This article reviews one of the most famous cases of lead poisoning in France, the Ponchon affair, which occurred in 1843 during a crucial period for French toxicology. The trial attracted public attention and inflamed controversy among medical and legal experts. The debate involved toxicological methods and their reliability, and gave rise to more general questions about the value of expert evidence, the way it was presented in court, and its relationship to other forms of legal evidence. I begin with a general overview of lead poisoning and toxicological research on lead compounds around 1840. I then discuss different toxicological proofs employed for detecting or preventing lead poisoning and examine as well growing uncertainties about them. A review of several trials related to lead poisoning in workplaces around 1840 introduces the Ponchon affair. Here I present the experts involved in the trial and describe their strategies for presenting and managing proofs and uncertainties. Finally, I summarise the controversy aroused by the trial in medical and legal communities as it relates to the value of jury trials in cases of poisoning, the risks of using too much chemistry in judicial inquiries, and the different proposals for managing uncertainties and disagreements among experts.

本文回顾了法国最著名的铅中毒事件之一-庞村事件，该事件发生在1843年法国毒理学的关键时期。该审判引起了公众的关注，并引起了医学和法律专家的争议。辩论涉及毒理学方法及其可靠性，并引发了关于专家证据的价值，其在法庭上的呈报方式以及与其他形式法律证据的关系的更一般性的问题。我首先概述铅中毒和1840年左右对铅化合物的毒理学研究。然后，我讨论了用于检测或预防铅中毒的不同毒理学证据，并研究了它们的不确定性以及日益增长的不确定性。Ponchon事件是对1840年左右在工作场所铅中毒相关的几项试验的回顾。在这里，我介绍了参与试验的专家，并描述了他们提出和管理证据和不确定性的策略。最后，我总结了医学界和法学界引起的争议，因为争议涉及陪审团在中毒案件中的价值，在司法调查中使用过多化学物质的风险以及管理不确定性和分歧的不同建议。专家。