes me 
 know the exact time, whether I looked at my watch 
 or the clock in 1 the house ; Dr. Lewis went with me to 
 the house ; I do not think that I knew the house or 
 where to go, but think Dr. Lewis knew the way ; I 
 don't know how far Mr. Coates' house was from Dr. 
 Lund's, but if I must guess the distance, should say a 
 thousand feet; I don't remember who were in the 
 room, but there were some members of the family 
 there ; Mr. "Coates' breathing was stertorous, and the 
 pupils of his eyes were dilated ; I could not say how 
 much dilated they were, or their size, for I cannot 
 think of anything to compare them to. 
 
 Mr. Dixon here handed the witness a piece of paper 
 and pencil, suggesting that he should show the size of 
 the pupils by a diagram. He did so, representing by 
 two circles the natural pupil, and the pupil dilated as 
 seen in Mr. Coates' eye. 
 
 I cannot give an estimate of the size of the pupil, 
 although I do consider myself expert in measuring 
 quantities by the eye ; but in medicine it is the den- 
 sity we look' at; the difference in the pupils depends, 
 naturally, upon the amount of light or shade in a 
 room ; the opening of the eye suddenly, in Mr. Coates' 
 case, might have an effect upon the size of the pupil. 
 
130 DOCTOR LOTTOS TRIAL. 
 
 but the effect would be to make it smaller, if there 
 was any effect; but as -the optic nerve seemed para- 
 lyzed, the light would not probably have any effect 
 upon it ; I did not* try and see whether Mr. Ooates 
 could swallow or not, but believe he could, from what 
 •I have seen in my own practice; if we put a liquid in 
 the mouth of a person on his back, it is very apt to 
 run down his throat ; I don't know that his pulse did 
 differ very materially from the pulse 'of a healthy per- 
 son ; I did not then form any opinion as to the cause 
 of his condition, although he resembled very much one 
 or two cases of persons I had seen struck by apoplexy ; 
 iny treatment in cases of apoplexy used to be bleeding, 
 or giving purgatives to remove the congestion of the 
 brain, but I never gave stimulants in apoplexy; I 
 recommended stimulants, not from any impression I had 
 received from the appearance of the man, but if they 
 were treating him with the honest supposition that he 
 was poisoned by morphine, I wanted to know why one 
 of the best remedial agents was not employed ; nor 
 had I then fully made up my mind what the trouble 
 was, so that I would not say that I 'was advis- 
 ing a remedy for one trouble when I thought he 
 had another ; I did not make my mind up until 
 after the post-mortem examination ; if I had then 
 not seen him at all before, and knew nothing more 
 about the case than what I then saw, I should not 
 have thought brandy a proper remedy, because I 
 should have considered the brain trouble of the kind 
 that would have contra-indicated it ; I had heard 
 that morphine had been given ; I don't think I even 
 recommended brandy to be given, but asked if it 
 had been given, as it is such a good remedy in opium 
 poisoning ; I did not suggest either bleeding or' the 
 use of purgatives ; I do not think I recommended 
 anything, but only asked if certain things had been 
 tried; I don't know, however, as the remedy for 
 
doctor Lund's trial. 131 
 
 apoplexy occurred to me at all at that time, nor 'do 
 I say that I then even thought - he was suffering 
 from apoplexy ; I think now that I went from Mr. 
 Ooates', with Dr. Lewis, over to Dr. Bock's, and 
 with them back to Mr. Coates' again, but whatever 
 I testified to before the Coroner is more likely to be 
 correct, as being nearer the time- of the occurrences ; 
 so probably, as I testified then that I went from Dr. 
 Bock's, home to Dr. Lund's, and then from Dr. Lund's 
 to Mr. Ooates' again, that is probably the correct 
 statement of the case ; what I swore to before the 
 Coroner was more probably correct, than my recollec- 
 tion now; Dr. Bock lived near Mr. Coates' and about 
 the same distance from Dr. Lund's' house ; when we 
 got there the second time, there were no doctors there ; 
 they came about half past ten o'clock ; I don't remem- 
 ber whether anything was said in regard to what 
 remedies were used ; the galvanic battery was sent for 
 soon -after the doctors' return ; Mr. Coates had been 
 removed into an adjoining room ; I remained by my- 
 self in the front room, and did not go with the other 
 doctors into the other room ; as I testified before the 
 Coroner that it was about one o'clock when I left, 
 that is probably right ; so I was there two and a half 
 hours, doing nothing, and did not see Mr. Coates after 
 he was removed into the other room ; Dr. Lund and 
 Dr. Lewis went away after the other doctors came ; 
 they had not done anything I know of for Mr. Coates. 
 I do not know when I examined the pupil, whether 
 belladonna had been given or not, but it is my im- 
 pression that it had been. The effect of belladonna is 
 to dilate the pupil, and opium to contract it. In apo- 
 plexy the pupil may be either contracted or dilated. 
 The. condition of the pupil, therefore, is no certain 
 test? The symptoms of opium poisoning are drowsi- 
 ness, stupor,' coma, death ; also dryness of skin and 
 mouth. It also lowers the volume of the pulse. 
 
132 DOCTOR LTTNd's TElALi 
 
 There iriight be in the first })laee a flush lipoh the 
 skin, but when coma comes on, we, then have pale- 
 ness. The breathing would be stertorous, and lessened 
 in number, say about twelve to a minute. The 
 symptoms of apoplexy are stertorous breathing, a dark 
 flush in skin, and a depressed state of the system. I 
 would not here expect a small quick pulse. The 
 difference between the symptoms of morphine poison- 
 ing and apoplexy, are the absence of that purplish 
 hue in the former, that we have in the latter ; also in 
 the latter we have a tnoister skin. The pupil in mor- 
 phine poisoning is more generally contracted, and in 
 apoplexy more generally dilated." Apoplexy, speak- 
 ing generally, is congestion of the brain, with or 
 without effusion of the blood, or serum, or both. 
 There have even been cases of apoplexy, where there 
 was no congestion visible, nothing to show the cause 
 .of death ; I can imagine a case where from some 
 cause there may be an impression upon, or de- 
 pression of the brain, which would cause apoplexy. 
 It might perhaps be, that a sudden rush of blood to 
 the head would prove fatal. I think I remember a 
 case where a man of apopletic habits, 'on sudden 
 exertion, or bending over, immediately died. I think 
 there was a post-mortem, but am not sure. Have not 
 a very clear idea where the serum in serous apoplexy 
 comes from ; cannot tell how the,serum gets separated 
 from the blood. Morphine affects the system through 
 the blood. Cannot name the particular arteries 
 which supply blood to .the brain, as I have of late 
 years forgotten much of the minutse of anatomy. Am 
 not_ very .familiar with belladonna, only I know it is 
 very poisonous, and dilates the pupii. Think the 
 blood at the post-mortem was fluid, but not particu- 
 larly well marked. The left ventricle of the brain- 
 contained bloody serum, and I think that there was- 
 more blood than serum. The liver was enlarged, but. 
 
.bocTOE ltjnd's trial. 13& 
 
 saw no particular disease about it. Am not positive 
 whether the gall bladder was much enlarged or not, 
 and forget what I testified before the Coroner's Jury 
 on this point. The effect of the adhesions upon the 
 lungs would be an indirect one. They would pre- 
 vent the lungs from expanding properly, taking in the 
 usual amount of air, and, therefore, the blood would 
 not receive as much oxygen as it ought to, and the 
 venous blood would not be entirely changed to 
 arterial. Tubercles also prevent the whole amount of 
 air from being inhaled. I think that the,poisonous 
 part of pus is the serum. Pyaemia is a general name 
 for poisoning by pus. I know that we can have boils 
 from it, as I once accidentally cut myself at a post- 
 mortem, and had after it about twenty-five boils upon 
 the arm of the hand that was cut. If I had ten grains 
 of morphine in a bottle, I think I could measure out 
 one grain very accurately. I never gave one grain of 
 morphine itself, at a dose ; think it would be safe in 
 some cases, and dangerous in others. If I had a 
 severe case "of cholera-morbus, should not hesitate to 
 give one grain at a dose, and not weigh it out. In 
 the case I alluded to where I gave • the laudanum, if 
 the pain had come on again, I should not have hesi- 
 tated to have sent one grain of morphine, and not 
 fone myself. If I had not seen the man before, and 
 new nothing of his constitution, I should not of 
 course do so. One visit, however, would be enough 
 to teach me his constitution, and what he would bear. 
 If he had congestion of the lungs, it would make the 
 risk' greater. Do not remember where I saw Dr. 
 Lund the morning Mr. Ooates died. 
 
 He-direct examination by Mr. Dixon : 
 
 Morphine is a proper prescription, for a man with 
 delirium tremens, even in two grain doses. I think 
 Dr. Lund was sick at that time. I gave him both 
 advice and medicine. 
 
134 Doctor lund's trial. 
 
 Mr. Garretson : Was he attending to his practice 
 then? A. Yes, sir. 
 
 By the Court : Do you remember anything about 
 this particular night ? A. I heard the bell, and think 
 I called the colored boy myself, as his room was next 
 to mine, to go down to the door. Q. "Where does the 
 Doctor keep his medicines ? A. In the room occupied 
 by Dr. Lewis. Q. Was Dr. Lewis at home that night ? 
 A. I think he was. 
 
 Dr. J. J. Craven was here called, but did not re- 
 spond. 
 
 Col. Rogers complained to the Court of the diffi- 
 culty experienced by the defense in procuring the 
 presence of physicians of the old school, for the pur- 
 pose of getting their testimony. He, then read the 
 following affidavit : 
 
 State of New Jersey, ) 
 
 Hudson County. [ 
 
 Wm. H. Barrett, being duly sworn, on his oath 
 saith, that on this 12th day of December, 1870, about 
 the hour of 9:30, in the forenoon, at Jersey City, in 
 said County, he served a copy of the within subpoena 
 on Dr. J. J. Craven, personally, by handing the said 
 copy to the said Craven, and leaving the same with 
 him, at the same time showing him the within 
 original, and at the same time handing to the said 
 Craven the witness fee of fifty cents. That the said 
 Craven remarked at the time deponent served upon 
 him the said subpoena, that he should not come. 
 
 Wm. H. Barrett. 
 
 Sworn to before me this 12th 
 day of December, 1870. 
 
 Albert S. Cloke. 
 
 Col. Rogers then asked for an execution against 
 Dr. Craven, to compel his attendance. 
 
135 
 
 By the Court : In this case, it is proper to use com- 
 pulsory force to oblige the witness to come ; it shall, 
 therefore, be done. 
 
 Dr. James "W. Elliot, 
 
 Examined by Mr. Dixon, testified : 
 
 I am an allopathic physician of twenty-two years 
 practice ; I do not know Dr. Lund. My practice has 
 been in New York. I have followed this case as it 
 came out. Morphine is generally used to allay nervous 
 irritability, inflammation, pain, and to cause sleep. 
 
 Q. Doctor, if you had a man with severe pain, and 
 you should give him one-half or one grain of morphine, 
 and he should become quieted, sleep an hour or so, 
 and then wake up, be rational, converse about his 
 business, remain awake twenty or thirty minutes, and 
 take a drink of tea, would you then consider there 
 was any danger from the morphine? A. Certainly 
 not. 
 
 Witness continued : If the stomach were empty 
 when it was taken, in ten or fifteen minutes nineteen 
 twentieths of it would be absorbed ; if its effects were 
 to he fatal it would ie continuous in its action • the 
 sleep that supervened would be unending, unless some 
 strong means were used; you could then get some signs 
 of life, but not an intelligible state, so as to carry on 
 a conversation / I frequently have given a grain ; I 
 have even known a two years old child to.take three and 
 a half grains of morphine by mistake, and yet live ; 
 mypractice in giving large doses is to give one grain 
 first, and then repeat one-half grain doses, at intervals 
 of every half hour as long as was necessary ; I never 
 staid myself to give it or see it given ; I have known 
 one ounce doses of laudanum (960 drops) to have been 
 frequently used for suicidal purposes, but never suc- 
 cessfully when remedies were afterwards used ; I re- 
 member a case where one-half an ounce of laudanum 
 
136 doctor lttnd'b trial. 
 
 was taken to commit suicide, and I recommended that 
 it be allowed to work, fearing no danger, in order to 
 cure the person of his suicidal tendency ; there are 
 full six grains of morphine in one ounce of laudanum ; 
 in actual practice there is really seven grains equiva- 
 lent ; this is not according to the books, but they ex- 
 aggerate the strength of morphine very much ; from 
 one-half to one grain of morphine is an ordinary dose 
 for a man in pain ; for a strong, robust, laboring man 
 threatened with, delirium tremens, I should give from 
 two to three grains at a time ; in some cases would 
 have to repeat the dose-; never gave less than ten 
 drops, or one-half of a grain, of Magendie's Solution at 
 a time for the relief of pain. 
 
