At a recent meeting of the Practitioners' Club in this city, an hour was devoted to a discussion of the subject of expert medical testimony. There appeared to be a feeling that the method of eliciting such testimony now in vogue in the law courts of the country is imperfect, and unjust to both the accuser and the accused. An ideal picture was presented for admiration, in which judges, jurors and lawyers were depicted at the feet of an impartial and omniscient medical expert (appointed by some rather nebulous power dimly visible in the back-ground), calmly engaged in registering his decrees in all cases of medical jurisprudence. Undoubtedly, this would be the best way in an ideal society, where medical experts were omniscient and every one else was eager for the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Unfortunately, however, we do not live under such a dispensation