These witnesses, it may be observed, gave their evidence both as to the symptoms during life and as to the appearances at the post-mortem _before_ the medical evidence for the defense had been called. The witnesses called for the defense had none of them attended the deceased, but were called as experts in poisoning, viz., Dr. Tidy, a Crown analyst, Dr. Macnamara, and Professor Paul, who all gave positive evidence that neither the symptoms during life nor the appearance after death were such as _could be attributed to arsenical poisoning_; that, in fact, they pointed _away from_, instead of toward, arsenic being the cause of death. The evidence of these witnesses was summarized very fairly by Mr. Justice Stephen. In the face of such a conflict of medical opinion, it is submitted that Mr. Justice Stephen should have refused to allow the jury to return any verdict of guilty at all. MISDIRECTIONS AS TO CAUSE OF DEATH On the first day of his summing-up, however, Mr. Justice Stephen told the jury as to the law under which they were to return their verdict: “You have been told that if you are not satisfied in your minds about poisoning--if you think he died from some other disease--then the case is not made out against the prisoner. It is a necessary step--it is _essential_ to this charge--that the man _died of poison_, and the poison suggested is arsenic. This is the question you have to consider, and it must be the foundation of a judgment unfavorable to the prisoner that he died of arsenic.” It is submitted that Mr. Justice Stephen _misdirected_ the jury when he told them to satisfy their minds whether he died from any other disease, inasmuch as the only question before the jury was whether _the cause of death was arsenic_. “The question for you is by what the illness was caused. Was it caused by arsenic or by some other means?” It is submitted that that is a _misdirection_. It might have been put to a coroner’s jury, but it was not a question which should have been put to a jury at a criminal trial. It is submitted that he _misdirected_ the jury in not also telling them that it was _essential_ to a verdict unfavorable to the prisoner that the arsenic of which he died _had been administered by her_, and also in not telling the jury that it was essential to a verdict unfavorable to the prisoner that, if she had administered any, she had done it with intent to destroy life. MISDIRECTION TO IGNORE MEDICAL TESTIMONY