 Mr. Dixon : If after the train of symptoms I have 
 already given to you, the man should again go to sleep, 
 become comatose, have livid skin, profuse perspira- 
 tion, cold surface, contracted pupils, inability to swal- 
 low, with a slow and full pulse, and then have eight 
 grains of belladonna injected into his system, and die 
 in nine, hours, then after death be kept upon ice, 
 and the post-mortem should show congestion of the 
 body, bloody serum in one of the ventricles of the 
 brain, small lungs bound down by adhesions, enlarged 
 liver, distended gall bladder, filled with decomposed 
 pus, closure of cystic duct, striatums of colon, containing 
 impacted faecal matter, would you think he died from 
 morphine or from some other cause ? A. From some 
 other cause undoubtedly. Q. What other cause ? A. 
 Some poisoning of the blood, perhaps from absorbed 
 pus ; that would cause apoplexy. A. Do the symp- 
 toms indicate apoplexy ? A. No, sir, the symptoms 
 before death do not, except the collapsed condition of 
 apoplexy; but from the post-mortem appearances 
 should say decidedly he died from apoplexy / I have 
 seen contraction of the pupil frequently in apoplexy, 
 especially in simple apoplexy ; there is no general 
 
■I 
 DOOTOE LUND'S TRIAL. 137 
 
 rule about it ; in the later stages of morphine poison- 
 ing, or apoplexy, there is very little difference in the 
 symptoms of ^either ; in the early stages should have 
 a fuller and more regular pulse, and a mora congested 
 condition of -the skin in apoplexy ; the bloody serum 
 found in the ventricle of the brain was the main cause 
 of death in this case ; in narcotic poisoning the post- 
 mortem congestion is not well mailed as it was here, 
 but it is in apoplexy; in pyaemia the fragility of the liver 
 is not even common ; I have seen a great many cases 
 where it was absent ; I do not consider belladonna an 
 antidote to morphine ; it relieves the symptoms, as in 
 dilating the pupil of the eye, but it does not have any 
 influence over the case ; it would be very injurious' in 
 apoplexy. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Garretson : 
 
 I never saw Mr. Opates ; I have a general practice, 
 and am now in practice ; morphine affects the system 
 by controlling muscular contractility; Dover's powders 
 contain opium, ipecacuanha and sulphate of potash ; I 
 •have given sixty grains of it at a dose, equal to six 
 grains of opium, equal to one and a half grains of mor- 
 phine, as proved from actual practice and not from the 
 books ; in pain I do not give over one grain of mor- 
 phine, but in delirium tremens give more ; books in 
 many cases are wrong ; in severe pain I should give 
 one grain first, and then repeat one-half grain every 
 half hour, as long as the pain lasted ; if I repeated 
 such a dose every fifteen minutes, I should remain 
 with the patient, but should not do so if 1 did not re- 
 peat it any^oftener than once every half hour ; if I had 
 seen the patient a short time before, I should not hesi- 
 tate, if it was indicated, to send one grain of morphme 
 without seeing the patient, if I gathered from the 
 messenger his present condition ; neither should I 
 hesitate to repeat the dose ; if I knew he was suffering 
 
138 doctor lund's trial. 
 
 from congestion of the lungs, I should not, however, do 
 so ; I have given, though, one-half grain doses in con- 
 gestion of the lungs, for pain accompanying it ; we 
 have to here use more care, as the vital powers are not 
 as strong as when there is no lung trouble ; this is not, 
 however, because the morphine would tend to produce 
 the congestion, but because it affects the muscles of 
 respiration ; apoplexy is congestion, with or without 
 an effusion in the organ ; congestion is the filling of 
 the vessels with a liquid, and its remaining there ; apo- 
 plexy may be a result of the condition of the blood ; 
 if there was a tendency to apoplexy, morphine might 
 assist that tendency ; morphine can be found in the 
 body after death, even when it has been given in a 
 very small. dose ; if only one-sixteenth of a grain was 
 given this might be true. 
 
 By Mr. Garretson : Suppose you found a man suf- 
 fering from these symptoms : the pupils contracted to 
 the size of a pin's head, surface blue and livid, cold 
 perspiration, stertorous breathing, respiration twelve 
 to a minute, pulse slow and full, what would it indi- 
 cate ? A. Congestion ; the respiration being twelve 
 to a minute, would lead me to believe that it was 
 not narcotic poisoning. 
 
 Witness continued : If I knew that he had taken 
 morphine, should act on the supposition that he was 
 poisoned by morphine, but should not think he was 
 poisoned by one grain-; I consider it impossible for 
 one grain of morphine to kill ; should not think it 
 could, even if the lungs were weak ; should think 
 there Avas more than one grain of morphine, or that 
 some other narcotic had been gvoen ; th.e condition 
 of the lungs would not have much influence upon 
 fife size of the dose. 
 
 Q. Has there been cases where morphine has not 
 acted in fifteen minutes ? A. If we do not have 
 coma in one-half an hour, I do not think we will 
 
D00T0K, LUND'S TRIAL. 139 
 
 have it at all ; I do not think that there are any cases 
 so recorded. 
 
 Mr. Garretson referred^ the witness to Beck's 
 Medical Jurisprudence, second volume,, page 790, 
 where twenty-five grains of morphine were taken, 
 and the appearance of coma delayed. 
 
 Mr. Dixon then turned to the place himself, and 
 remarked, after reading the case quoted, " Yes, Mr. 
 Garretson, hut if you will read a little further in this 
 case you will see that the man recovered. 
 
 Mr. Garretson to witness : How many cases of mor- 
 phine poisoning have you seen ? A. I cannot ex- 
 actly say, but in twenty-two years' practice have seen 
 perhaps from fifty to a hundred ; I think, out of that 
 number, five or ten have been fatal, in all of which I 
 saw a post-mortem ; there was very little congestion 
 present in these cases. 
 
 Q. How many cases of pyaemia have you ever had ? 
 A. It is hard to tell ;. I have seen about twelve fatal 
 eases. 
 
 Q. Has the pus in these cases ever been absorbed 
 from a cavity ? A. Yes, sir ; in several cases ; in one 
 case the pus came from an abscess in the liver, and in 
 another, from the uterus. 
 
 Q. Did you ever know a case where it was absorbed 
 from the gall bladder ? A. No, sir. Q. What is the 
 probability of its coming from that place ? ' A. There 
 is not the slightest doubt but that it could ; the fact 
 of the bloody effusion in the brain is a strong point to 
 show he died from pois&ning of the blood by pus ; if 
 I had not seen the pus in the gall bladder, but had 
 seen the rest of the post-mortem, I should have said 
 he died of pyaemia, or uraemia, from the presence in 
 that place of the bloody serum ; that is my first rea- 
 son why I do not think he died from morphine ; second, 
 the rapidity of the breathing is a strong point against 
 that supposition ; third, the general congestion ; fourth, 
 
140 DOCTOR 
 
 the time of giving the poison and his arousing himself. 
 In pysemia persons may die with coma; nine, out of 
 the twelve I saw, died comatose ; the pain in the head 
 is usually sharp and severe ; we usually look for fra- 
 
 fility of the liver in death from pyaemia, but seldom 
 nd it; I did not find it in one half my cases'; I 
 should not think there could be a question about 
 the man's not homing been poisoned, if he woke up of 
 himself. 
 
 By Mrf Dixon : Doctor, in your practice, have you 
 ever mistaken individuals and gone to the wrong 
 house ? A. Yes, frequently, especially at night. 
 
 Q. If. you had seen two women, both in the common 
 walks of life, thereby resembling each other in dress 
 and manner, for the first time, the previous day, while 
 attending their husbands and paying no attention to 
 the women themselves, and one of them should, come 
 to your house late at night, give no name, street or 
 number, simply say, my husband is worse, come and 
 see him, would it be strange if you should make a mis- 
 take by confounding one with the other ? 
 
 Question objected to, and objection sustained. 
 
 Dr. F. B. Mandeville, 
 
 Examined by Mr. Dixon, testified : 
 
 I am a homoeopathic physician, residing at 940 
 Broad street, Newark ; have known Dr. Lund three 
 years ; I am familiar with the effects of morphine, and 
 have used it in my practice ; the largest dose I ever 
 gave was three grains,. in a Cas,e of sciatica; the pa- 
 tient was a female ; I would not consider one grain 
 as probahly fatal, when a person has pain ; there is 
 never any remission in the sleep if the case is fatal. 
 
 Q. If you had a man with severe pain, and you 
 should give him one-half or one grain of morphine, 
 and he should become quieted, sleep an hour or so, 
 and then wake up, be rational, converse about his 
 
DOCTOR LUND'S TRIAL. 141 
 
 business, remain awake twenty or thirty*minutes, and 
 take a drink of tea, would you then consider that there 
 was any danger from the morphine? A. I should 
 think the effect had gone away. 
 
 Q*. Are you familiar with apoplexy ? A. I am ; 
 there are three kinds— the first and second having a 
 sanguineous or serous effusion, and the third no effu- 
 sion at all ; in all there is a tendency to coma, dryness 
 of the fauces and dilation of the pupils. 
 
 Witness continued : Usual dose of Magendie's So- 
 lution is from five to ten drops, and in severe cases 
 even more. 
 
 A prescription was here shown Dr. Mandeville, 
 which he recognized as one of his own. 
 
 Q. How much of morphine did you give in this 
 case % A. -I gave one and a, half grains at the first 
 dose ; although I call myself a homoeopathist, I give 
 morphine whenever it is indicated ; we have a law 
 governing our school, and with that law the size of 
 the dose has nothing to do. 
 
 Of oss-examination by Mr. Garretson : 
 
 The largest dose I ever gave was three grains ; when 
 I was in a hospital I frequently gave morphine, and 
 sometimes in dilutions ; in delirium tremens, if I gave 
 one grain or one and a half grains of morphine, I 
 should watch my patient. 
 
 George Haslett 
 
 Being examined by Mr. Dixon, testified: 
 
 I live within two hundred feet of Mr. Coates. I 
 knew the deceased, six years before he died. I was in 
 his house the Tuesday night previous to his death. I 
 found Mr. -Coates in a rocking chair. Pie said he 
 was sick, and in reply to my inquiry how he was 
 sick, said he had pain right here'(placing his hands 
 
142 DOCTOR LUND S TEIAL. 
 
 on his stomach). He said he had had Dr. "Wilkinson, 
 but did not like him, as he did not pay much atten- 
 tion to him, and did not seem to know what the 
 trouble was. So he had sent for Dr. Lund, a homoe- 
 opathist. I said, to him, that I did not believe in 
 homoeopathy. He replied that he did, for Dr. Lund 
 came and examined him, and told him where the trouble 
 was. I asked him if his lungs were affected, and he 
 said that perhaps they were. His breath seemed 
 short. I then bade him good night and said, I hope 
 you will be all right in the morning, when he replied, 
 I shall be all right when I am in York Bay Cemetery; 
 I have more the matter with me than the doctors 
 understand. I have known Mr. Ooates to have been 
 complaining before, but. not to be in bed, Last 
 winter he asked me to try and get him a purchaser 
 for his house. It was so far to the city, and he had 
 to work so late in a hot place, and then come up to 
 the hill, that he could not get over a cold he had. I 
 have known him to be taking a cough medicine within 
 six months of his death. He also was taking an egg 
 and gin for some trouble about his urinary organs. 
 He said he heard me speak, but it hurt him to answer. 
 The next morning when I went in, I found Drs. 
 Wilkinson, Bock and Forman there. I asked them 
 what Mr. Coates had taken, and they said some 
 powders, given by a homoeopathist. I asked them if 
 it was not necessary for Dr. Lund to be there. Dr. 
 Wilkinson said he was just thinking of it. I said I 
 would go for him, and no one objecting I did so. Dr. 
 Lund arrived after my return in about twenty- 
 minutes, at about a quarter to seven. "When • Dr. 
 Lund was entering the yard from the street through 
 the gate^ Dr. Wilkinson saw him through the win- 
 dow, and said, here comes Dr. Lund now, let us 
 not recognize him as a doctor. (Appendix z.) Dr. 
 Lund then came in, took off his hat, and saluted them 
 
doctor ltjnd's trial. 143 
 
 by saying good morning, doctors. Tfeey made no 
 answer to him, neither did they look him in the face. 
 Dr. Lund sat down beside me on a trunk for a few 
 minutes, and then rose and left the room. The other 
 doctors never spoke during the whole of that time. 
 
