were raised on the memorable trial of _Charles Angus_ for the murder of _Margaret Burns_, but as we have already very frequently alluded to the medical evidence delivered on this occasion, and as we shall hereafter be called upon to notice some of its more striking features, we have subjoined a report of the trial, and of the unhappy and ill-conducted controversy to which it has given origin.[191] Whether the holes in the stomach were the effects of corrosive poison or of that solvent action after death, which we have just endeavoured to explain, must remain a matter of doubt, for the erosion in this case was so considerable, and the inflammation so slight, that it is impossible to assert that they both depended on the same cause. With respect to the possibility of confounding the appearances of gangrene, in the stomach, with those of putrefaction, some notice is necessary in this place; and we cannot better illustrate the subject, than by introducing the marks of discrimination which are considered by _Mahon_[192] as decisive upon such occasions. The spots in the stomach, resulting from putrefaction, says he, may be distinguished from those which have resulted from violent causes, during life, in the following manner. If the stomach retain its natural colour, and the spots are mixed with a red hue, or the ulcers have pale, or bright red edges, such have been the effect of some violent impression upon the living membrane; whereas, on the contrary, if the stomach be pale, livid, or green, and exhibit spots of the same colour, but of rather a deeper hue, we may safely conclude that they are the genuine phenomena of putrefaction. See the interesting account of the dissection of _William Mitchell_, p. 191. Q. 3. _Whether the rapid progress of putrefaction, in the body, generally, or in any particular part, is to be considered as affording presumptive evidence, in support of an accusation of poisoning?_