ment of the plaintiff, the plan of defense is arranged accordingly. Information is collected, arguments are suggested, precedents sought for, able debaters called in, and every possible preparation made for the battle of intellects that is to be fought on the following day.

"The plaintiff's party, usually reinforced both in mental and material strength, arm the next morning, and take up their ground again. The opponents, now mustered in force, confront them, seated on the ground, each man with his arms at his side. The case is resumed by some advocate for the defendant requiring a restatement of the plaintiff's grounds of action. This is commenced perhaps by one who was not even present at the previous day's proceedings, but who has been selected for this more difficult stage on account of his debating abilities.

"Then comes the tug of war; the ground is disputed inch by inch; every assertion is contested, every proof attempted to be invalidated, objection meets objection, and question is opposed by counter-question, each disputant endeavoring with surprising adroitness to throw the burden of answering on his opponent. The Socratic method of debate appears in all its perfection, both parties being equally versed in it. The rival advocates warm as they proceed, sharpening each other's ardor, till from the passions that seem enlisted in the contest, a stranger might suppose the interests of the nation at stake and dependent up. on the decision. When these combatants have spent their strength, or one or other of them is overcome in argument, others step to the rescue. The battle is fought over again on different ground, some point either of law or evidence that had been purposely kept in abeyance, being now brought forward, and perhaps the entire aspect of the case changed.

"The whole of the second day is frequently taken up with this intellectual gladiatorship, and it closes without any other result than an exhibition of the relative strength of the opposing parties. The plaintiff's company retire again, and the defendant and his friends review their own position. Should they feel that they have been worsted, and that the case is one that cannot be successfully defended, they prepare to attempt

to bring the matter to a conclusion by an offer of the smallest satisfaction the law allows. This is usually refused, in expectation of an advance in the offer, which takes place generally in proportion to the defendant's anxiety to prevent an appeal (to the Chief). Should the plaintiff at length accede to the proposed terms, they are fulfilled, and the case is ended by a formal declaration of acquiescence."-The Cape Law Journal.

FINDING THE VERDICT.

In one of the earliest trials before a colored jury in Texas, the twelve gentlemen were told by the judge to retire and "find the verdict." They went into the jury-room, whence the opening and shutting of doors, and other sounds of unusual commotion were heard. At last the jury came back into the court, when the foreman announced: "We hab looked eberywhar, Jedge, for dat verdict-in de drawers and behind de doors; but it ain't nowhar in dat blessed room."

Department of Medical Jurisprudence.

EDWARD B. WESTON, M. D.. EDITOR.

THE SO-CALLED ELIXIR OF YOUTH AND
ITS ABSURD PRETENSIONS.

It is now more than two months since the news of BrownSéquard's alleged method of rejuvenating the aged reached this country. The subject is one that naturally appeals to public interest, since a long life and a vigorous old age have always been among the chief objects of human desire, and consequently it has received a much greater share of newspaper attention than is usually bestowed on medical topics. This is most unfortunate, for the public discussion of such an absurdity, tends only to bring scientific medicine into ridicule.

The method is on its face preposterous; its vaunted effects are impossible and ridiculous. It is opposed to all known physiological and biological laws, and had it not been bolstered up by the reputation of a Brown-Séquard, it would scarcely have been heard of outside of the Paris society where it was proposed, and no one would ever have looked upon it in any other light than as the foolish conceit of an old man, in whose mind the dreams of returning youth had assumed the counterfeit of reality. Supported as it was, however, by the weight of an authority hitherto respected in the world of medicine, it was necessary that it should be tested cautiously and in a proper way, and that the method should not be actually condemned until it had been proved as worthless, as were its pretensions extravagant. For unreflecting and obstinate

scepticism in matters medical is as illogical as unreasoning credulity.

The experiments reported by Dr. Loomis in another column are sufficient, we think, to satisfy the demands of legitimate prudence. In fact, the subject has already received more attention than it has deserved. The results of these experiments seem to show that the injected material may, in certain cases, act as a mechanical stimulant, but that is all; they fail utterly to support the extravagant claims of physical and mental rejuvenescence which have been put forward in behalf of this method. What these experiments do not so clearly show, since they were conducted with a proper regard for surgical cleanliness, is the imminent risk of septic poisoning or of tuberculous infection to which the subjects of such injections are exposed in the hands of incautious operators.

It is high time, therefore, to call a halt in this matter, unless scientific medicine is to be made ridiculous in the eyes of the public. If there are any not yet convinced of the worthlessness of this method, let them continue their experiments as long as they wish, but let them do so removed from the public gaze and out of sight of the newspaper reporters. It is repugnant to true science to parade such crude and untried theories before the public, as though they had received the stamp of authoritative approval, and in the name of this science we protest against it. The daily press is awakening to the true issues involved, and will in its own effectual way bury the theory out of sight, as soon as its falsity and absurdity have been made manifest.-N. Y. Medical Record.

THE MAYBRICK CASE.

Some singular dicta have crept into the discussion of the Maybrick case by the British medical journals. The details of the case are as follows: Mr. Maybrick, a hypochondriac patent medicine taker, arsenic eater and secret drinker, was, after a visit to the races, where he ate and drank heartily,

and was wet through, taken ill with vomiting and stiffness in ie legs. He was treated for gastro-intestinal catarrh by several physicians and given small doses of ipecac and Fowler's solution, bismuth, carbolic acid, cerium oxalate and similar remedies to relieve gastrie distress. As constipation was present, cascara sagrada was administered. Sulphonal was given to secure slumber. The patient was doing well up to three days before death, when diarrhoea attended by tenesmus set in. Four days before death, suspicion of arsenic poisoning was raised by an interested party, but on examination of the excreta no trace of arsenic was found. From this time on the patient was kept under surveillance, but on the first day thereafter, he grew rapidly worse and died two days later.

The British medical journals with their usual bias for the prosecution, have summed up in favor of arsenic poisoning, albeit leading forensic experts like Tidy, whose work on "Legal Medicine" is an Anglo-Saxon standard, Fritzgerald and Kinkhead, claim that death was caused by ordinary gastroenteritis. Small quantities of arsenic were found by Stevenson in the intestines, liver and kidneys, by the use of tests long since abandoned by toxicologists as defective. Had no arsenic been medicinally given the patient, and had he not been an arsenic-eater, this finding, despite its defective origin, might have been of value, but in the light of these facts, it becomes valueless, especially when the defective nature of the tests is remembered.

The British Medical Journal lays down as a starting point, that vomiting, attended simultaneously with diarrhoea, in an adult, is indicative of poisoning. Every American physician of any experience will take issue with this dictum. Vomiting, attended simultaneously with diarrhoea, may result from a chill, from nephritis, from malarial hepatic disease, from hepatic cirrhosis, from bad water, from impure food, and in certain persons, from cold. This dictum has therefore no value, moreover it has no bearing on the case. The vomiting of Mr. Maybrick did not occur simultaneously with his diarrhoea. Dr. Tidy claims that since pain was absent, gastro-intestinal disease was not of arsenical origin, and this claim is certainly a justifi