 Cross-examination : 
 
 Mr. Coates worked on the Cunard Dock. Saw 
 him next after Tuesday night, at six o'clock the next 
 morning. I am sure about the time, as none of the 
 doctors had a watch," and so borrowed mine. After I 
 was called, I jumped my fence, and went right to his 
 room. No one was there when I went in, but the 
 doctors soon came in. They wanted to feel his pulse, 
 and so borrowed my watch to-do it. T did not hear 
 Dr. Wilkinson suggest to any one to go for Dr. Lund. 
 He lived three blocks distant. I saw Dr. Palmer at 
 the house, and asked him to tell Dr. Lund that Mr. 
 Coates wanted him. I did not then see Dr. Lund, 
 not until he came into the sick room. When he came 
 in, Dr. Wilkinson was sitting about the middle of the 
 room, and the other two doctors on the other side ot 
 Mr. Coates. I had not at any time seen them do 
 anything for Mr. Coates. The doctors did not look 
 'at Dr. Lund while he was in the room, nor speak to 
 him even to return his salutation ; they all hung their 
 heads and did not look up until he left. Dr. Lund did 
 not feel of Mr. Coates' pulse. When Dr. Wilkinson 
 made his remark about Dr. Lund, he could see him 
 out of the window plainly. I did not see Dr. Lund 
 again that day. I believe that I did tell Mr. Welch 
 about a week or two afterwards, that I did not tell 
 Dr. Lund that Mr. Coates wanted him, and wondered 
 how he knew where to come ; but I am sure that I 
 told the old gentleman, who came to the door, that 
 Mr. Coates wanted Dr. Lund. 
 
144 DOCTOR LUND'S TRIAL, 
 
 • Dr. J. J. Craven, 
 Having been persuaded to appear as a witness, and 
 being examined by Col. Kogers, testified : 
 
 I am a physician of the old school. Was a Brigade 
 Surgeon in the U. S. Army. In the year '63-64, 
 was Medical Purveyor to the Army of the South. 
 Have been in practice sixteen years. Q. Doctor, 
 while you was at Fortress Monroe, did you have a 
 case of morphine poisoning ? A. No, sir. Q. Case of 
 belladonna poisoning ? " A. No, sir. Q. Did you 
 ever have a case of belladonna poisoning ? A. Not 
 at Fortress Monroe. Q. Where then, Doctor ; don't 
 evade the question? A. At Hilton Head. (Dr. 
 Craven here appealed to the Court, that as this was a 
 case of belladonna poisoning, and not morphine, it 
 would not be necessary for him to give it, and for 
 certain reasons he would prefer not to do so). 
 
 The Court decided he must give the case, but he 
 need not mention names. 
 
 It was in '63 or '64, that a medical officer visited 
 the South and stayed- with me. One morning not 
 feeling" well, by mistake, he took from his pocket a 
 powder of morphine— three or four grains in amount 
 — ^nd swallowed it, thinking it to be quinine.' I ap- 
 plied the nitric acid test to some that remained in the 
 paper, and found it to be morphine. He refused to 
 take anything then, but filled a pill-box with bella- 
 donna, and put it in his pocket. After breakfast we 
 sailed for Pulaski, sixty miles distant. He took at 
 short intervals doses of the belladonna ; as he took so 
 much I cautioned him, saying, I am afraid you are 
 taking too much. Leaving him for a few moments, 
 and returning, I found him insensible, with all the 
 symptoms of poisoning by belladonna, stertorous 
 breathing, and it was only after long exertion that 
 his life was saved, and tlien only after giving him 
 opium to counteract the belladonna. 
 
bocTOE lttnd's trial. 145 
 
 Q.~What is a poisonous dose of belladonna? A. 
 A grain would be a dangerous dose for some people. 
 Q. Is eight grains of belladonna injected after poison- 
 ing by morphine a dangerous' dose ? A If it were in- , 
 jected as often as the syringe could be filled it would 
 be dangerous. Q. Are you sure in the above case the 
 coma was from belladonna and not from morphine ? 
 A. I am, sir. Q. What is the largest dose of mor- 
 phine you ever gave? A. One grain or one and a 
 half grains ; I have given a teaspoonful of Magendie's 
 Solution (two grains). Q. Suppose you gave one grain 
 of morphine to a laboring man, and he slept an hour 
 and a. half, and then woke up & his own accord and 
 conversed intelligently, would you think that the 
 effects of morphine had gone ? A. I should, sir, feel 
 at ease concerning him ; I should not then expect him 
 to gc-.into a coma. • 
 
 Cross-examination : 
 
 I should only give a grain when a lesser dose had 
 failed, and not, then without seeing the patient; if I 
 had given the morphine, and afterwards found symp- 
 toms of morphine poisoning, I should think it was 
 morphine ; but if he had gone to sleep/'and woke up as 
 he did, I should want strong evidence to convince" me ; 
 I believe that belladonna is an antidote to morphine, 
 most certainly ; if I had been called to a patient with 
 his symptoms, I should have looked in several direc- 
 tions for the cause ; I should look for apoplexy first ; 
 seeing the contracted pupil would make me look for 
 drugs ; if I found he had taken large doses of mor- 
 phine, should then believe he was poisoned by mor- 
 phine ; I shoiild, however, inquire into the quantity, 
 time of giving it, and the history of the case ; if after 
 the post-mortem I should find general congestion, 
 that would not necessarily name a drug, even with my 
 previous knowledge ; it would only indicate a sudden 
 
 7 
 
146 
 
 and violent death without haemorrhage ; if I found 
 nothing but congestion it would be difficult to say 
 what he died of; adhesions of the lungs would not 
 necessarily tend to apoplexy, but would be injurious , 
 • in subsequent lung diseases ; morphine causes cold 
 perspiration. 
 
 By the Court : In the case you have given us, where 
 your friend had taken the morphine and then the 
 belladonna, if he had died what would he have died 
 of? A. Of poisoning by belladonna. 
 
 Witness continued: Ihe effect of morphine upon 
 the mouth is to cause the lower jaw to fall ; the pupil 
 of the eye may be contracted in apoplexy. 
 
 Michael Noonan, 
 
 Examined by Mr. Dixon, testified : 
 
 Although subpoenaed yesterday, I could not come, as 
 I was sick and under the care of Dr. Lewis ; know Dr. 
 Lund; I live in Jersey City, Plank Road; Dr. Lund 
 visited me the night Mr. Coates was sick, some time 
 about ten or eleven o'clock ; did not send for him 
 then ; the Doctor asked me what the trouble was, and 
 I told him it acted to me like the shaking ague ; I had 
 been drinking, and bad rum too ; I am thirty-seven 
 years, old, and am. a cartman ; I weigh one hundred 
 and eighty-four pounds, and am six feet one inch in 
 height ; do not remember whether the Doctor asked 
 me why I had sent for him. 
 
 De. Wm. Henby Lewis, 
 
 Examined by Mr. Dixon, testified : 
 
 I am a homosopathic physician of nine years practice, 
 and was in partnership, in July last, with Dr. Lund ; 
 remember the night of the 19th of July perfectly] 
 that day I called with Dr. Lund upon ISToonan, and 
 told him he had a bad attack of bad rum ; Dr. Lund 
 the same day was called to Mr. Coates ; I only know 
 
doctor lund's trial. 147 
 
 what the matter was from what Dr. Lund told me on 
 his return ; he said " Mr. Coates is suffering from a 
 severe pain in the region of the liver, pain in 
 his head, and short difficult breathing ; I want 
 you to see him to-morrow ; " I suggested nnx vomica 
 and bryonia as good remedies for him, and he told 
 me afterwards that he had put them up and sent 
 them ; I don't know when Dr. Lund retired that 
 night ; I tame in about half-past ten, and met him 
 within twenty feet of his gate, coming home, as he 
 said, from Mr. ISToonan; he went up stairs into his 
 chamber, and I suppose he went to bed ; about midnight 
 he came into my room — I slept in the office — and said 
 Noonan was making trouble ; that he was nervous and 
 drinking freely, and his wife had said he had plenty 
 of liquor in the house ; we had some further conversa- 
 tion, and then decided upon the remedy, which was 
 morphine, in half grain doses ; I took the bottle of 
 morphine out of my vest pocket and shook out three 
 powders, each containing one-half grain, upon the 
 papers ; Dr. Lund folded up the papers, took my direc- 
 tions for giving them and left the room ; the directions 
 were to dissolve one powder in a tablespoonfnl of water, 
 being careful to give the whole, and if no relief came, 
 to repeat it in an hour. 
 
 ' I am certain the powders only weighed one-half a 
 grain ; I had weighed into the bottle eleven grains of 
 morphine ; I had taken two doses of one-half a grain, 
 and then I weighed the contents after the three pow- 
 ders were taken out, and they weighed just nine 
 grains, making one and a half grains for the three 
 powders, or half a grain for a powder ; they were as 
 near alike in size as three powders could be made ; it 
 is utterly impossible that one powder should have 
 weighed twice as much as the other ; there were no 
 lumps, in the powder; I have frequently measured 
 out one-half a grain of morphine ; when I commenced 
 
148 
 
 practice I used to weigh out medicines, to accustom 
 myself in guessing at their weights ; I have, at. the re- 
 quest of Col. Rogers and Oapt. Cloke, put Up one-half 
 a grain of morphine by guess, and given it to one of 
 them to have it weighed ; it was utterly impossible, 
 as I put up those medicines, for one to weigh one grain 
 and eight hundredths and the other six-tenths of a 
 grain ; I saw Mr. Coates the next day, in company 
 with Dr. Palmer, at about five minutes past nine ; I 
 found him in a chair, in a state of coma, stertorous 
 breathing, slow and peculiar pulse, and pupils very 
 much dilated ; I did not notice about perspiration, 
 but it was warm enough to start perspiration in any 
 one ; there were no physicians there ; we then went 
 round the corner to Dr. Bock's, and from there we re- 
 turned to Dr. Lund's ; at half-past ten I again saw 
 Mr. ^Coates ; there had been no marked - change, 
 neither were there any physicians there at that time ; 
 Drs. Forman and Bock soon came into the room ; 
 they then removed Mr. Coates from my sight into 
 another room ; they did not consult with me, but I 
 asked them some questions ; I did not again see Mr. 
 Coates until the post-mortem ; the brain was in an 
 unhealthy condition, the left ventricle being filled 
 with Moody serum ; also there were marks of conges- 
 tion present ; the left lung was so tied down to the 
 diaphragm and walls of the chest, that the man who 
 separated them was red in the face, he pulled so hard 
 to break them ; the right lung was adherent, but not 
 so much ; the lungs themselves were congested, but 
 not much ; on opening the abdomen, the liver was 
 seen reaching over to the right side ; they were going 
 right along with the post-mortem, when I said to Dr. 
 Wilkinson, " Pretty large liver, isn't it ?" he said, 
 " !N"o, guess not ;" I asked him if he would not look a 
 little closer, when he then directed it written in the 
 report that it reached as far as the left mammary 
 
doctor lund's trial, T49 
 
 line ; it was quite an unusual size, and the congestion 
 did not account for the size; a liver may be very 
 much congested, but no larger than natural ; next, the 
 colon was much out of place in its different sections ; 
 the gall bladder was examined and found, to contain a 
 dark, grumous substance that smelt badly ; the lining • 
 membrane had a very unhealthy look; it proved to 
 be pus; the cystic duct was entirely closed. {More 
 definite than saying it would not admit^ a swmU 
 probe.) Tire above were all the symptoms of disease 
 we found ; the post-mortem was rather different from 
 any I ever saw under those circumstances; we never 
 allow a body to • be put upon ice, and we weigh 
 everything that can be weighed, so as not to guess 
 that such an organ was " about " a healthy size, or 
 such a cavity contained " about " so much serum ; 
 nothing was weighed here ; the temperature was 
 " guessed" at as about 80°, .there being no thermom- 
 eter in the room ; there was no care taken with the 
 stomach, . as I always presumed to be necessary, if 
 it was to be submitted to an analysis ; it was first 
 laid on the body and then upon one corner of the 
 table, which was a painted door ; the jar was brought 
 from down stairs, and was not a new jar, as the ques- 
 tion was asked if it -was clean ; it was not washed in 
 my sight ; neither the opinion of Dr. Palmer nor my- 
 self was asked ; we were not there by invitation ; Dr. 
 Wilkinson decided that the lungs crepitated healthily, 
 and I decided they did not ; I commenced the study 
 of medicine at Harvard College, then at Jefferson Col- 
 lege, Philadelphia, and graduated at Bellevne Medical 
 College, New York. 
 
 x A diploma from Harvard Medical College to Dr. 
 Oscar F. Lund was here shown to Dr. Lewis, and 
 recognized by him as genuine. 
 
