[1905]. Professor Amos of the London University, in criticizing in his Lectures what I have said of this case in the first edition of the present work, has accused me of misstating the evidence, and grounds the charge on a Report by a professional Reporter, where no notice is taken of the phial having been wrapped up in paper, or of the bed-clothes having been pulled up to the chin, or of the arms being crossed over the trunk [Lond. Med. Gazette, viii. 577]. I have nevertheless thought it right to retain my original statement of the evidence, as it was derived from what I still consider the best authority,—the medical witness, who mentions the special fact on which he founded the most important, indeed the only important professional opinion in the case, and to which therefore his attention must have been more pointedly turned than that of any Law-Reporter. The Report alluded to by Professor Amos was afterwards published in the Medical Gazette, viii. 759.
[1906]. Medizinisch-chirurgische Zeitung, 1829, i. 396.
[1907]. Buchner’s Repertorium für Pharmacie, xxi. 313.
[1908]. Edinburgh Medical and Surg. Journal, lix. 72.
[1909]. Orfila, Annales d’Hyg. Publ. et de Méd. Lég. i. 507.
[1910]. Dublin Medical Journal, viii. 308.
[1911]. Edinburgh Med. and Surg. Journal, xlviii. 44.
[1912]. Coullon, Recherches, &c. p. 200.
[1913]. Journ. de Chim. Médicale, vii. 426.
[1914]. Handbuch der Toxikologie, 1838, 443.