in which it was done. Miss
Neilson being on the stand, a dispute arose as to whether Mr. Van Ness
had or had not previously made a sufficient denial for contradiction.
To settle this, Miss Neilson left the stand: Mr. Van Ness went up and
took the oath. Then the question was put, "Did you say so and so?" He
answered, "I certainly did not." Miss Neilson returning to the stand
immediately after this, the question was put to her. The court-room
was in the deepest silence while in a low but audible voice she
replied, "He did say it." The testimony of these ladies was in no
degree shaken by a severe cross-examination.]

[Footnote 21: An essential symptom of tartar emetic poisoning is
purging as well as vomiting. Dr. Williams of course knows this. It
is a singular circumstance that whilst Mr. Van Ness stated that his
bowels were scarcely affected at all, Dr. Williams testified that
there was frequent purging. No remedies calculated to arrest purging
were employed by Dr. Williams, however, during the illness of Mr. Van
Ness.]

[Footnote 22: Mrs. Wharton's trip to Europe had been arranged and her
passage engaged months before the occurrence of these events. If the
theory of the State of Maryland, that she poisoned General Ketchum,
be true, by poisoning Mr. Van Ness she placed herself in the position
of the criminal who voluntarily and without motive destroys his means
of escape. Either she was insane, or the asserted crimes were not
committed.]

[Footnote 23: It is well worthy of mention in this connection that Mr.
I.G. Moale of Baltimore testified that he went for Dr. Chew on Sunday
morning, on account of the sick stomach of Mr. Van Ness, and that Dr.
Chew told him that the vomiting was the almost necessary result of the
remedies used the day before--a truth which, previous to Mr. Moale's
appearance in Annapolis, the experts for the defence had insisted
upon. H. Clay Dallam also testified that Dr. Williams had told him
on Saturday that the indisposition of Mr. Van Ness the day before had
been a nervous attack from overwork. This opinion also was in absolute
agreement with the opinion expressed by the experts for the defence.]

[Footnote 24: The detailed reasons for this opinion will be given in
a medical journal at the proper time. It is allowable here to state,
however, that not one of the symptoms laid down by authorities as
characteristic of strychnia poisoning was present in the attack of the
24th of June, and that no