 Witness continued : I thought Mr. Coates died from 
 congestion of the lungs ; the bloody serum in the brain 
 
150 doctor 'lotto's trial. 
 
 was abnormal, and may have been the cause of his 
 death, which in that case would have been apoplexy ; 
 the pus in the gall bladder could have been absorbed, 
 as there are more absorbents there than elsewhere, 
 they having a particular office 'to perform, to thicken 
 the bile Jby taking up the watery part ; I never have 
 given over a grain at a dose of morphine, but have 
 given it more than once ; I gave it yesterday ; I was 
 called to Michael ISToonan, and found him in a tremu- 
 lous condition, approaching delirium tremens, and 
 with colic ; he was in the same condition as he was 
 when Dr. Lund last prescribed for Aim at thejime of 
 Mr. Ooatei death • in the presence of witnesses I had 
 a grain of morphine weighed out at Mr. Gardner's, 
 
 fave it to him in water, rinsed the tumbler, and made 
 im drink the water, so as to be sure that he got it 
 all ; it had no effect upon him whatever, and it- was 
 some hours before he went to sleep ; it did not flush 
 his face nor create any excitement ; I feel certain that 
 one grain could not have produced death in Mr. 
 Coates; the effects of morphine are continuous, and, 
 from the time it takes hold, it does not let rip ; a 
 man would not wake up of his own accord, if lie were 
 poisoned by morphine, unless he recovered ; Dr. Lund 
 had not been w^ll all summer, and was not at that 
 time capable of much exertion. 
 
 I had once, in my own family, a case of belladonna 
 poisoning, and the jaws were rigid. The dose of the 
 extract of belladonna and of morphine is the same. 
 Belladonna may produce coma. I should expect 
 serious effect from eight grains of belladonna. It 
 would increase the danger of apoplexy, as it tends so 
 strongly to the head. I should call the administration 
 of eight grains as heroic treatment. 
 
 Gross-examined : 
 
 I went into partnership with Dr. Lund the. 17th of 
 January, 1870, and we dissolved the 1st of October, 
 
DOCTOR LUNd's TRIAL. 151 
 
 1870. I did not see any symptoms of pyaemia in Dr. 
 Lund's description of Mr. Coates' condition, nor did 1 
 consider it a clear case ; the bryonia was for the lung 
 symptoms, and the mix vomica for the pain; when 
 the bell rang that night, I heard the colored boy go 
 to the door, and heard Dr. Lund say I will not go to 
 your, house again to-night ; he was at the head of the 
 stairs when he said it. 
 
 Q. Did Dr. Lund say I will not go to your house 
 to-night? A. lie said I will not go to your house 
 again to-night ; he also said stay there, and I will be 
 down in a minute ; I could not hear anything said at 
 the door ; he came into my room before he went clown 
 stairs ; I next saw Dr. Lund at hal-f-past seven the 
 following morning ; he came into my room as I was 
 dressing, and said that the medicine intended for 
 Noonan had gone to Coates ; that he had been there, 
 and the family told him that, he was dying from the 
 effect of the powder ; I said give yourself no -concern, 
 it is an utter impossibility ; he said he had done 
 nothing for Mr. Coates, as the doctors refused to 
 notice him, and seemed anxious to look in some other 
 direction, so that he felt he was not among friends, 
 and came away ; he said he did not talk with the 
 doctors, for their manner was such that he was com- 
 pletely dumbfounded. At nine o'clock I went down 
 with Dr. Palmer, and found no physicians there ; I 
 did not examine Mr. Coates very carefully, and was 
 not in the room five minutes ; I went after Coroner 
 Burns myself, as soon as I returned from Dr. Bock's ; 
 I saw Mr. Coates was going to die; had been told 
 that he was poisoned, and so wished the Coroner to 
 see him before he died ; when we got to the hoiise we 
 found Dr. Palmer and Dr. Lund at the foot of the 
 stairs; they went up into the room with us; there 
 were no physicians there then ; when they came in, I 
 asked them what they had done ; they told jne ;. I 
 
152 
 
 asked if they had given any stimulants ; they said he 
 could not swallow ; I asked if it was not customary 
 when a man could not swallow, to inject the remedy 
 into the bowels .; they said yes, and sent for a syringe 
 and whiskey ; Dr. Forman picked me up suddenly by 
 saying, " I suppose you acknowledge that it was mor- 
 phine you gave ?" I said."certainly, sir ;" I did not know 
 that morning what was the matter with Mr. Coates ; 
 the only sign I saw of congestion of the lungs, was 
 the difficult breathing ; the other symptoms might 
 indicate, apoplexy or pyaemia ; I should not have 
 given brandy, nor did I advise it ; if I had known he 
 was poisoned by morphine, I should have known what 
 to do ; neither Dr. Lund nor myself did anything for 
 him, for he was not our patient then ; he was our 
 patient the day before, but when he sent for Dr. 
 Wilkinson, he became Dr. Wilkinson's patient. At 
 the post-mortem, the, blood in the body was the same 
 as you ^would expect to find in any dead body ; the 
 bloody serum in the ventricle could come from the 
 rupture of a vessel, and effusion ; I do not remember 
 the name of the particular artery that supplies the 
 ventricle, but it is derived from the Circle of Willis, 
 formed by the opthalmic anterior and middle cerebral 
 arteries, and the anterior communicating artery; 
 could not say how much serum there was in the 
 ventricle, but there was more serum than blood; did 
 not see any one examine to see if there was a rupture 
 of an artery to cause" the bloody serum; I looked, but 
 did not see where the blood came from ; the adhesions 
 in the lungs may have existed for years ; they would 
 increase in strength without new inflammation ; these 
 adhesions would tend to impoverish the blood, and 
 cause disease ; congestion may be caused by the stag- 
 nation of the blood, consequent upon blood poisoning, 
 like pysemia, uraemia, etc. ; congestion of the lungs 
 may cause an effusfon of bloody serum in the ven- 
 
158 
 
 tricles of the brain; the heart was natural, as far as 
 could be seen with the naked eye, but in order to 
 settle it, we should need to examine it by the micro- 
 scope ; the liver was very large, extending four inches 
 further to the left than natural ; inflammation of the 
 gail bladder would not materially affect the lymphatics 
 so as to prevent absorption of its contents; the 
 unhealthy condition of its mucous membrane might 
 even hasten absorption ; I have made a great many 
 post-mortems, but do not remember the exact number ; 
 I am happy to say that they were not all confined to 
 my practice ; I have given one grain of morphine 
 after a double amputation ; never heard of it as a 
 remedy for pyaemia; I weighed the morphine into 
 the bottle on the 2d of July, 1870, because' I went 
 that day to Long Branch, and took my medicines with 
 me; it then weighed eleven grains; I took the mor- 
 phine myself on Sunday, July 10th, 1870 ; I was then 
 in Bergen, having returned Friday, the 8th ; my doses 
 were one quarter of a grain each ; I next weighed it 
 the day Mr. Ooates died ; it had been in my vest 
 pocket all the time. 
 
 Mr. Garretson here showed some powders to Dr. 
 Lewis and asked him to tell how much they weighed. 
 
 "Witness : I don't know what the powder is. in the 
 first place, whether it is morphine, arsenic, quinine, or 
 something else ; in the second place, I cannot tell how 
 much it weighs, as it has been compressed so mueh ; 
 if I have a bottle and know what is in it, and how 
 much it is packed, I can then guess at the weight of 
 powders, but will not- do. anything of the kind when I 
 know nothing about the preparation of the powder ; 
 five grains in a bottle will be, as far as the eye can tell, 
 about one-half the height of eleven grains ; it is not as 
 easy to tell the difference between five and five and 
 one-half grains as between one-half and one grain; 
 when Br, Lund was sick he was attending to his, 
 
154 
 
 practice as usual ; when a doctor is sick he takes some 
 medicine himself, and all his friends give him some ; 
 I did not graduate at Williams' College where Br. 
 Lund did ; 1 know the signature upon his medical 
 diploma from Harvard, and I recognize Mark Hop- 
 kins' name upon his Williams' College diploma, be- 
 cause I have seen his name in a letter and have every 
 reason to suppose he wrote it himself, although I did 
 not come in the mail with the letter; I left Boston on 
 the 28th of November, 1869 ; I went to New York 
 and from there to Bergen ; I gave up practice in Boston, 
 May 1st, 1869, and practiced at Long Branch during 
 that Summer ; I then went to Boston again and left, as 
 above, in November. 
 
 To Mr. Dixon : Mr. Coates was short, stout, short 
 neck, answering exactly to the description of a man 
 liable to be attacked with apoplexy ; fatty disease ol 
 the heart will interfere with the propulsion of the 
 blood, and so cause congestion, and yet in order to de- 
 tect that disease it might be necessary to examine the 
 heart microscopically. 
 
 To the Court: The cause of the pain might also 
 cause - all the other post-mortem appearances,' as 
 the congestion, and produce death without morphine. 
 Anything, that 'irritates the nerve centres, as conges- 
 tion, would cause contraction of the pupils ; Dr. Lund 
 said that night that the medicine was for Noonan, and 
 left my room with the medicine, under the impression 
 it was for Noonan. 
 
 To Mr. Dixon: It was myself that first discovered 
 the closure of the cystic duct ; I made some inquiry, 
 and on the strength of that inquiry the duct was care- 
 fully examined, and some argument arose in regard to 
 it, Dr. Wilkinson insisting it was not completely closed ; 
 a careful dissection was then made and every one ac- 
 knowledged it was completely shut up. 
 
boCTOK LuWs TRIAL! ' IBS 
 
 Dr. John M; Corneilson, 
 Examined by Mr. Dixon, testified : 
 
 Have been practicing until within the iast ten years, 
 since 1825 ; I live in Jersey City. 
 
 Q. Doctor, if you- should administer morphine to a 
 patient who was suffering severe pain, and he should 
 g_o to sleep, sleep an hour and a half, wake up, say he 
 felt better, converse about his business, ask for some- 
 think to drink, should you then think there was any 
 danger from the morphine ? A. 1 should not ; if the 
 dose had been one grain and the pain came back, I 
 should not hesitate to repeat the dose ; a fatal dose 
 would not relax its hold. 
 
 Gross-examined- : 
 
 The symptoms, of course, vary much, but in 
 such a case as narrated by Mr. Dixon, a dose of a 
 grain could not cause death ; in. my experience, if the 
 morphine did not act in fifteen minutes, I should re- 
 peat it ;. I think, generally speaking, that a grain is a 
 large dose ; in giving Magendie's Solution, I give from 
 five to twenty-five drops ; I never saw Dr. Lund before, 
 until he was pointed out to me to-day. 
 
 Dr. I. N. Quimby, 
 
 Examined by Mr. Dixon, testified : 
 
 I live in Jersey City, and am an allopathic physi- 
 cian of thirteen years practice. _ 
 
 Q. Doctor, if a patient should take a dose of mor- 
 phine, having severe pain, should become quieted, 
 sleep an hour or more, wake up of himself, converse 
 intelligently, ask about his business, call for a drink of 
 tea, would' you think he was in any danger ? A. I 
 should not think there was any danger from the mor- 
 phine ; morphine commences its action almost imme- 
 diately upon being taken into the stomach, and its 
 action is continuous and persistent ; if after the above 
 
156 i>QCTOR LUND'S TRIAL. 
 
 described case, the patient again went to sleep, I should 
 look for some other cause than morphine ; the usual 
 dose of morphine is from one-quarter to one-half a. 
 grain ; some give at the first dose as much as a grain, 
 although such is not my practice ; this is a matter of 
 judgment^ however, some giving as high as two grains ; 
 I would not expect a grain to prove fatal ; it is cus- 
 tomary to give grain doses in severe pain ; in post- 
 mortems from death by morphine, the congestion is 
 not well marked / in one case where four grains were 
 taken, I found no congestion ; in apoplexy we find the 
 congestion prineipallyin the brain ; in a post-mortem 
 it is always necessary to weigh and measure every- 
 thing ; blood poisoning always causes congestion, blue- 
 ness of skin, contraction of pupil, coma, clammy per- 
 spiration; in poisoning by morphine the skin on the 
 other hand is usually dry ; I knew a case once where all 
 the physicians assembled'thought the patient was dying 
 from paregoric (a preparation of opium), when the 
 post-mortem showed that it was poisoning of the 
 bloed by uraemia ; pus can be absorbed from the gall 
 bladder. 
 
 Q. If, after the train of symptoms I have given you, 
 the man should again go to sleep, become comatose, 
 have a livid skin, profuse perspiration, cold surface, 
 contracted pupils, inability to swallow, a slow and full 
 pulse, have eight grains of belladonna injected into 
 his system and die in nine hours, then the body be 
 kept upon ice, and the post-mortem should show con- 
 gestion of the body, bloody serum in one of the ven- 
 tricles of the brain, small lungs bound down by adhe- 
 sions, enlarged liver, distended gall bladder, filled with 
 decomposed pus, complete closure of the cystic duct, 
 would you discover in these symptoms a sufficient 
 cause of death ? A. I find them, evidences of serious ■ 
 disease, as pus could not accumulate there without 
 being serious ; pus may be dormant for some time and 
 
bocitift Lund's teIali 15? 
 
 then suddenly wake into life, and carry the man off ; 
 the pus here indicates to me a very serious trouble ; 
 the gall bladder is in a vital spot ; the brain may have 
 been congested from the pus ; death has occurred from 
 not one-half of these causes ; many do not think that 
 belladonna is an antidote to morphine ; I should think 
 the giving of eight grains of belladonna for one grain 
 of morphine would be hazardous ; if the patient was 
 apopletic it would determine the blood to the head and 
 so increase the danger. 
 
