the discovery of her remains was made accident- ally by some boys searching on a Sunday afternoon for chestnuts. That a middle-aged woman in the full possession of her senses and while performing the duties of a responsible professional engagement, should all of a sud- den disappear and leave no indication of the manner or cause of her strange and inexplicable fate, created quite a sensation. The wildest rumours and suggestions were started. It was thought that this was a case of sudden loss of memory or mental oblivion, and many instances of this condition were cited in the papers. It was mooted that she was kidnapped and retained in concealment, or murdered and her body disposed of. It was hinted that her relations with the hospital officials had been strained, and that the responsibilities of the post she held had unduly strained her mind and feelings. But no satis- fiictory eviilence could be obtained in support of any of these views. When at last her body was found it was decomposed, and to some extent dismembered and mutilated by animals. It lay in a close thicket in a sleeping attitude, and no sign of struggle existed, nor did the examination of the body reveal any evidence of violence. A portion of the stomach was secured, and chemical analysis gave distinct proofs of the presence of morphia. She had bought morphia tabloids on the day of her disappearance, and these with a hypodermic syringe W^re found. The evidence produced at the inquest, which was prolonged and searching, gave rise to a verdict of suicide by morphia while in a state of unsound mind* It came out that several members of her family had suffered from neuroses of various kindsi and it seems almost certain that her work and responsibilities at the Royal Free Hospital had upset her mental balance and caused her to seek refuge in lethe.
Cases of sudden disappearance must be familiar to most civil surge(ms in India, but they are of a very different sort. The history of them is gene- rally a quarrel, the disappearance of one of the parties to the quarrel, and an imputation of mur- der against the other party. Itiformation is given to the police and search made for the corpus delicti. Rivers and khals are dragged and bones are found, which are submitted wrapped np in rags and contained in an old chattee for examination by the police. These generally turn out to be the bones of sheep or goats. In time the homing instinct which is so strong in the native of India proves too much for the fugitive, and he bums up
sooner or later in his native village, hoping perhaps that meantime his enemy has been hanged. I remember giving evidence in one such case before the Calcutta High Court. A collection of bones was placed before me which I had no difficulty in identifying as the leg bones of a sheep. The collection contained a human pelvis, but it was the pel vis of a young female, whereas the murdered party was alleged to be a full grown man. The case promptly broke down, and the accused was acquitted.
Batliss versus CoLBRiDaB.
A noteworthy trial has tiiis day been con- cluded in the Court of King's Bench before the Lord Chief Justice and a special jury. The facts are very simple. The Hon*ble Stephen Coleridge, Honorary Secretary of the Auti- vivisection Society made on the 2nd of May last in St. James's Hall a highly inflammatory speech at the annual meeting of the Society in which he read a description given him by two Swedish ladies — rabid anti-vivisectionists — of an experiment on a dog performed in the pre- ceding February to illustrate a lecture delivered by Dr. W. M. Bayliss, Assistant Professor of Physiology. These ladies alleged that contrary to the provisions of the law the animal was not deprived of consciousness and exhibited signs of acute suffering. Mr. Coleridge accepted this testimony without further inquiry, and made it the basis of a heated tirade, ending with a suggestion that the public should take the law into their own hands and proceed to demolish the laboratory. An inquiry was made by the Home Office which resulted in an emphatic contradiction of the allegation, and a statement that Professor Bayliss had not transgressed the law. Mr. Coleridge refused to accept the authoritative contradiction of these ladies' re- port, or to believe Dr. Bayliss' denial. Hence the trial. The accusation amounted to a charge of committing a serious crime and so acting that the professor was unfit for his ap- pointment, and an immoral, mendacious man. There was no difficulty in proving that all thd requirements of the law had been observed scrupulously, and the testimony of Mr. Coleridge and his supporters indicated reckless prejudice and blind prepossession. They succeeded in fatally damaging their case and seriously discrediting their cause. The result was that the jury promptly returned a verdict for ^^he^yj^ plaintiff (Dr. Bayliss), with £2,000 damages^"^^
