Illustrations of medical evidence and trial by jury in Scotland.

Date:
1855
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Illustrations of medical evidence and trial by jury in Scotland. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    42/66 (page 40)
    I recollect the case and I recollect the circumstances. It is very difficult at this period to say. . , The Lord Justice-Clerk.—You directed the dressings to be ap¬ plied on the 20th, and saw it after it had been done, and your belief is that you saw the boy next day ?—Certainly. By the Dean.—I learned on the 22d that Mr Glover had been there on the 21st. I did not learn that on the 21st; it was m the evening that he came. My recollection is that it was m the even¬ ing . Dr Dobie told me so. Dr Dobie said he came there some time after I had left on the 21st; I don’t know the precise hour; that I learned on the 22d. I was told about the certificate upon he 25th, and I saw it on the following day, the 26th. It was awn eii copy I got. I don’t remember by whom it was written. Dr Dobie gave it to me. He told me he had got it from a policeman, or some flicicil By Mr Patton.—In the letter of Mr Glover of the 22d of April, the following occurs:—“For this purpose I immediately visited the boy. On goino- into the ward where he was lying, I asked the nurse o go and state that the surgeon of police wished to see Mr Syme’s clerk. After waiting a short time, I turned down the bed-clothes, and ex¬ amined the boy, so far as to satisfy my mind that his life was m danger in consequence of the injury of Ins leg, and that he was m a fit state to emit a declaration.” This was certainly meant to import that he had examined the leg, that he had made such an exami¬ nation as to give reasonable grounds for giving Ins certificate.. 1 understood that he wished it to be believed that such an examination had been made of the limb, as to be able to speak to the injury. When I said that he had not examined the limb, I meant that he had not made such an examination as to warrant him in giving a certificate. I still adhere to that opinion. The Lord J ustice-Clerk.-What opinion, pray I W hat he says is that he meant that Mr Glover had not made such an examina¬ tion as warranted the certificate. That may tend to fix down the matter, if libellous, more clearly upon Professor Syme. But when you say you still adhere to that opinion, all you can ask now is, • Do you still put that meaning on your letter ? ” If you mean that no¬ thin o would warrant that certificate, I have told you that is not evi¬ dence. It is a question for the jury. He may state his meaning, and you may fix down that meaning, if libellous, upon him. That is for your own judgment. The other is not evidence. It is a matter