 Gross-examination : 
 
 I have seen ten or twelve cases of pyaemia ; it causes 
 congestion ; if I was called to a man with" the symp- 
 toms of Mr. Ooates, and found he had taken a grain 
 of morphine, I should inquire into his history ; taking 
 the symptoms by themselves, I should say it might be 
 due to apoplexy, uraemia, or morphine poisoning ; al- 
 though the action of morphine is sometimes delayed, 
 I never heard of a case where it was delayed for a long 
 time ; brandy would not suspend the action of mor- 
 phine, which after it had once taken hold would be 
 continuous ; the contraction of the pupil is' a good 
 symptom , of morphine poisoning ; I do not myself 
 give more than one-half a grain at a dose, as I regard 
 it hazardous ; if I had sent one grain from my house 
 I should wanted to have seen the patient that day, at 
 least ; the smallest fatal dose I ever knew was two 
 grains ; it is problematical whether the diseased con- 
 dition of the man would have hastened the action of 
 the morphine ; the action -of that and pus are similar ; 
 cases of pyaemia are generally preceded by protracted 
 sickness; the shortest time I have known is four or 
 five days ; I should not give morphine in pyaemia, un- - 
 less there was pain ; in post-mortems we do not weigh 
 everything, but only those things that seem out of the 
 way ; but we always measure the fluid contents of any 
 part. 
 
158 doctor land's triaL 
 
 Mrs. J. Haslett, 
 
 Examined by Col. Rogers, testified : 
 
 I saw Mr. Coates the night before he died ; I talked 
 with him, but he said it hurt him to talk ; before I 
 left I said, Mr. Coates, you talk so feeble that it seems 
 to me as if something was the matter with your 
 lungs; he said no doubt but what there is; I have 
 known him to complain of his health many times since 
 I have known him. 
 
 By the Court : Are you accustomed to seeing sick 
 persons ? A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Cross-examined : 
 
 Have heard him complain of a cough or severe 
 cold ; do not think he was complaining of a cough at 
 this time; he said, he had something here (witness 
 placed her hand in the region of the stomach), which 
 if he could only get it up he would feel better. 
 
 By Col. Rogers : Do you know whether Mrs. Coates 
 ever said to you that Dr. Wilkinson had given her a 
 letter of introduction to a lawyer 1 
 
 Question objected to, and objection sustained. 
 
 Mr. "Walter R. Cook, 
 
 Exaihined by Mr. Dixon, testified : 
 
 In July last I was a clerk in the drug store of Mr. 
 Wells, Monticello Avenue ; I remember Dr. Wilkin- 
 son bringing me a powder to weigh, and asked me to 
 be very particular about it ; I took the powder- and 
 went behind the counter to weigh it ; he came behind 
 the counter and saw me weigh it ; it weighed just 
 one-half a grain j he said it was one of the three 
 powders that had been given by Dr. Lund and he had 
 killed a man, but did not say what man ; I did not 
 hear until after this of Mr. Coates' death ; I did not 
 ask Dr. Wilkinson if he was satisfied with the weight, 
 nor did he express any dissatisfaction ; I balanced my 
 
DOCTOR LUND'S TEIAL: \ 59 
 
 scales, as I always did, to see that they were correct • 
 they were brass druggist's prescription scales ; they 
 were accurate, and my weights were true; I had 
 no weight smaller than one-half a grain ; Dr. "W ilkinson 
 called me out of the store about eleven o'clock 
 the next night, and asked me if I had told any 
 one about weighing the morphine; I told him 
 I had told Mr. Wells that it weighed one-half a 
 grain ; Dr. Wilkinson then told me I had better 
 say nothing more about it, as he had had it weighed 
 on a very delicate pair of scales, and it weighed a 
 grain, instead of one-half a grain ; he thought we had 
 better hush it up for the reputation of our scales. 
 
 Q. Did Dr. Wilkinson suggest that you weigh the 
 powder over again? A. No, sir. Q.' Did you tell 
 him you could not weigh so small a quantity as one- 
 half a grain ? A. "No, sir, not that I remember ; I 
 don't see why I should say so, as I could weigh it ; 
 generally, if I want a quarter of a grain, or any small 
 amount, I weigh out four grains, and then subdivide 
 it by the eye ; it is more accurate ; it is impossible to 
 get one-half a grain in one powder, and one grain in 
 another, and not see the difference in bulk ;■ I am 
 sure I told Dr. Wilkinson 1 the powder weighed one- 
 half a grain; I am positive I weighed all the powder, 
 as I cleaned the paper out with the spatula ; Dr. 
 Wilkinson had always been in the habit of sending 
 prescriptions to our store, and we had always "used 
 these scales. 
 
 Cross-examined : 
 
 I am not now with Mr. Wells ; I left him last 
 August; I do sometimes weigh so small a quantity 
 as one-half a grain ; I am twenty-five years old, and 
 have been a drug clerk seven years ;-, do not remember 
 the "color of the paper that the powder was in ; I told 
 Dr, Wilkinson that there was one-half a grain, not . 
 
160 DOCTOR XTJOTJ S TKIAL,, 
 
 that I thought there was ; I did not ask Dr. Wilkin- 
 son to reweigh the powder when he came the second 
 time ; Dr. Lund used to send prescriptions to Mr. 
 Wells when I was there, but has not sent me any" 
 since I commenced business for myself; my store is 
 on Bergen Avenue, but is not yet open ; I never made 
 any effort to disguise the fact that the powder weighed 
 one-half a grain. 
 
 Col. Wm. E. Rogers, 
 
 Examined by Mr. Dixon, testified : 
 
 I was present one evening at Dr. Lund's house 
 with Capt. Cloke and Dr. Lewis ; in order to test the 
 accuracy of Dr. Lewis in putting up medicines by the 
 eye, we asked him, unexpectedly. to him, and with no 
 premeditation on our part, to put up for us one-half a 
 grain of morphine ; he put up a powder, without 
 weighing it,, and gave it to me for one-half a grain ; I 
 carried it down to De Mott & White's drug store, 
 comer of Newark Avenue and Cole Street, and asked 
 the clerk to weigh it, and be particular about it ; I 
 saw him weigh it, and it weighed just exactly one- 
 half a grain, not varying a particle either way ; he ex- 
 plained the marks Upon the weights to me, so that I 
 knew it was a half grain weight he put on the, scales. 
 
 Cross-examined : 
 
 Q. How do you know it was not a half-pound weight- 
 instead of half of a grain ? A. The weight had the 
 , figure \ upon it, and the clerk told me that that 
 meant one-half of a grain ; the grain weight had one 
 circle on it ; the two grains had two circles. 
 
 Mrs. Mary Coates, 
 
 Recalled by defense, and examined by Mr. Dixon : 
 
 Q. After your husband's death, did Dr. Wilkinson 
 give you a letter to a lawyer ? A, Yes, sir ; he gave 
 
DOCTOR LTJND's TEIAL. 161 
 
 me a letter to Mr. Archibald Brown to introduce me 
 to him. Q. Did Dr. "Wilkinson say anything to you 
 then ? A. He told me I ought to havea lawyer. Q. 
 How long after your husband's death ? A. About a 
 ■fortnight. 
 
 Cross-examined : 
 
 Q. Did you ask him for the letter ? A. Tes, sir. 
 
 Joseph Ponder, 
 
 Examined by Mr. Dixon, testified : 
 
 I am about twenty-three years old, and have lived 
 with Dr. Lund for a year and three months ; I was a 
 slave, and came from Yirginia ; I recollect the night 
 Mr. Coates died some one coming for Dr. Lund ; I 
 was undressing when the bell rang ; I ran down stairs 
 without putting on my clothes, and opened the door 
 a little ways, so as not to show myself; a lady was at 
 the door, and she asked if the Doctor was in ; before 
 I could answer, the Doctor called out, "stay where you 
 are ;" I asked her to shut the door, and ran up stairs, 
 but I heard her laugh as she saw my bare legs ; when 
 I went up stairs the Doctor had gone into the office ; 
 I would not know the lady if I should see her; she did 
 not give me her name. 
 
 Cross-examined : 
 
 Have not been in the habit of attending the door, 
 after I had gone to bed, but did in the day' time ; 
 there was a light in the hall ; when I went up stairs 
 the Doctor was in the office ; the words I heard him 
 use were, " I will be down in a minute." 
 
 By the Court : Was there a bright light in the hall ? 
 A. I don't remember. 
 
 Mr. Dixon offered in conclusion, as evidence, the 
 first testimony" of Mrs. Coates and James Kelly, before 
 
162 doctor ltjnd's trial. 
 
 the Coroner's Jury, wishing to show that their evi- 
 dence had been contradictory at different times. 
 
 Mr. Garretson objected .'to it, unless. Mr. Dixon 
 should also offer their second statements before the 
 Coroner's Jury, as evidence. 
 
 ' Mr. Dixon refused to do this ; he, however, wished 
 to be understood as not objecting to the admission of 
 their second statements, but only that he did not in- 
 tend to offer those statements himself. 
 
 The Court desiring those portions first read, which 
 were to be admitted, Mr. Dixon read at length the 
 testimony he had alluded to. In that testimony 
 neither of the witnesses swore to Mrs. Coates having 
 
 fiven her name to the boy at the door that night, 
 his was an interpolation afterward, and entitled to 
 no credit. Many other evident discrepancies gave ad- 
 ditional-force to the idea, that, these particular wit- 
 nesses were either not honest, adding from time to 
 time such testimony as seemed necessary, in order, to 
 secure conviction, or else their memories were too de- 
 fective to be relied upon. 
 
 Those portions of the testimony before the Coroner's 
 Jury, read by Mr. Dixon, were admitted in evidence 
 by the Court. As Mr. Garretson did not read the 
 portions he also wished admitted, the result was that 
 that read by Mr. Dixon was the only part received in 
 evidence. 
 
 The Defense here rested. 
 
 Captain Albert S. Cloke then summed up for the de- 
 fense. He reviewed, in a most eloquent manner, all 
 the evidence brought out upon the trial ; although there 
 was so much of it, he still never grew wearisome to 
 his audience. His argument was both able and ex- 
 haustive, and attested in a remarkable manner to his 
 fidelity in following the evidence. 
 
TRIAL. 168 
 
 Mr. Dixon then succeeded him, also for the defense, 
 in a short, but very able argument. USTo one who has 
 ever heard him speak, or who is at all familiar with 
 his happy facility for condensing his thoughts into a 
 few words, and driving them home in a forcible manner 
 to'' the minds of his hearers, can doubt for a moment 
 but what he was listened to with most profound atten- 
 tion. 
 
 After Mr. Dixon had resumed his seat, Mr. Garret- 
 son closed on the part of the State.. His argument was 
 also able and well delivered, and reviewed in a brief 
 but complete manner all the evidence for the prosecu- 
 tion. 
 
 His Honor, Judge Randolph, summed up for the 
 Jury. Every word that fell from his lips showed most 
 clearly his. double nature, that of the judge and of the 
 man. On the one side he was always stern, if neces- 
 sary, but the second part of his nature enabled him to 
 temper that sternness with compassion. No one could 
 listen for a moment to his utterances without feeling 
 that the words came from the good heart of a just ar- 
 bitrator. His desire was evident to see justice done, 
 without impugning, in the slightest degree, the motives 
 or honesty of any man. 
 
 His Honor charged the Jury as follows : 
 
 - Gentlemen oe the Jury : I congratulate you on 
 being so near the termination of this case, which has 
 occupied so many days of your time and to which you 
 have devoted that attention, care and constancy which 
 has been so marked ; and the Court take .this oppor- 
 tunity to thank you for the undeviating attention 
 which each one of you has given to the case during 
 its progress. It is'a case of great importance, on ac- 
 count of the grade of the crime that is charged, on 
 account of the effects it may have upon the commu- 
 nity in reference to the practice in which the defend- 
 
164 doctor lund's trial. 
 
 ant is engaged, as a physician, not to speak of the 
 effects that, it may have in reference to him himself. 
 It is the duty of the Court and the Jury to lay aside 
 every consideration, so far as the effects of the dis- 
 charge of our duty are concerned, and simply do our 
 duty at the moment, leaving the consequences to the 
 law. You have been so long accustomed, gentlemen, 
 to the discharge of duties of this nature, that it is en- 
 tirely out of place to make any suggestions in refer- 
 ence to the necessity of looking only at the facts which 
 have been proved, and of not permitting any other 
 influences to mould your action, other than the simple 
 effect of those facts acting upon your minds, and thus 
 bringing you to a conclusion. 
 
