imputed to him as any indiscretion whatever.” The examination consequently proceeded. The observations of Mr. _Haslam_, in his work on _Medical Jurisprudence_ as it relates to Insanity, (London 1817) are so pertinent to our present subject that we shall give them in his own words: “The important duty which the medical practitioner has to perform, when he delivers his testimony before a Court of Justice, should be closely defined, conscientiously felt, and thoroughly understood,—his opinion ought to be conveyed in a perspicuous manner; he should be solemnly impressed that he speaks upon oath, the most sacred pledge before God between man and man—and that the life of a human being depends upon the clearness and truth of his deposition: he is not to palm on the Court the trash of medical hypothesis as the apology for crime; neither should the lunatic receive his cure at the gallows by the infirmity of his evidence; but above all, his opinion should be so thoroughly understood by himself, so founded by experience and fortified by reason, that it may resist the blandishments of eloquence and the subtil underminings of cross examination. The Physician should not come into Court merely to give his opinion—he should be able to explain it, and able to afford the reasons which influenced his decision—without such elucidation opinion becomes a bare dictum.” “It is to be regretted that on many occasions, where several medical practitioners have deposed, there has been a direct opposition of opinion:—this difference has sometimes prevailed respecting insanity, but more frequently in cases of poison. It is not intended to account for this contrariety of evidence; much will depend on the sagacity of the Counsel to institute the proper enquiries, and still more will be incumbent on the medical evidence, in order to explain and establish his testimony.