The fact of accelerated, or retarded putrefaction, therefore, cannot be received with any confidence as a collateral indication of poisoning. _Dr. Carson_, however, in the trial of _Charles Angus_, adduced the circumstance of its absence, as a negative proof that the deceased had not been poisoned; and in the celebrated Scotch trial of _Patrick Ogilvy_, and _Catharine Nairne_,[197] the same fact was forcibly urged in their defence. _Gaspard à Reies_,[198] and other writers, have maintained that the discovery of _living_ worms in the intestines of a person, suspected to have died from poison, ought to be received as a direct refutation of the charge. We are, however, not disposed to concur in such an opinion. With respect to the value of the indication supposed to be afforded by the circumstance of froth issuing from the mouth of the corpse, soon after death, _Mr. Hunter_ has given a very satisfactory opinion, and to which we must refer the reader, see _Appendix_, p. 273. Q. IV. _How far the absence of poison, or the inability of the chemist to detect it, in the body, or in the fluids ejected from it, is to be received as a negative to an accusation of poisoning?_ We have already stated, that of all the proofs which can be adduced by the physician, in support of a charge of murder by poison, no one can be put in competition with that which arises from the discovery of the poisonous substance itself, in the stomach, or in the contents of the matter ejected by vomiting or purging. The law expects, therefore, that the professional witness should be prepared to state, that every experiment, calculated to detect the presence of poison, has been scrupulously and faithfully performed; and we may take this occasion to observe, that the circumstance of advanced putrefaction can rarely, in the present state of our chemical knowledge, be admitted as a satisfactory plea for not having proceeded to an anatomical inspection, as preliminary to chemical inquiry; and, as to the danger of such dissections, _Dr. Gordon Smith_ has very truly observed, “that much is placed to this account which belongs merely to disgust.” Had an examination of the body taken place in the case of _Ogilvy_ and _Nairne_, how many doubts would have been cleared away; indeed, this omission afforded the prisoners a strong ground of defence; they complained that the informer had intentionally prevented the dissection of the body, being conscious that the suspicions he had raised, and the project he had formed for their ruin, would, by such a measure, have been totally removed and defeated. To this it was answered, that when the informer (a younger brother of the deceased) arrived, he did insist on the body being opened and examined, as soon as a physician of eminence could be present, which the prisoners did not then oppose; but that when the physician arrived on the ensuing day, he declared the body to be in such a putrid state, that no certain conclusions could be drawn