 Doctor Oscar F. Lund is charged with the crime of 
 manslaughter, which is the taking away of the life of 
 a human being without malice, and upon your verdict 
 will depend whether or not he has been guilty of that 
 crime. And I would here say that if, when you come 
 to look at all the facts, you have a reasonable doubt of 
 his guilt, you must give him the benefit of that doubt ; 
 that is right, that is proper. Gentlemen, it would not 
 be justice if it was not done. He has the right to ask 
 that, and he has the right to be considered innocent 
 by you until your minds are convinced, beyond a 
 doubt, that he is guilty of the crime with which he 
 stands charged. 
 
 In the first place, was the death of Mr. Coates 
 caused by morphine ? In coming to that conclusion 
 you must take into consideration all the facts which 
 bear upon the question as to what caused his death, 
 for that question meets you at the threshhold. If it 
 is not proven, beyond a doubt, that Mr. Coates died 
 from the administration of that morphine, then you 
 need go no further ; that is an end to this case, and 
 the defendant should be acquitted. 
 
 Now, look at it a moment and see what determines 
 
DOCTOR LUND'S TRIAL. 165 
 
 the question whether the State has proved that mor- 
 phine was the cause of Mr. Ooates' death. Is it so, 
 beyond a reasonable doubt ? Take into consideration 
 the condition of the patient from Sunday night until 
 the morphine was administered at half-past twelve on 
 Tuesday night. What were his symptoms ? -Pain on 
 Sunday night, a physician called in, who brought re- 
 lief during the night ; Monday morning, feeling bet- 
 ter, not, however, going to his work, but on Monday 
 going about, sitting down to his dinner ; after dinner, 
 going to the ball ground, standing two hours or more, 
 returning home, meeting his physician in the aftes- 
 noon, receiving a prescription to remove the difficulty ; 
 the physician, -on Monday morning, looking at him, 
 considers him not as having much the matter with 
 him, only pain and a nervous system out of order, and, 
 in that view, prescribes for him. ,On Monday after- 
 noon he parts with his physician ; he goes to bed, 
 sleeps well during Monday night. Tuesday morning 
 he rises, eats his breakfast, don't go to his vjotTc / dis- 
 ease knocks at the door, steps in, engages his attention, 
 arouses his interest; he is troubled ; he begins to think 
 more than has been spoken here. You have a right 
 to say what has been. operating upon his mind. He 
 asks his wife whether there is not some homoeopathic 
 physician ; she names to him Lewis and Lund ; he 
 says he would like Doctor Lund. In the" meantime, 
 his disease, whatever it is, com'es on and seizes him 
 with pain, and his wife employs all her skill and 
 knowledge, gained from years of experience. A 
 woman" knows what it is to be in the sick room, for 
 she is a guardian angel, to minister to our wants in 
 times and places when no physician can come in ; she 
 knows where to put her soft hand, when to exercise 
 her care. Mrs. Ooates bestowed on that man all the 
 fertility of her thought in seeking out remedies that 
 afternoon. Hot cloths and "mustard were brought to 
 
166 
 
 remove pain ; she does not succeed. Doctor Lund is 
 sent for; he, comes, scrutinizes the patient, returns and 
 tells Dr. Lewis that he examined him and found his 
 pain radiating from the liver upward, in both direc- 
 tions. He examined the medicine that had been given, 
 and he sent back a medicine, which reached there 
 Tuesday afternoon ; it was to be taken in one-hour 
 doses, and it was taken at three, at four, and at five 
 o'clock. It did not seem to remedy; the difficulty 
 was there still. He was more sick than he had been, 
 and, for some reason, he gave up taking the medicine. 
 At nine o'clock you have the neighbors present, and 
 talking with him, and ,they take their leave, never 
 dreaming that death was standing near the door. 
 
 You will remember all the facts in this case, and 
 you will use them without reference to any theory the 
 Court may have; but you will remember that one oi 
 the neighbors thought at first that Mr. Ooates was not 
 very sick ; he had an idea that the man was nervous ; 
 but when he was about taking his leave, he noticed 
 Mr. Coates' remarks, and he was impressed by what 
 he said, and it was then that he referred to his seeing 
 him in the morning, and there was something said 
 about the cemetery, very significant, showing that the 
 deceased was carrying about with him a knowledge 
 or perception of something in his system which had 
 not been observed, and he said that the doctors did 
 not understand his case. 
 
 Now, follow it on. It goes on to ten, Mrs. Coates 
 says eleven o'clock, when she called up her brother, 
 who had been sleeping upon the floor below, telling 
 him to wait for the Doctor to come ; that she had 
 been there, and for him to remain by her husband 
 until the coming of the Doctor. Then the symptoms 
 kept increasing until twelve o'clock, when she went 
 • back, and received from Dr. Lund the. three powders. 
 Look from the beginning of the ^disease on Sunday 
 
doctor lund's trial. i6"? 
 
 mght, until the powder was taken by Mr. Coates. 
 What was the extent of that disease? It was not 
 morphine then. It was not the effect of the first 
 powders that were given, because it was all there. 
 But the difficulty kept increasing. How far it may 
 hare been precipitated by his being out upon the ball 
 ground we cannot tell. 
 
 The subtile operations of the influence that comes 
 upon this delicate organization of ours, combining 
 with what we have in us that is deleterious, and 
 brings about fatal disease, we know nothing of. "We 
 only know that to-day we are alive, to-morrow we are 
 on our way to the grave. There is a point where the 
 keenest intellect oi the brightest genius cannot pass 
 beyond ; and he is an honest man, and a fair man, 
 ,who at once acknowledges it. How much there is 
 about this system of ours that we know nothing of. 
 Take Mr. Coates, for instance, from the time he was 
 attacked until he took the morphine. Was not he a 
 sick man? It 'is for you to say whether he was not 
 a very sick man. But then, certainly, it was not 
 morphine. Now, take him from the time he took the 
 morphine. From the testimony, to be general, in a 
 short time after that he was excited ; that would be 
 the natural effect of morphine. Then in the course 
 of fifteen or twenty minutes, perhaps longer, he sat 
 down in a chair and went to sleep, and he continued 
 to sleep for an hour, probably an hour and a half. 
 Then he awakened himself. At that time there was 
 with him a neighbor, with whom he conversed about 
 going to see Mr. Gross, a gentleman connected with 
 the Ounard Docks, and in reference to business trans- 
 actions. He spoke of feeling better. _ His daughter 
 Lizzie came in, and, fondling up to him, asked him, 
 with a daughter's love, as to how he felt: "Why," 
 he says, "I feel as if I was in heaven, compared to 
 what it was an hour ago." That was the difference 
 
168 DOCTOR I,TTND*S TRIAL. 
 
 between the racking pain and the lull that succeeded 
 it, an expression which one who is in the habit of 
 speaking strong might make, and a rational expres- 
 sion. Then a little while after, as Mrs. Coates' 
 brother, James Kelly, was sitting by him, there 
 occurred a marked incident. He said to James, 
 " James, the crisis has come ; the crisis has come." 
 I do not recall the other expression. It was very 
 marked ; showing that something was going on within 
 him that he did not understand, but which gave him 
 a premonition of his approaching end ; and his head 
 sank, his eyes closed, and James Kelly noticed, cr 
 imagined he noticed, a change ; ,the eyes of Mr. Coates 
 sank. That was in" the neighborhood of four o'clock 
 in the morning, after he had been roused up, and in 
 a condition — if there is anything in the medical 
 testimony — which showed that he was rid of the 
 effects of the morphine that he had taken at half- 
 past twelve. If you find that something took place 
 in his system, at that time, or any other, independent 
 of the morphine and its effects, which would cause his 
 death, the curtain lifts, and you are relieved in ref- 
 erence to what your verdict shall be ; for if death 
 was caused by something other than morphine, or, if 
 you have doubt of its being morphine — from the sur- 
 rounding circumstances — the defendant has a right to 
 have that doubt, without any criminal imputation 
 against him. 
 
 Follow it on-. ; The wife's attention is attracted, for 
 the stertorous breathing then comes in, and all that ava- 
 lanche of symptoms which show the end. The result 
 is, she sends for another physician. He comes, and he 
 sends for two other physicians. They examine the 
 man ; they find that he has taken morphine^; , they 
 all conclude that morphine is the cause of death. 
 Did they, at that time, carefully inquire as to all the 
 symptoms ? Did they ascertain from Dr. Lund how 
 
doctor ltjnd's trial. 1H9 
 
 much he had given 'i Did they know what quantity 
 had been taken ? Did they know how it had operated 
 during the night ? Did they inquire whether Mr. 
 Coates had awakened, and had passed some minutes 
 or half an hour in a state of consciousness after he 
 had taken the morphine 2 Did this only come out 
 upon this trial, and not appear before the Coroner's 
 Jury ? Or, having learned that morphine was given, 
 did they at once go to work upon that theory without 
 looking into the case more particularly, and endeavor 
 to work up a case by giving an antidote for morphine ? 
 Well, if they did, they were doing just what you and 
 I would' have done if we had been physicians. 1 At 
 the same time the foresight of man is so little, that 
 when events have passed, and we look back and ex- 
 amine with the light of experience, we may say " it 
 was all a mistake. > 
 
 I cannot understand how it is, that, even when life 
 is at stake, physicians will give expression to animosi- 
 ties . against fellow members of their noble profes- 
 sion ; and I ; am afraid that sometimes from these 
 bickerings,' the patient has slept the sleep that knows 
 no waking. That is not the general rule, I know, and 
 within the last few years the medical profession has 
 been raised to a standard higher than it has ever 
 occupied ; and I may say that the time is very near 
 when physicians of the different schools will meet 
 each other cordially, recognizing the common object 
 of their study to be the welfare of humanity. These 
 gentlemen were exercising their best judgment in their 
 endeavors to rescue Mr. Coates from impending death. 
 But it has become our duty, since this matter is 
 brought into a criminal court, to see whether they may 
 not have been laboring under a mistake when they 
 ascribed the death to morphine, and to inquire whether 
 death might not have occurred from some other cause ; 
 from a disease which was not noticed or discovered 
 8 
 
170 
 
 until afterwards. It is true that some of the symp- 
 toms manifested in the case of Mr. Coates were recog- 
 nized as the. effects of morphine. But it is also true 
 that those same symptoms accompany other disorders. 
 One difference between the effects of morphine and 
 the appearance of apoplexy is that in case of poison- 
 ing by morphine the pupils of the eye are contracted, 
 made smaller; whereas in apoplexy they are, ordi- 
 narily, both dilated. Those are general rules. They 
 are subject to exceptions. And when you come to 
 apply general rules in criminal cases you must give 
 the defendant the benefit of the exception. Tou are 
 to consider whether, in this case, the contraction of the 
 pupil may not have been brought about by the causes 
 which brought about death, if it was not morphine. 
 Now, the physicians examined all the way from the head 
 through the trunk ; in the head they did not find any- 
 thing very marked ; indeed, you cannot rely upon the 
 marks of morphine; you can rely better upon the 
 marks of some other poison, as a metallic poison, be- 
 cause the traces are more distinct than in the case of 
 a narcotic. Then examine the lungs and you find 
 they are attached to the walls of the cavity in which 
 they are lodged. Some of the physicians say this at- 
 tachment would have no perceptible effect. Others 
 say it would reduce the powers of the man generally. 
 You are to look at that in connection with other 
 things which go on hidden in the system. You find 
 the colon giving evidence of disease. One of the 
 physicians stated it was in such a condition as would 
 cause pain, and account for symptoms of approaching 
 inflammation. Yon look further, and you find the 
 liver enlarged, and under it, what ? That pear shaped 
 sack, which is placed under the liver for the purpose 
 of receiving the surplus bile, is found distended, and 
 full or nearly so. And when they come to open it, in- 
 stead of finding bile, they discover a material which is 
 
DOCTOR LTOd's TRIAL. 171 
 
 not normal, nor does it belong there ; and every physi- 
 cian who has testified in the case, points it out as a 
 cause of disease ; the contents, if not in a state of putre- 
 faction, are approaching it, ,so as to be offensive to the 
 smell. And then the cystic duct, whose office has 
 been explained to you, was found completely stopped 
 up, so that it could not be probed, and it had finally 
 to be opened. There wa# a cause of disease. One of the 
 physicians said that in twenty-four hours, at all events 
 in a very short time, through natural pressure, some of 
 the contents of the gall bladder might have passed 
 into the system. Now, that kind of material in the 
 system is what people are dying of every day. We 
 call it septicaemia, or pyaemia, from whatever way it 
 affects the blood ; sometimes the symptoms are noted 
 for a long while, there is a tendency to congestion, 
 and very many of the symptoms are those that accom- 
 pany morphine. 
 
