Notes on the Mint Case
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 guiltyClose