pert testimony in general, was certainly true of this case, viz: that there are always enough different opinions among different experts to get the jury decidedly perplexed, and that a skillful lawyer will have no difficulty in drawing out these differences of opinion. Dr. Hotz was asked by Mr. Brand, whether he, as consulting physician, saw anything in the case that indicated injudicious treatment or improper violence. He answered, 'no.' The attorney on the other side asked him whether he or any one else could in a case of that kind swear to their best knowledge and belief, on seeing the patient a single time, that no harm could have been done. Of course the case was put in so vague a manner, that he said no. It is one of the difficulties in expert witnesses that no matter how definite a stand they make take, the attorney on the other side can introduce testimony from the same man that may at least render the thing shaky in the eyes of a technically unintellectual jury.

"Judge Horton referred to the fact that members of the Medico-Legal Society might injure each other by serving in each other's behalf. I think this was attempted in the present case, but it had escaped me until it was commented on to-night. I remember that when I was on the stand I was asked if I was a member of the Medico-Legal Society? And the same question was put to some of the experts, but as some of them did not happen to be members, the prosecuting attorneys made no use of that point in their speech.”

Judge Horton: "My thought was that there is a sort of general prejudice in the public mind that gets into the jury box, against expert testimony, a sort of feeling, as one of the gentlemen here put it, that the doctors will help one another. Just as you will find it with lawyers; you try to prove a lawyer's bill by lawyers as experts, testifying to the value of the services, and the doubt as to the fairness of the testimony will go through the jury instantly. They say, well, those lawyers will help one another. And the same thought obtains that the doctors will help one another as experts. It may be the fault of our system of jurisprudence; it may be a weakness of human nature; but the fact exists; hence it requires cautious and careful handling to win a case upon expert testi

mony where there is a complication of facts, or disputed facts. It is very difficult.

"I think it quite possible, as I suggested to your President, that in case a member of this society was prosecuted and witnesses were called who were members of the same society, it might add to that feeling and weaken the expert testimony of co-members of the society.

"To criticise the handling of any case in court, not having heard the trial of the case, would be like one physician criticising another without knowing anything about the case or the treatment. It is a thing that is impracticable-impossible to do and do properly.

"Allow me to suggest a word as to experts, called out by the remarks of the two last speakers. It is the custom of experts to answer a question literally and stop, because counsel says, "That is all; you have answered the question.' A witness has always the right to explain his answer, and I think the experienced expert will demand his rights and explain his answer, and then he will not be caught in that 'vise' the doctor spoke of.

THE USE OF THE TITLE HOMEOPATHIST.'

Judge George C. Barrett, of the Supreme Court of New York City, in reply to the question: "Has a physician, designating himself an Homeopathist' and called as such to a patient, any legal or moral right to adopt other than homeopathic means in the treatment of the case?" sends the following answer to the New York Medical Times:

"I have your note of the 11th inst. asking my opinion upon a question of professional ethics. In my judgment there can be but one answer to your question, and that is in the negative. If I call in a medical man who designates himself an 'homeopathic physician,' it is because I do not wish to be treated allopathically, or eclectically or otherwise than homeopathically.

There is an implied understanding between myself and the homeopathist that I shall receive the treatment which, by tradition and a general consensus of opinion, means small doses of a single drug administered upon the principle of similia similibus curantur.

"If there is to be any variation from that method I have a right to be informed of it and to be given an opportunity to decide. Common honesty demands that before a confiding patient is to be drugged with quinine, iron, morphine or other medicaments, either singly or in combination, he should be told that the 'homeopathist' has failed, and that relief can only be afforded by a change of system. An honest homeopathist, who has not succeeded, after doing his best with the appropriate homeopathic remedies administered on homeopathic principles, should undoubtedly try anything else which he believes may save or elieve his patient. But when he reaches that point, the duty of taking his patient into his confidence becomes imperative. The patient may refuse to submit to the other system, or he may agree, but prefer a physician whose life has been specially devoted to practice under that other system. He may say to the homeopathist: You have failed, but I prefer to try another gentleman of your own school, before resorting to a system that I have long since turned my back upon.', Or he may say, 'Well, if homeopathy cannot save me, I prefer to go to headquarters for allopathic treatment.' All this, gentlemen, is the logical sequence of the particular designation, 'homeopathist.""

FEES FOR MEDICAL SERVICES.

A decision was recently rendered by Judge Brady or the New York City Supreme Court, in a suit brought by Dr. Srange for payment for professional services.

The judge decided that in a case of this kind the plaintiff had a right to show that his standing in the profession was

high, as bearing upon the question of the amount of compensation. The judge also said:

"There is also evidence tending to establish a custom or rule of guidance as to the charges of physicians for services rendered, and which makes the amount dependent on the means of the patient-his financial ability or condition. This is a benevolent practice, which does not effect the abstract question of value, nor impose any legal obligation to adopt, and cannot be said to be universal. Indeed, there does not seem to be any standard by which, in the application of the rule, the amount to be paid can be ascertained. Each case is under the special disposition of the surgeon or physician attending, and he is to decide as to the reduction to be made on account of the circumstances of his patient; and therefore, when the amount is in dispute, it follows that it is to be determined by proofs to be given on either side. The measure of compensation must be controlled more or less by ability in all the professions, and the service rendered by its responsibilities and success.”

(From the Scottish Law Magazine.)

ELECTRICITY AND THE DEATH PENALTY.

We have been favored by Mr. Clark Bell, President of the Medico-Legal Society of New York, with the advance sheets of an article upon this subject, in which he gives an account of the movement in America, and the inquiries which have there been made into the matter.

"There has been," he says, "for more than a quarter of a century in this State a prejudice against the scaffold and the hangman.

"Those who have yielded to the stern exactions of the law, which demands a life for a life,' have felt an almost insurmountable repugnance to the rope.

"The bungling of sheriff's' assistants, the negligent or ignorant adjustment of the noose, have often caused such revolting

scenes at public executions as to fill the beholders with horror, and add to that ever-increasing number, now close to a majority, who demand the entire abolition of the death penalty as a punishment for crime.

"The removal of the scaffold as a factor in the civilization of our century, has engaged the attention of the Medico-Legal Society for many years."

We do not think that the above remarks apply with much truth to the state of feeling in this country. There is much irritation at times at the bungling of hangmen, and there is a party-though not, we think, a growing party-in favor of the abolition of the death penalty; but there is no demand for the substitution of any other form of capital punishment for hanging. That there is an "almost insurmountable repugnance to the rope" on the part of those who are compelled to "yield (in quite another sense than our author) to the stern exaction of the law, which demands 'a life for a life,"" undoubtedly holds good here, and to many this will appear one of the strongest arguments in favor of maintaining the old form of punishment. Mr. Bell then proceeds to give an account of the action of the authorities which led to the new enactment:

"The Legislature of the State, upon the recommendation of Governor Hill, in his messages of 1885 and 1886, named a Commission to examine the subject and report their conclusions, composed of Hon. Elbridge T. Gerry, a n.ember of the MedicoLegal Society, Mathew Hale, Esq., of the Albany Bar, and Dr. Alfred P. Southwick, of Buffalo.

"On January 17th, 1888, this Committee submitted their report to the Legislature of New York. It is a very exhaustive and elaborate document, and it gives the history of human punishments for crimes in earliest times and in all countries.

"It enumerates and describes thirty-four different methods in which the death penalty has been hitherto inflicted.

"The guillotine is in vogue in nineteen civilized countries, the sword in nineteen, the gallows in three, the axe in one, the cord in one, while executions are public in twenty-nine countries and private in seven.

"The Committee claim and enumerate the following as facts