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.

    61/66 (page 59)
    the way in which the office of public prosecutor is discharged. After the late trial I saw published the report of a lecture by the very eminent surgeon who is the defender in this case. Your Lord- ships will recollect that the calumnies complained of by Mr Glover arose in consequence of Mr Syrne thinking there were improper practices going on in the country, particularly in the county of Edinburgh, and under the authority of the Lord Advocate, with regard to taking secondary medical evidence, instead of taking what is called primary medical evidence; that is to say, omitting to call the individuals who had attended the parties who may have died, and sending the police-surgeon or others to inquire about them, and using them as medical witnesses instead of those who could give the best information; and it was in the course of Mr Syrne’s remarks on that subject that he made those reflections on the proceedings of Mr Glover which ended in a verdict against him, with £250 damages. Now, my Lords, I see that in that lecture, which seems to have been published with his authority, Mr Syrne, having evidently received some most extraordinary misrepresentations of what passed at the trial, says, that having done all he could to correct this great defect—which, if it existed, would be a great defect in the admini¬ stration of justice—it had now received the sanction of the Judge at the head of the Court of Justiciary ; and that the country, unless it chose to take the matter up, must suffer the consequences of that system. Now, it so happened, as the Counsel in the case well know, that my great object was to tell the jury that we had nothing whatever to do with that matter at all, and that the sole question to be tried by them was whether there were certain calumnies in these papers against Mr Glover individually. No doubt the eloquent Counsel for Mr Syrne, Mr Patton, endeavoured to enlist the feelings of the jury in favour of Mr Syme, by saying that he was fighting a public battle; and if he used some language which was a little strong, it ought to be forgiven for the motives for which it was used. But my object was specially to tell the jury that neither they nor I had anything to do with this at all. So far from giving any appro¬ bation to that course which Mr Syme condemns, on that or on any occasion, I have myself, both in the High Court and on Circuit, commented pretty sharply on some cases in which the surgeon first called in, and who had attended the deceased or injured person, had been omitted; but in this instance I pointed out to the jury that Mr Glover had been sent for to see a boy in the Infirmary, not with a