In cross-examination, Dr. Bolton stated that there were four kinds of the drug called Indian hemp. It could be eaten, smoked, drunk or injected hypodermically. Its ordin>ry effect was pleasurable excitement, then lethargy and sleep. Frenzy and moments of violent homicidal mania were common. Excessive doses on people who were addicted to the drug might produce a condition of permanent mania of this kind, but ordinarily the stuff was a depressent. Any one so affected would hardly recover, or be absolutely normal, within 24 hours.
Counsel asked witness whether he had ever read of a case in Taylor's Medical Jurisprudence," where a man suddenly woke up in bed, and thought he saw a frightful phantom. He called out twice, received no answer, so picked up a hatchet with which he murdered his wife. He was charged: with murder and found not guilty.
Witness said he had read the book, but was not familiar with the case.
Counsel—Indian hemp is the most potent of all forms of intoxicants?—(Witness) That is a very sweeping. statement. It is a very potent drug.
Re-examined with regard to the case quoted by the defence, witness thought any man who so behaved must have been a heavy drinker.
An Indian warder at the British Gaol said Shagaman asked for cigarettes many times while in custody, but, of course, was not allowed to have any.
STILL NO BLOOD ON KNIFE, Mr. F. G. Walker, analyst, said the stains on the knife proved to be those of rust. There was no positive reaction for human blood.
Mr. Mansel Reece—Do you think that the means at your disposal were sufficient to show that there can be no blood on that knife, if tested within two or three weeks?
Witness—I think had there been blood present in the stains' the tests which were applied would have shown it.
In answer to Mr. McDonald, witness.said he would almost certainly howe found blood on the knife, had there been any on it, during the period of a fortnight. 7 Mr. Manssl Reece—If I were to uso a knife on @ person, it got covered with blood and I wiped it well.on a cloth, do you say that the chance of finding traces would ~be removed Witness—The chances of finding, blood would be raddced, but il you had the blood on a: rusty knife, on the blade, I do not think yor could expect to wipe it off completely.
Addressing" the jury for the Crown, Mr. Wilkinson said it wag not for him to enter into a long philosophical, chemical discussion as to why there were no_ bloodstains on the knife. The only person who had it in his possession at the time was the prisoner. Counsel who had so kindly undertaken the defence objected to nearly everything put forward by Crown, but nothing had been adduced which. should not have been. The jury had the statement by accused that he used the knife. Was there any reason for doubting the evidence that showed this? That was, in fact, the whole of the case. According to one witness, accused not only told them that, but said he atruck sat blow. behalf of the prisoner, Me. Mcn_ a lengthy closing; ch on
Donald said the defence rested on the knife produced by the Crown. But if that rusty knife had been used, it must have: shown some signs of blood on analysis. This was only one of the. many featureg of the case open to doubt. In substance the prosecution largely supported the main theme of the defence. The accused might have done it at a time when he was in such condition that ha did not know what he wag
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.