Medical Jurisprudence, Volume 3 (of 3)

by John Ayrton Paris; J. S. M. Fonblanque

Footnotes

[1]. In cases of attempted suicide we shall neither be surprised nor deceived by any extravagant statements.

[2]. Dict. des Sciences Med. Art. Folie.

[3]. See vol. 2. page 155 of the present work, where this subject is very fully considered.

[4]. See note at page 269 of vol. 2.

[5]. Aretæus asserts that immoderate perturbation of mind, consternation, fear, despondency, sudden and violent joy, immoderate laughter, &c. have produced apoplexy, (De Signis et Caus: Diut: Morb: Lib. 1, c. 7.) Forestus (p. 509) relates the case of a gentleman of plethoric habit, and hereditarily disposed to the disease, who, on receiving information of the sudden death of an intimate friend, was instantly seized with a tremor of the left foot, and soon afterwards with apoplexy. We beg to refer the reader to Dr. Cooke’s valuable and learned work on Nervous Disorders, vol. 1, p. 217, where the author has collected with much industry a variety of cases in illustration of this subject.

[6]. A Manual for the Student of Anatomy, containing rules for displaying the structure of the body, so as to exhibit the elementary views of anatomy, and their application to pathology and surgery, by J. Shaw; being an outline of the demonstrations delivered by him to the school of Great Windmill-street. 8vo. p. 342. London, 1821. We have been much pleased with this useful little work.

[7]. Cooke on Nervous Disease, vol. 1, p. 176. In some few instances, however, death takes place immediately in this disease. Dr. Kirkland speaking of apoplexy, in which there is an instantaneous extinction of the vital principle, relates the case of a mantua-maker, who being at work, was talking cheerfully with some of her friends about her, when her hands dropped down upon her lap, and she was perfectly dead. Forestus relates several similar cases, but hesitates in pronouncing them apoplexy. We have no doubt but that the greater proportion of sudden deaths depend upon diseases of the heart.

[8]. See the trial of Lawrence Braddon and Hugh Spake, for a misdemeanour, in suborning witnesses to prove the Earl of Essex was murdered by his keepers. Feb. 7, 1683. Sta. Tri. vol. iii.

[9]. See our observations upon this phenomenon at page [13] of the present volume.

[10]. Dr. Badenoch, in a work on the diseases of India, ascertained by repeated and accurate experiments, that the heat of those who die apoplectic from a “coup de soleil,” or “insolation,” as it is termed, continues for a considerable time several degrees higher than the natural standard; in one case, the heart felt to his hand as if it had been five or six degrees higher than in life and health, notwithstanding the body had been dead twenty-four hours.

[11]. Elements of Juridical or Forensic Medicine. Edit. 2, p. 101.

[12]. See experiments by Dr. Gibbs, on Adipocire, in the Philosophical Transactions for 1794, part ii, and for 1795.

[13]. See “Genuine Memoirs of the life of Sir John Dinely Goodere, Bt.” &c. by Samuel Foote. Also State Trials.

[14]. “Genuine trial of Margery Beddingfield and Richard Ringe, for petty treason and murder. London 1762.”

[15]. See State Trials, vol. ii, p. 756; see also Burnett’s Hist. of his own times, vol. 1, p. 445.

[16]. The whole proceedings before the Coroner’s inquest at Oldham, &c. on the body of John Lees, who died of sabre wounds at Manchester; taken in short hand by A. Dowling. London, Hone, 1820.

[17]. Vol. x, Appendix, p. 29.

[18]. In the case of Patch, who was left-handed, it was clearly shown by the relative position of the deceased, and the door from which he was shot, that the murderer must have exposed his person to the view of the deceased, unless he fired with the left hand. The guilt of Patch was for some time doubted, but the discovery of the pistol in the neighbouring dock a few years ago, has supplied the only link which was wanting to make the evidence against him complete.

[19]. See “An account of the symptoms and death of the sailors who were affected in consequence of a fire having been kindled in the hold of their vessel, and their neglecting to leave the hatches open, by Dr. King.” Edinb. Med. and Surg. Journ. no. 26, April, 1811.

[20]. If in addition to the presence of water in the stomach any weeds be found, the presumption is strengthened that the person had been drowned. This occurred in the case of Mary Ashford, the vegetable matter discovered in the stomach corresponded with that with which the pool was covered.

[21]. Teichmeyer Inst. Med. Leg. p. 176.

[22]. De Morb. Vulg. lib. v, sect. vii, 27.

[23]. Recherches Anatomico-Pathologiques sur l’Encephale et Ses Dependances, par F. Lallemand. Paris 1820-21.

[24]. In three cases in which these deposits were found in contact with the olfactory nerve, the patients had suffered much for a considerable time, previous to death, from the sensation of unpleasant odours.

[25]. See cases illustrative of the Pathology of the Brain, by R. Powell, M.D. Med. Trans. vol. 5. Dr. Martinet describes a well marked case of Arachnitis, complicated with fracture of the cranium. Bulletin de l’Athenée de Med. de Paris.

[26]. Baillie’s Morbid Anatomy.

[27]. The reader will also be very much amused by the account of the dissection of Charles II, and of the appearances which supported the idea of his having died from poison. Burnett’s Hist. of his own times, vol. ii, p. 230.

