kimerajamm
Joined: 28 Nov 2010
Posts: 785
|
 Posted: Tue Jun 07, 2011 12:00 pm Post subject: Bayliss's counsel |
 |
|
Mason writes that a verbatim report of the speech was published the next day by the radical Daily News—founded by Charles Dickens—and over the next three days by other national and regional papers. Questions were raised in the House of Commons, particularly by Sir Frederick Banbury, a Conservative MP and sponsor of a vivisection bill aimed at ending demonstrations of the kind conducted by Starling and Bayliss. On 8 May 1903, Coleridge challenged Bayliss in a letter to the Daily News: "As soon as Dr. Bayliss likes to test the bona fides and accuracy of my public declaration ... he shall be confronted from the witness box by eyewitnesses I rely upon." Bayliss demanded a public apology, and when it failed to materialize, he issued a writ for libel. Starling decided not to sue. Even The Lancet, a medical journal that was no supporter of Coleridge, wrote that "it may be contended that Professor Starling ... committed a technical infringement of the Act."[28]
[edit] Bayliss v. Coleridge
The trial began on 11 November 1903 before Lord Chief Justice Lord Alverstone at the Royal Courts of Justice and took place over four days, closing on 18 November. The British Medical Journal called it "a test case of the utmost gravity". The Morning Leader described the public gallery as packed and rowdy, with no spare seats or standing room, and queues 30 yards (30 metres) long forming outside the courthouse.[28]
William Bayliss testified that the dog had been anaesthetized. He said that any movement had been the result of chorea, and was not purposive.
Bayliss's counsel, Rufus Isaacs, called Starling as his first witness. Starling admitted that he had broken the law by using the dog twice, but said in his defence that he had done so to avoid sacrificing two dogs.[17] The court accepted Bayliss's statement that the brown dog had been anaesthetized with one-and-a-half grains of morphia and six ounces of alcohol, chloroform, and ether. Bayliss said the dog had been suffering from chorea, a disease involving involuntary spasm, meaning that any movement the women had witnessed was not purposive. In addition, Bayliss testified that a tracheotomy had been performed, and that it was therefore impossible for the women to have heard the dog crying and whining, as they had said.[29]
professional data recovery
VPN Service Provider |
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
