Before leaving this trial I desire to quote from advanced sheets of the edition of Dr. Taylor’s great work on medical jurisprudence, now passing through the press.  Reviewing the trial in London with that freedom from bias which the isolation of distance produces, he says:  “The trial lasted fifty-two days, and an astonishing amount of evidence was brought forward by the defence and prosecution, apparently owing to the high social position of the parties, for there is nothing, medically speaking, which might not have been settled in forty-eight hours.  The general died after a short illness, but the symptoms, taken as a whole, bore no resemblance to those observed in poisoning with antimony; and but for the alleged discovery after death of tartar emetic in the stomach, no suspicion of poisoning would probably have arisen....  The chemical evidence,” he adds, “does not conflict with the pathological evidence, for it failed to show with clearness and distinctness the presence and proportion of poison said to have been found.  The evidence that antimony was really there was not satisfactory, and that twenty grains were in the stomach wholly unproven."[18]

What would have been the course of this trial if expert testimony were established upon proper principles?  Professor Aiken having shown his complete incompetency in the Schoeppe case, the analysis would have been entrusted to some skillful chemist, who by failing to discover poison would have established the innocence of Mrs. Wharton, or by bringing positive results into court have ensured conviction; or, Dr. Aiken having made the analysis, and having broken all the laws of toxicological evidence, his testimony would have been ruled out, and the case dismissed because the bungling of the State’s witness had destroyed the evidences of guilt or of innocence.

In January, 1873, Mrs. Wharton was tried at Annapolis for attempting to poison Eugene Van Ness.  The facts of the case are briefly as follows:  Mr. Van Ness, whose relations with the Wharton family had been extremely intimate for many years, was a bank-clerk, but during the spring and early summer of 1871, besides attending to his regular duties, was employed in settling a large estate.  He habitually rose early, often at 5 A.M., and generally worked until eleven o’clock at night.  During this period he suffered from severe nervous headaches, and probably from other symptoms of an overworked nervous system, but on this point the testimony disagreed.  His stomach is at all times so sensitive that brandy nauseates him.  On the 19th of June, after taking some claret on an empty stomach at Mrs. Wharton’s, he felt very badly, suffering from lightness of the head or giddiness and general wretchedness, with stiffness and numbness in the back of his neck.  On the 20th he stopped at Mrs. Wharton’s about 4 P.M., having eaten nothing for seven or eight hours, and took raspberries with cream, and drank claret.  This claret, he