Illustrations of medical evidence and trial by jury in Scotland.

Date:
1855
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Illustrations of medical evidence and trial by jury in Scotland. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    53/66 (page 51)
    risk of mortification, does not exactly appear. He does not say that he stated it to Mr Glover; but it shows how strong was the opinion of Dr Dobie that there was danger in the case. Now, the whole of this mighty affair, this attack on Mr Glover, reiterated on three dif¬ ferent occasions in three ways, is founded upon this—that Mr Syme insists on taking the words, “ I examined the boy Clark, and found,” etc., in the sense that he had set about a surgical inspection of the limb, and that therefore, as he did not do that, he was stating a false¬ hood. That is the whole case ; when you come to the substance, that is in reality all that you have to consider. Now, gentlemen, you will look to the object of that certificate, and you will say whe¬ ther you can put that construction upon it, and fasten it down, as Mr Syme wishes to do, against Mr Glover, for the purpose of prov¬ ing that he stated a falsehood upon soul and conscience. I may say that the word u find ” in the certificate is one that would indicate that he did not make a personal examination of the limb, but only meant to report that the injury had taken place to the extent that the police understood. That he did find all the things stated in the certificate no one can doubt. If they had wished to prove that that was the only sense in which the certificate could be understood by those to whom it was addressed, the defender should have called the Procurator-Fiscal and the Superintendent of Police, to say whether they understood it was the duty of the police-surgeon to make an inspection of the limb, and whether they concluded, from the certificate, he did make an inspection of the limb. No such evidence has been produced, and it would have been strange indeed if those gentlemen had said so, because it would have been contrary to the object for which Mr Glover was sent there. It would have been most injurious to the boy if he had attempted to make such an inspection, and would probably have in¬ creased the danger which he was sent to ascertain the extent of. If you are satisfied upon that, the leading and primary view of the whole case, then let us see what are the matters complained of by Mr Glover. The first is in the first issue, that it was falsely and calumniously stated that he had granted a false certificate, inas¬ much as he therein expressed an opinion on a matter as to which he had no means of knowing anything. Now, says Mr Patton, “ that means, surgically and personally of knowing anything.” That is not said in the letter of Mr Syme; it says expressly, “no means of knowing anything.” Why, the certificate might have been founded