(For directions for conducting a _post-mortem_ examination in cases of poisoning, see page 61.) =4. Evidence from Experiments on Animals.=--The evidence derived from experiments on animals with the contents of the stomach and vomited matters must not be too implicitly trusted, as these may give rise to vomiting and other symptoms when no poison is present. All animals are not alike affected with man by the same poisons; and it appears that the dog and the cat are the only animals that at all approach man with regard to the effects produced. Experiments on the lower animals are useless to decide--(1) The fatal dose of any poison. (2) The rate of absorption, deposition, or elimination of poisons. (3) The rapidity of the action of certain poisons. In the case, however, of some vegetable poisons, the effects produced on animals by a portion of the substance taken by the person suspected of having been poisoned, may afford corroborative evidence of poisoning. In the case of Lamson, executed for poisoning his brother-in-law with aconite, experiments on animals formed the chief evidence against the accused. =5. Moral Evidence.=--The moral evidence of poisoning is generally furnished by the common witnesses of the Crown; but the value of this kind of evidence, in many cases, can only be fully appreciated by a medical witness. To render this part of the subject as complete as possible, a few remarks may not be out of place. The suspicious conduct of the prisoner before and after the event, the recent purchase of poison, the mode of administration, the object of the prisoner in getting rid of his supposed victim, and the fact of several persons being alike affected, should be carefully noted down. The anxiety evinced during the illness of the deceased, and the hurry in the funeral arrangements, showing an over-anxiety to remove all traces of his guilt, are suspicious. The probability of suicide is weakened by the state of the mind and the nature of the dying declarations of the deceased. In the case of a person indicted for poisoning, evidence to show motive in another case is admissible. (R. _v._ Geering, 18 L.J. [M.C.] 215; R. _v._ Heeson or Johnson; R. _v._ Garner, 3 F. & F. 681.) Lastly, it remains to be considered-- _What is the duty of a Medical Man who suspects the Action of Poison in a Patient on whom he is in attendance?_