_Is the discovery of poison in the body or the evacuations essential to establish a charge of poisoning?_ It was mentioned at the commencement of the present section, that the chemical evidence is generally, and correctly, considered the most decisive of all the branches of proof in cases of poisoning. But some toxicologists have even gone so far as to maintain that without chemical evidence, or rather, in more general terms, without the discovery of poison either in the body itself or in the evacuations,—no charge of poisoning ought to be held as proved. This, however, is a doctrine to which I cannot assent. In the preceding observations on the evidence of general poisoning it has been several times alluded to as unsound; and repeated opportunities of establishing exceptions will occur in the course of this work, under the head of individual poisons. At present it may be well to illustrate its unsoundness in reference to those charges of poisoning, where no particular poison is pointed at by the medical evidence, but where a whole class of poisons must be kept more or less in view. Even here I apprehend there may be sufficient evidence in the symptoms and morbid appearances, without any chemical facts,—to render poisoning so highly probable, that in conjunction with strong moral evidence, no sensible man can entertain any doubt on the subject. Several illustrations might be here given; and some will be found scattered throughout the work. In the present place a few instances will be mentioned which cannot be conveniently arranged any where else, and which are well worthy of notice, as being striking examples of the decision of questions of poisoning without chemical evidence.