Was there no cheese rasped over this rice? demanded _Morgagni_. They answered in the affirmative; the priest who had little or no appetite, ate scarcely any thing but the cheese. In that case, said _Morgagni_, you understand already that there was arsenic among that cheese, which had probably been prepared for killing rats, and not having been laid away with sufficient care, some one had taken it to serve up with your rice during the time that you were hurrying the landlord to send up your dinner. These conjectures were verified by the confession of the landlord himself, who, having learned that the patients were out of danger, was no longer afraid to acknowledge that such had been the cause of this unfortunate accident.
The practitioner, says _Orfila_, will not be able to form a correct judgment in cases of this kind, if he neglect to pay attention, _first_, to the state of the stomach of the different persons poisoned; in fact, those who have taken a great quantity of food or drink, would feel in general less severe symptoms than others; _second_, to the nature of the dishes and of the drinks, as well as to the quantity that each person may have eaten or drank; _third_, to the existence or absence of vomitings and stools. It is evident that it may happen, that some persons have eaten a tolerably large quantity of a poisoned dish without any serious symptoms taking place, for this very reason, that the quantity of the food was considerable, and that it easily produced copious evacuations, by means of which the poison had been expelled. Numerous cases of culinary poisoning might be adduced in this place, in illustration of the important lights which are to be derived from the investigations which form the subject of the present chapter; but we have already considered the subject very fully under the head of poisons; and in the history of the effects of copper and lead, we have particularly explained the evils that may arise from the careless use of such metallic utensils in cookery.
_Whether any and what remedies have been used; by whom recommended; and by whom administered?_—The importance of this part of the enquiry is too obvious to require explanation; we are to learn from it whether the administration of the medicines might not have accidentally contributed to the aggravation of the symptoms they were designed to allay; suppose, for instance, we were to be told that the patient had resorted to copious libations of brandy to mitigate the sufferings of the bowels, which were afterwards found to depend upon _Enteritis_; the inference is obvious—but in performing this part of our professional duty, the greatest caution is necessary, and we must take care that our own medical opinions do not carry us to an unjustifiable extent in our reprehension of the plan of treatment which has been pursued by others; a striking instance of this want of propriety occurred in the late celebrated trial of _Donnell_, and was very properly denounced by the court, (_see page 161 in the second volume, and Appendix, p. 304_.) But there still remains another reason why we should cautiously and attentively examine any medicine that may have been administered, and it would be right in the practitioner to procure a portion of such medicine, with a view to its future analysis; for it has happened that where the assassin has supposed that his first dose would be insufficient to effect his purpose, he has artfully insinuated an additional dose in the medicines which are administered for the relief of his victim, and thus the hand, which is treacherously held out with promises of succour, adds a stronger poison to the cup; this occurred in the diabolical case of _Mary Bateman_,[4] better known by the name of the Yorkshire witch, who having poisoned a family with arsenic, sent a jar of honey, mixed with corrosive sublimate, _for their relief_.