As illustrating merely the fertility and resourcefulness of some defendants (or perhaps their counsel), the writer recalls a case which he tried in the year 1902 where the defendant, a druggist, was charged with manslaughter in having caused the death of an infant by filling a doctor’s prescription for calomel with morphine.  It so happened that two jars containing standard pills had been standing side by side upon an adjacent shelf, and, a prescription for morphine having come in at the same time as that for the calomel, the druggist had carelessly filled the morphine prescription with calomel, and the calomel prescription with morphine.  The adult for whom the morphine had been prescribed recovered immediately under the beneficent influence of the calomel, but the baby for whom the calomel had been ordered died from the effects of the first morphine pill administered.  All this had occurred in 1897—­five years before.  The remainder of the pills had disappeared.

Upon the trial (no inconsistent contention having been entered in the police court) the prisoner’s counsel introduced six separate defences, to wit:  That the prescription had been properly filled with calomel and that the child had died from natural causes, the following being suggested.

1.  Acute gastritis.

2.  Acute nephritis.

3.  Cerebro-spinal meningitis.

4.  Fulminating meningitis.

5.  That the child had died of apomorphine, a totally distinct poison.

6.  That it had received and taken calomel, but that, having eaten a small piece of pickle shortly before, the conjunction of the vegetable acid with the calomel had formed, in the child’s stomach, a precipitate of corrosive sublimate, from which it had died.

These were all argued with great learning.  During the trial the box containing the balance of the pills, which the defence contended were calomel, unexpectedly turned up.  It has always been one of the greatest regrets of the writer’s life that he did not then and there challenge the defendant to eat one of the pills and thus prove the good faith of his defence.

This was one of the very rare cases where a chemical analysis has been conducted in open court.  The chemist first tested a standard trade morphine pill with sulphuric acid, so that the jury could personally observe the various color reactions for themselves.  He then took one of the contested pills and subjected it to the same test.  The first pill had at once turned to a brilliant rose, but the contested pill, being antiquated, “hung fire,” as it were, for some seconds.  As nothing occurred, dismay made itself evident on the face of the prosecutor, and for a moment he felt that all was lost.  Then the five-year-old pill slowly turned to a faint brown, changed to a yellowish red, and finally broke into an ardent rose.  The jury settled back into their seats with an audible “Ah!” and the defendant was convicted.