 Now, gentlemen, it is for you to take the case ac- 
 cording to the post-mortem examination. Take the 
 condition of the man according to his own statement, 
 as to how he was, and see if you are satisfied that his 
 death was caused by morphine. There is another 
 feature in the case to which it is, perhaps, proper to 
 refer, and that is the effect of belladonna, which was 
 infused into his system, as an antidote for morphine, 
 though . some doubt that it is an antidote. But the 
 usual effects of belladonna were produced in the skin 
 and in the eye. Now, it is a question whether the 
 disease of which he died may not have been acceler- 
 ated by the use of belladonna. From all the testi- 
 mony in the case, it is a question whether the effects of 
 the morphine he had taken had not passed away, and 
 whether the pain from which he was suffering had not 
 been subdued by the morphine, which was antagonistic 
 to it, when he roused, after his sleep of an hour or 
 more, and said that he "felt as if he was in heaven, 
 
172 doctob Limb's trial. 
 
 compared with his feelings of aD hour ago ; " and then, 
 the " crisis came," the deadly power asserted itself, and 
 struck the mallet right upon the spot, and death fol- 
 lowed. If that was the case, belladonna would not 
 have been the proper remedy. 
 
 ' But if you still hesitate as to whether morphine 
 was the cause of death, the Court would suggest that 
 you examine as to the quantity of morphine. What 
 is the proof? It would appear that the rule is not 
 settled as to what is a maximum dose ; and it is for 
 you to say whether or not a grain is to be considered 
 a fatal dose, or that bad consequences might be ex- 
 pected from it. Upon the question whether morphine 
 was the cause of death, it is proper for you to ask 
 how much was given. If you find half a grain was 
 given, instead, of a grain, it makes a very material 
 difference ; because it is clear that half a grain is not 
 considered a dangerous dose at all, as compared with 
 a grain. Well, one of these powders was taken, and 
 two were left; Dr. Wilkinson and Dr. Forman each 
 took one. Dr. Wilkinson had his powder weighed by 
 Mr. Gook, and, according to Mr. Cook, it weighed 
 half a grain ; Dr. Wilkinson went behind the counter 
 and saw it weighed. He did not correct Mr. Cook, 
 and say it weighed a grain, or that it weighed at all 
 otherwise than as Mr. Cook announced. Still, he 
 had some misgivings as to its having been correctly 
 weighed ; probably on account of the conversation 
 that was had, for Mr. Cook says they talked about his 
 scales not weighing half a grain ; and the powder was 
 weighed again at Gardner's, and there, he says, Mr. 
 Gardner said it was a little short of a s;rain. In 
 addition, it is said it was sent to New, York, and 
 weighed there. But look at the evidence. The 
 druggist, Mr. Cook, twenty-five years of age, and 
 seven years in the practice, says he weighed it, and 
 he distinctly remembers that it weighed a half grain ; 
 
doctos: ltjnd's trial. 1 73 
 
 Dr. Wilkinson says he was there, and that Mr. Cook 
 told hiin it weighed half a grain. Then the Doctor 
 says he took it somewhere else, and there it weighed 
 a grain. Now, where is the weight of evidence be- 
 tween these two ? As between these two scales the 
 Doctor stands balanced, and Mr. Cook is left unques- 
 tioned. Professor Dorenras states that he received 
 from Mr. Burns, himself, two powders. That he 
 weighed them, and found in one, six-tenths of a grain, 
 and in the other a little over a grain. Now, which of 
 these' two was weighed by Mr. Gardner ? "Which of 
 these two was weighed by Mr. Wells or the clerk, Mr. 
 Cook ? It could not be that Cook weighed the one 
 that weighed a little over a grain, unless he made a 
 mistake, supposing his evidence to be correct. And 
 it could not be that Mr. Gardner weighed the one that 
 the Doctor says weighed half a grain. So, here we have 
 two powders, both alike. Neither Professor Doremus, 
 nor Mr. Cook, nor Dr. Wilkinson would be suspected, 
 for a moment, of saying that which they did not be- 
 lieve to be true. Therefore, there must be some hidden 
 clue to this which is undeveloped. You must pick up 
 what facts you can to account for it. Is it not pos- 
 sible that Dr. Forman and Dr. Wilkinson, after the 
 measurement at the first drug store, by Mr. Wells, 
 may have, in talking it over, with the powders in their 
 hands, both alike, by some misunderstanding and 
 without noticing it, got them exchanged {Appen- 
 dix aa), so that the next time Dr. Wilkinson had 
 his powder weighed, he had the one which weighed 
 a grain, instead of the. first one? That accounts 
 for it, and leaves every one of these gentlemen 
 testifying just precisely to what did occur. _ I do 
 not see any other way by which this question can 
 be solved. Now, what have you ? The result of 
 all that is, you have two powders, one of them 
 weighing little over 'half a grain, and the other a 
 
174 
 
 little over a grain. Now we pass on to the third pow- 
 der. How much did that weigh % Was it equivalent 
 to a grain or a half grain ? The probability is, that 
 whoever put up the powders would try, to make them 
 alike. But if there is any doubt in your mind as to 
 the size of the powder you must give the defendant 
 the benefit of that doubt. That is just where the case 
 stands as to the quantity of morphine, except the tes- 
 timony of Dr. Lewis, who certainly states very clearly 
 the Whole of the transaction in reference to the mor- 
 phine that was in the bottle, which he carried in his 
 pocket. On the second of July he went to Long 
 Branch. He arrived at Bergen, on his return, on 
 Sunday, and took two quarter grains, and subsequent- 
 ly he took out three hah" grains. That on this night 
 he rolled it out of the bottle, and made it all alike, 
 and that, after the difficulty occurred, he weighed 
 what remained, and found there were nine grains left. 
 That would seem to coincide with the statement on the 
 part of the defense, only it leaves this : it leaves one 
 of them having a grain and a little over, and the other 
 a little over a half grain, which would make a grain 
 and sixty-eight hundredths, which would be more 
 than three naif grains. It is for you to inquire 
 whether the other powder was still smaller. Then 
 there is another consideration. May it not be that the 
 carrying about of this morphine, the having it ex- 
 posed to the atmosphere, in examining it, caused it to 
 appreciate in weight ? Such is the result with very 
 many substances, particularly feathery substances. 
 
 The next question for you to consider is (if morphine 
 was the cause of death) whether the defendant is 
 guilty, although he may have been the instrument of 
 administering it. It is alleged on the part of Dr. Lund 
 that he made a mistake. It is for you to say whether 
 that mistake involved a degree of negligence 
 that was criminal. Negligence is the omission of 
 
ftOCTOK LUND^S TBIAL. ] 7.1 
 
 care in the discharge of a duty. Itis said to consist 
 in omitting to do something that a reasonable man 
 would do, or the doing of something that a reasonable 
 man would not do. What is, or is not negligence, 
 depends upon the peculiar circumstances surrounding 
 and connected with the person whose acts are to be 
 criticised or examined. The degree of care which en- 
 titles one to recover of another compensation for in- 
 juries, resulting from his negligence, is such as a prur 
 dent man would observe in order to prevent the acci- 
 dent or injury. If a man is in the exercise of due and 
 ordinary care, he is not negligent. But the care must 
 be such as the circumstances require. This is familiar 
 law when a civil suit for damages is before the Court. 
 Every man must respond in damages for injuries re- 
 sulting from his want of care. Ordinarily he is liable 
 for the consequences, without reference to the kind of 
 negligence. But the rule in criminal cases is some- 
 what modified. In the case of a physician who, in 
 his daily practice, is constantly dealing with health and 
 life, the degree of negligence in the discharge of his 
 duties is well settled. By the earlier authorities it 
 would seem that in no case where a physician intended 
 to cure could he be held criminally responsible. It is 
 now held there must be a responsibility though the 
 intention was laudable. A physician who, under 
 ordinary circumstances which require care, attention 
 and prudence, in administering or in dispensing medi- 
 cine, omits the use of any care, or attention, or pru- 
 dence, or uses very little care, attention, or prudence 
 in the giving of medicines, in quantities which are 
 dangerous to life, if death result from such a degree 
 of carelessness, he would be held criminally responsi- 
 ble. A physician must be at liberty to exercise his 
 judgment in the use of remedies" and in dispensing 
 them ; but in doing so he cannot with impunity throw 
 away all care, or act with indifference as to the effect 
 
176 
 
 of a dangerous medicine, or as to whether the right 
 person receives a dangerous medicine when it may cause 
 death. He is criminally responsible, however, only 
 in case of gross negligence ; that is, such a want of 
 care as persons who are not accustomed to do things 
 with much care would, under the circumstances, give. 
 The mere lack of a degree of care with persons who 
 are quite careful in the performance of their duties, is 
 not sufficient, but it must be such a gross want 
 of thought and attention and care as evinces a 
 reckless, indifferent mind, not appreciating the 
 danger nor impressed with the consequences of 
 a mistake. In our State a physician receives, 
 under the authority of the State, a license^ under 
 which he acts, and he is supposed to have a discretion 
 equal to the emergencies which will ordinarily arise 
 in his practice. If he omits to use such care and at- 
 tention as would show that he acted, without any 
 thought of the consequences, notwithstanding his 
 license, lie would be guilty in case death resulted from 
 the mistake he might make. JSTow look at this case. 
 What do you find? Here was Dr. Lund, who, in the 
 afternoon, had been to see Mr. Noonan, and had found 
 him bordering on delirium tremens. He had returned 
 and had seen Mr. Coates, and had administered to 
 him; he had then again gone to visit Mr. Eoonan, 
 and had returned from the visit at half-past ten. 
 Whether Mrs. Coates had been to his house before 
 that and he had gone to Eoonan's, in consequence 1 of 
 her call, does not appear. But why did Dr. Lund go 
 to Mr. Noonan's house again? Was it because some- 
 body had called for him to go there ? Mrs. Noon'an says 
 she did not go- after him ; yet he was there twice that 
 day, the last time being about half-past ten in the even- 
 ing. ' Dr. Lewis says he met Dr. Lund coming home at 
 half-past ten from Eoonan's, showing he had been there. 
 Was Mrs. Coates laboring under a mistake as to 
 
doctor ltxnd's trial. 177 
 
 the hour of her" call being eleven ? Was it earlier % 
 When he said he would go in a few uJinutes, could he 
 have supposed it was Mrs. JSToonan who had called ? 
 Suppose it was eleven when Mrs. Coates came ; what 
 did she do ? She saw him and told him she wanted 
 him to come and see her husband; she left 
 no name, no street, no number; she did not 
 tell him her name was Coates ; but only that 
 she " wanted him to come right away." He 
 said he would do so, showing what was the state of 
 his mind. You must look at it just as though these 
 things had not occurred, and you must ask yourselves 
 did he, at that time, act negligently ? You saw the 
 two women, their appearance, their, size, the make of 
 their shoulders, their heads. You could judge 
 whether a person might mistake the one for the other. 
 If Mrs. Coates was at Dr. Lund's house before half- 
 past ten o'clock, he might have gone to Noonan's by 
 mistake. If she was not there until eleven o'clock, he 
 did not go out at all. She came again at twelve 
 o'clock, and then she gave the name to the boy and, 
 as she says, told him to say to the Doctor that Mrs. 
 Coates wanted him, which the boy contradicts, how- 
 ever. The Doctor answers, from the head of the 
 stairs, that he will be down in a moment, and goes in 
 and consults with Dr. Lewis. Now, what took place 
 in that room % That goes to show how much mind 
 the Doctor had upon the matter. Was he in that 
 room talking about the man with delirium tremens ?, 
 Was he using the care that persons would use ordi- 
 narily under the same circumstances ?, If he was act- 
 ing as a prudent man, and if he was prescribing this 
 morphine for the patient, with delirium tremens, which 
 would be proper, it is for you to say whether he 
 would lose his presence of mind suddenly, then and 
 there, and be guilty of gross negligence. 
 
 There are some cases scattered through the books, 
 
178 doctor lund's trial. 
 
 which touch upon the duties of physicians. But there 
 will not be found a single case parallel with this, 
 although such a case may have occurred, without 
 being recorded. The case of the State vs. O'Brien, 
 a switch-tender in Newark, is a very different case 
 from this. He neglected a simple, plain duty ; no . 
 number was to be told him, no street, no name. But 
 the Court will take one sentence and read it : 
 
 " If the defendant, at the time of the accident, was 
 intending to do his duty, but in a moment of forget- 
 fulness, omitted something which any one of reason- 
 able care would be likely to omit, he was not guilty." 
 
 A person must be held properly responsible. In 
 this case, if there was an omission on the part of Dr. 
 Lund, under circumstances which render it probable 
 that another physician would have made the same 
 omission, you must give Dr. Lund the benefit of it. 
 There is one case, in. 1828, to which the books refer, 
 where a druggist's boy gave laudanum instead of pare- 
 goric, and when his attention was called to the bottle, 
 and he was asked how much was a dose for a child 
 nine weeks old, he gave a dose, fatal, even of pare- 
 goric, showing that his mind was totally abstracted 
 from the business he had in hand. Gentlemen, the 
 case is in your hands. 
 
