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.

    63/66 (page 61)
    I 61 REPLY BY MR SYME TO THE LORD JUSTICE-CLERK’S EXPLANATION. Gentlemen,—In adverting to tlie late trial which so deeply concerned the character of onr profession, I intimated my intention of abstaining from any further attempt to oppose the present system of selecting medical evidence in Scotland, under the impression that every thing in my power to remedy this grievance had been done. But it appears, as you will see from the newspapers, that the Lord Justice-Clerk has thought proper to make, from his seat on the bench, a reply to my statement, which cannot be allowed to pass unnoticed. At the trial Mr Glover declared that his mind was satisfied as to the state of the boy Clark before he saw Dr Dobie, while it was proved that neither then, nor at any other time, had he seen or examined the injured parts. Yet, according to what was i stated to be a verbatim report of his charge, published in the Lancet, the Lord Justice-Clerk told the jury that Mr Glover was warranted in certifying “ on soul and conscience” as to the existence of a frac¬ ture, because he had been informed at the police-office that there was one. The judge, then, in the most public and authoritative I manner, recognised the validity of secondary or hearsay evidence ; but now that a storm of indignation has been raised throughout the country, he tells us that he never meant to sanction any undue laxity in the admission of medical testimony, it being well known that he is almost over-scrupulous in this respect. As it would, how¬ ever, be rather difficult to reconcile his charge in the Jury Court with his practice in the Justiciary Court, he endeavours to establish i a new distinction in regard to the value of evidence. Hitherto it has been supposed to depend upon the source from which the evi¬ dence proceeds, but, according to his Lordship, it should be estimated with reference to the object in viewr,—secondary, or hearsay evi¬ dence, being quite sufficient to put a man in prison, but unavailing for restoring him to liberty. Thus the peculiar sort of evidence col¬ lected by the Procurator-Fiscal for immediate use fullv warrants the Lord Advocate or Sheriff, to incarcerate for alleged offences; while testimony of a similar quality, afterwards produced at the trial in defence of an accused party, would, the Lord Justice Clerk says, be instantly set aside. My colleague, the Professor of Medical Juris¬ prudence, will therefore, in future, have to tell his class that, accord¬ ing to the present administration of criminal law in Scotland, there