{52} Nux. _Nux Vomica Strichnia_. This is a well-known remedy as a theraputic agent in cases of paralysis. If this, or other medicines used by Dr. Bell, aggravated the misery of the sufferer, possibly that gentleman, who it appears was educated in the Allopathic School, might have used them in larger doses than is prescribed by a real disciple of the German Hahnemann. Be this as it may, it furnishes a precious example to those who follow such vague practise in grave disease, where the life of the afflicted verges on eternity. Yet, surely, none but vain and ignorant people, assumed or real, can believe in the shadow of a shade, though introduced with all the seductive novelty which specious artifice and subtle ingenuity can devise, as promulgated in the doctrines of a visionary enthusiast and his followers. {55} Metastasis or translation of disease frequently takes place at a remote distance from the original seat of mischief, involving tissues belonging to vital organs, and the afflicted sink through inanition or loss of vital power. {56} A verdict is altogether a matter of substance. All the facts and circumstances must be stated with certainty and precision, without any repugnancy or inconsistency; and where it contains a charge, the charge must be direct and positive.—Vide Sewell on the Law of Coroners. {57a} So stated in the Medical Directory. {57b} This forms the nucleus for other observations, at a convenient opportunity. {58} The jury are to inquire into and judge of all matters of fact connected with the death of a party, and in certain cases of flight, forfeiture, deodands, &c. and for that purpose to receive such evidence as may appear necessary. But they may give a verdict without testimony, where they themselves have cognizance of the fact; but if they give a verdict on their own knowledge, they ought to inform the court so. They may however be sworn as witnesses, and the fair way is to tell the court before they are sworn, that they have evidence to give. {59a} According to Lyttleton, in which opinion Lord Coke concurs, if the jury will take upon themselves the knowledge of the law, the coroner is bound to accept the presentment which the jury make. {59b} But it appears (and very judiciously so) that the immediate and direct right of deciding upon questions of law is entrusted to the court, while in the jury, it is at most only incidental; that in the exercise of this incidental right, the latter are not only placed under the superintendence of the former, but in some degree controllable by them; and therefore, that in all points of law during an investigation, the jury ought to show the most respectful deference to the advice and recommendation of the court.—_Vide_ Sewell on the law of coroners.