 The District Attorney called the attention of the 
 Court to the fact that one of the powders examined 
 had been tasted, and that would diminsh its size and 
 weight. He also requested the Court to charge that 
 if morphine accelerated the disease, and contributed 
 to the death of Mr. Coates, then death was caused by 
 morphine poison. 
 
 The Court : The Court decides it is for the Jury to 
 say whether morphine might have caused death ; even 
 the belladonna may have contributed to the furthering 
 of the disease. The question is not between hella- 
 
170 
 
 donna and morphine, but whether the morphine was 
 the cause of death independent of the belladonna. 
 
 The Jury retired, but their doing so was simply a 
 matter of form, as they were absent only two minutes 
 before they agreed upon their verdict. They re- 
 entered the court-room. The most perfect stillness 
 reigned throughout the apartment. It was a moment 
 of suspense. On their lips hung both the reputation 
 of the accused and the happiness of his family. With 
 them rested his future life, whether it should be bright 
 and prosperous, or dark and dismal. The verdict 
 came, the clouds of doubt were dispelled, all anxiety 
 removed, and all suspicions banished, by the magic of 
 the two simple words 
 
 "NOT GUILTY." 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 (a.) This witness in her first testimony before the Coroner's Jury 
 said nothing to indicate that she gave her name to the boy, but 
 she simply made use of the pronoun "I." The boy himself de- 
 nied (page 161) that she gave him her name. See also page 162. 
 
 (6.) Upon page 115, Mrs. Welch testified that she gave Mrs 
 Coates some brandy. Either the cramps or the brandy made Mrs. 
 Coates' memory defective. 
 
 (<j.) Mrs. Welch upon this point again contradicts Mrs. Coates. 
 (Page 116.) v 
 
 (d.) This is a. disputed point. Dr. Forman, upon page 69, ad- 
 mits that many physicians do not consider belladonna an antidote 
 to morphine. Dr. Youlin, also a witness for the State, declares, 
 page 102, that, so far from considering it as an antidote, he even 
 considers it as dangerous. Dr. Elliot, upon page 137, gives the 
 same testimony. And when it is seen in the evidence that the 
 form of belladonna injected into Mr. Coates' arm was about of the 
 same strength as morphine itself, the question is suggested which 
 would be most dangerous to human life, one-half a grain of mor- 
 phine (or even a grain), or sixteen times as much of another 
 equally powerful and poisonous remedy ? The amount of bella- 
 donna administered is stated upon page 69. In this connection 
 reference can be made to the case quoted by Dr. Craven, page 
 144, where a medical officer, poisoned through mistake- by mor- 
 phine, took so much belladonna as an antidote that he came very 
 near dying from its effects. Fortunately for the officer, the 
 physicians in attendance did not leave him alone and uncared for 
 in the midst of their treatment, during an hour and a half, but 
 their selection of the proper remedies and their continued use, so 
 long as necessity required, at length saved his life. 
 
 (6.), The reader can best judge for himself whether " it was 
 impossible to give him medicine." Many physicians believe that 
 even in a state of prof oundest insensibility, medicine placed in • 
 the back of the mouth will still go down involuntarily. See pages 
 102, 127 and 130. And even if medicine cannot be introduced into 
 the stomach, it still can be injected into the bowels, and so reach 
 the system. This the physicians did not attempt, even if the 
 
APPENDIX. 1-81 
 
 possibility of doing so occurred to them, until the idea was sug- 
 gested by Dr. Lewis, when they at once proceeded to act upon 
 the suggestion. 
 
 (/.) See Mr. Cook's testimony, page 159. 
 
 (jff.) It is a fundamental principle in all medico-legal examina- 
 tions, that most scrupulous care shall be taken with everything 
 that is to be subjected to a chemical analysis. Was it so in this 
 case ? There did not seem to be a single witness able to identify 
 the jar, its contents, or the powders, and to be sft-e, by tracing 
 tiheir progress from one person to another, that they were not 
 tampered with. Dr. Wilkinson, page 46, was neither sure how 
 the jar was sealed nor whether he even saw it done at all. Cor- 
 oner Burns, page 57, stated that he left the stomach and powders 
 with some unknown person, to give to Professor Doremus. But 
 that unknown person was not brought forward, and his absence was 
 a link missing from the chain of evidence. Dr. Buck testified, upon 
 page 80, that he did not think any special care was taken with 
 the stomach to keep foreign substances from it. Professor Dore- 
 mus, page 91, said nothing about the jar having being sealed, but 
 testified that he received it directly from the Coroner himself. 
 This being denied by the Coroner, made the whole analysis per- 
 fectly worthless. Dr. Lewis, said, upon page 149, that the stomach 
 was left carelessly lying upon a painted pine board, and was 
 finally put into an old jar. The whole testimony, in fact, proved 
 that sufficient care was not taken to render the subsequent 
 analysis of any value. But a question properly arises as to what 
 value an analysis, no matter how carefully conducted, could pos- 
 sibly have been in this case ? The admission was made that mor- 
 phine had been given. Dr. Elliot testified, upon page 138, that 
 morphine administered in even so small an amount as the one-six- 
 teenth of a grain, just before death, could yet probably be detected 
 by a post-mortem analysis. Consequently the finding in this case 
 of " mere traces " of morphine did not prove the dose before death 
 to have been excessive. 
 
 It would be an interesting question .for the tax-payers of Hud- 
 son County to ascertain how much money they had thus tinneces- 
 sarily to pay Professor Doremus for his analysis, and double trip 
 to Jersey City ; ,also what they had to pay him for weighing two 
 powders of morphine, that had already been jn the hands of three 
 different druggists, three different physicians and one coroner. It 
 was hardly fair treatment to the individual who labored so 
 earnestly in wandering from one pair of scales to another, seeking 
 after the exact weight of the powder in his possession, to thus 
 doubt his disinterestedness and question the result he obtained, 
 by ■calling upon another man to reweigh the morphine. 
 
 (A.) The same witness, upon page 46, with a ready facility of, 
 contradicting himself, stated the exact opposite of thiB answer, 
 
182 APPENDIX. 
 
 that the post-mortem alone did not indicate morphine as the cause 
 of death. The Doctor at that time had not learned by experience 
 to adopt that plan of answering which he afterwards pursued 
 upon his cross-examination. If he had ddne So he would easily 
 have avoided , the present inconsistency, by those, his few but 
 favorite words, " I don't know." 
 
 (i.) Dr. Buck, upon page 80, corrected Dr. Wilkinson, by stating 
 that there were one hundred and twenty drops instead of sixty. 
 
 (J.) The Doctor here makes the congestion precede the paralyz- 
 ing of the brain, while upon page 28 he reverses the order, and 
 states that the benumbing of the brain caused the congestion. It 
 is a little difficult at times for one to tell just exactly what the 
 Doctor does mean. 
 
 (&.) Befer back to page 26 and appendix;'. 
 
 {I.) Upon page 21 the witness alluded to cases where matter had, 
 been absorbed from the gall bladder, and yet he " don't know " 
 whether there are any absorbents about the gall bladder. Even 
 a first year medical student would have answered the question by 
 saying that there are very many absorbents about the gall bladder. 
 
 (m.) If bile is not absorbed from the gall bladder, how did the 
 witness, upon page 21, suppose it could be absorbed ? He certainly 
 made a truthful answer to the question, asking how it could dry 
 up (" in toto ") without being absorbed, for it was certainly mani- 
 fest to all upon this point that he did " not know " what he was 
 talking about. 
 
 (n.) Befer to page 20 and appendix Jt. 
 
 {p.) Dr. Elliot did not tlijnk so, or else he would not have per- 
 mitted those persons to have gone without treatment, who had 
 taken that amount in order to .commit suicide. See pages 135 
 and 136. 
 
 (p.) But Mr. Haslett remembers, as will be seen by reference to 
 page 142. 
 
 (g.) Here again it is proper to refer to Mr. Cook's testimony, 
 pages 159 and 160. 
 
 (r.) Mrs. Coates, the widow and principal witness for the prose- 
 cution, swore, upon page 160, that he did give her a letter of in- 
 troduction to an attorney. The Doctor's memory was certainly 
 poor, as the many times he contradicted himself in his evidence 
 proved ; and it may be that the same interest in the case which he 
 exhibited in his migrations after the weight of a powder of mor- 
 phine, and which was also manifest in his volunteering to save 
 
APP£>rDix. 183 
 
 Dr. Lund " the trouble " of preserving the powders, was still 
 potent enough to have influenced him in assisting Mrs. Coates to 
 obtaining legal advice. 
 
 (*.) Professor Doremus; upon page 92, stated that he received 
 the powders directly from Burns' own pocket. 
 
 (t.) The Doctor is very non-committal. Even the last witness 
 but one upon the stand was positive enough upon this point, to 
 say he flumght he could tell the difference between the two (page 
 51). And Professor Doremus laughed at the idea of a man not be- 
 ing able to tell the difference between two things lying side by 
 side, one of which was twice as large as the other (page 92). Dr. 
 Youlin, page 102, Dr. Palmer, page 128, Dr. Lewis, page 147, and 
 Mr. Cook, page 159, were also all sure that a mistake would be 
 most unlikely in such a case. 
 
 (».) See Dr. Veir's testimony, page 96, where he states that mor- 
 phine produces relaxation of the muscles, and not rigidity. The 
 witness's " opinion" would not have been quite so worthless, if his 
 experience of the drug had been more extended and his mind less 
 prejudiced. He had evidently made a firm resolve to swear that 
 " Mr. Coates died of poison from morphine," and, right or wrong, 
 to ascribe every appearance and symptom to morphine. In poi- 
 soning from belladonna the jaws are sometimes rigid, as will be 
 seen by referring to a case alluded to upon page 150. 
 
 (w.) Which is equivalent, according to Dr. Elliot, page 136, to 
 seven grains of morphine. As a child, eight years old, can only 
 bear about one-fifth as much opium as an adult, that amount would 
 have been equal to thirty-five grains of morphine for a grown per- 
 son, or nearly nine grams an Tiawr. That can hardly be called 
 " giving it tentatively." Did the Doctor also give it tentatively in 
 the case of Mrs. Copeland, alluded to in his evidence ? If so, her 
 death in a comatose condition prevented him from afterwards 
 speaking of her as " living yet." 
 
 (a:.) Burns' testimony conflicts with that of Professor Doremus, 
 as will be seen by reference to page 57 and Appendix s. 
 
 (jr.) This contradicts Mrs. Coates' evidence upon page 13. 
 
 t 
 (a.) This is the remark which Dr. Wilkinson did not remember 
 (page 49). 
 
 (aa.) Such an exchange could not have taken place, as Dr. For- 
 man gave his powder to Coroner Burns before Mr. Cook had 
 weighed the other for Dr. Wilkinson. See pages 17, 57, 63 and 
 158. 
 
INDEX. 
 
 WITNESSES FOR THE STATE. 
 
 
 
 Page. 
 
 
 Page. 
 
 Mrs. Mary Coates, 
 
 7 
 
 Dr. Charles A. Veirs, 
 
 92 
 
 Dr. James Wilkinson, 
 
 14 
 
 Mr. Horace Bowen, 
 
 98 
 
 William Burns, 
 
 56 
 
 Dr. J. J. Youlin, 
 
 99 
 
 Dr. S. R. Forman, 
 
 60 
 
 James Kelly, 
 
 104 
 
 Dr. Emmanuel Bock, 
 
 72 
 
 Mrs. E. Hassell, 
 
 110 
 
 Dr. W. Buck, 
 
 76 
 
 Mrs. Ann Welch, 
 
 112 
 
 Dr. Culver, 
 
 81 
 
 William Welch, 
 
 118 
 
 Prof. R. 0. Doremus, 
 
 91 
 
 Mrs. Mary Noonan, 
 
 121 
 
 WITNESSES FOR THE DEFENSE. 
 
 
 Page. 
 
 
 Page. 
 
 Dr. Joseph Palmer, 
 
 125 
 
 Dr. J. M. Corneilson, 
 
 155 
 
 Dr. J. W. Elliot, 
 
 135 
 
 Dr. I. N. Quimby, 
 
 155 
 
 Dr. F. B. Mandeville, 
 
 140 
 
 Mrs. J. Haslett, 
 
 158 
 
 George Haslett, 
 
 ■ 141 
 
 Walter R. Cook, 
 
 158 
 
 Dr. J. J. Craven, 
 
 144 
 
 W. E. Rogers, 
 
 160 
 
 Michael Noonan, 
 
 146 
 
 Mrs. Mary Coates, 
 
 160 
 
 Dr. W. H. Lewis, 
 
 146 
 
 Joseph Ponder, 
 
 161 
 
 Judge Randolph's Charge page 163. 
 
' 
 
 '■ ■':■■' ..':''■ 
 
 ' 
 
 ■.-■■