In Doctor Smyth's case it
presented the anomalous condition
of two Courts of the U.S. giving
diametrically opposite conclusions
on the same question: that
of expert testimony. In the
first criminal prosecution against
Dowling this Judge Boarman of Shreveport
[-----?] & instructed the jury in place
of Judge Parlange that expert
evidence, the only evidence
against Dowling was not to
be relied upon - and therefore
the accused was acquitted by
the Jury acting on the
Judge's instructions.
In the other case that brought,
against Dr Smyth as Supt [Superintendent?]
this court held in effect that the
expert testimony alone of Mrs
Rosenberg (the expert sent down
from Washington
to examine the burnt currency)
was sufficient proof that
Dowling had attached large
notes to the amount of 20,000
dollars before [----------?] over of
the charred remains of which
she had examined.
The Court therefore held Dr
Smyth responsible as supt
[superintendent?] on expert
testimony after acquitting Dowling
on the same plea
The decision of the first court [---?]
wholly ignored - the innocent made to
suffer for the guilty