[28]. The case of John Lees, which formed the subject of the Oldham inquest, appears in this respect to have borne some analogy; see also the case related by Baron Larey, p. 15.

[29]. Surgical Observat.

[30]. Cobbett’s State Trials, vol. ii, p. 503.

[31]. We have already alluded to such a cause of suffocation, (see p. 58 and 438.) The following instructive case has been transmitted to us by Mr. Alcock, whose zeal and acumen in anatomical researches are as honourable to himself, as they are useful to the profession of which he is so active a member.

“Wm. Thompson, æt. 36, formerly a soldier of the 27th regt. late a watchman of St. James’s parish, had had three fits, stated to be epileptic, within the last two years.

“Dec. 9th 1821, he was attacked by another fit, having the usual character of epilepsy, which terminated fatally. In the morning he appeared in his usual health, and had remarked to his wife that “he was as well as ever he had been in his life.” He ate largely of pork, with sage and onions, for dinner, about one o’clock. About five he was rather unwell, and a little before six “went off in a fit.” He had frequent convulsions “as rapidly as he could have them,” (his wife’s statement) from the time he was taken ill till he died. There was no sickness—no vomiting. He had lain upon his back for some time; he was turned upon his side and suddenly expired. He never spoke from the time of the attack till his death, A week previously he had complained of head-ache, but not on the day of his illness. He was extremely subject to flatulence. He did not cough at any time during the attack which immediately preceded his death. For some years past he had been unable to lie upon his right side.

“He was largely bled from the arm; cold applications were freely applied to the head, with some temporary mitigation of the convulsions. Some medicines were directed, but as the state of insensibility in which he was, precluded swallowing, it may be doubted whether they ever reached his stomach. His pulse was full and frequent, but he was too unsteady to allow it to be counted. The pupils were contracted to points; but on the recurrence of the convulsions became widely dilated. After the cold affusion over the head, and as the convulsions abated, they gradually contracted.

“The examination of the morbid appearances was made, four days after death, by Mr. Alcock, in the presence of Mr. C. T. Haden, surgeon, and others.

“External appearances, those of a very athletic, muscular subject. No external appearance of injury. Slight shew of putrefaction on the abdominal parietes.

“The head was carefully and minutely examined. The vessels of the brain were distended with blood, but in no degree sufficient to explain the cause of death. The brain was firm and natural in every part. The choroid plexus of the right side was studded with a few small hydatid-like vesicles. The spinal marrow, as far as could be seen through the foramen magnum, was free from disease. The ventricles contained about two fluid drachms of liquid, and about the same quantity was found in the base of the skull when the brain was removed.

“The chest. The right lung adhered universally, but its structure was natural; the left lung was somewhat gorged with blood; no preternatural adhesions. About from four to eight ounces of bloody fluid in the left cavity of the chest. The heart was loaded with fat, and had on the outer surface of the right ventricle a patch of lymph like a thin layer of coagulated albumen. Several smaller spots of the same kind on the right auricle; but none of them penetrated into the substance.

“Abdomen. The liver adhered in numerous parts, and very extensively to the peritoneum. The stomach was enormously large and distended with food and air; the small intestines were also somewhat more distended than usual, but exhibited no appearance of disease sufficient to account for the death of the patient. The spleen was small and unhealthy, having several white patches on its surface.

“Thus far no satisfactory explanation of the cause of death appeared. And here, according to the usual mode of conducting examinations, the investigation would have terminated, but I consider it essential in every case to examine the air-passages. On examining the bronchiæ of the left side, the principal ramifications and some of the smaller were filled with a pultaceous substance of a dirty greenish hue and heterogenous texture, resembling food which had undergone some degree of digestion: it completely filled the left bronchia. The right bronchia and its ramifications were quite filled with similar matter, and the trachea was also completely filled at the lower part, so that breathing in such a state must have been impossible. That the matter filling up the air passages consisted of chyme from the stomach became evident, from its perfect similarity to that which remained in the stomach.”

Since the receipt of the above interesting communication from Mr. Alcock, we have found upon an inquiry amongst the carcase butchers, that the presence of food in the pulmonary passages is by no means a rare occurrence in those animals that have been struck on the head.

[32]. Morbid Anatomy, p. 37.—Med. Observ. vol. iv, p. 380—Memoirs of Med. Soc. vol. i, p. 228.

[33]. Medico-Chirurg. Trans, vol. i; and the present work vol. ii, p. 30.

[34]. Feb. 1822, vol. xvii.

[35]. Vol. iii, p. 577.

[36]. See also “Cases of Ruptured Spleen and Liver from external injury,” by Dr. Chisholm. Edinb. Med. and Surg. Journ. for July, 1811.

[37]. See the case of Bartholomew Quain, vol. ii, p. 123.

In the year 1801 Richard Starke was executed at Newgate for the wilful murder of Mary, his wife, in Clement’s Lane, by dragging her on the floor by the hair of her head, and inhumanly kicking her. Mr. Crowther and Mr. Andre, surgeons, were of opinion that she died in consequence of the rupture of the spleen, which appeared to them to have been occasioned by bruises.

[38]. Lieutaud. T. I, p. 319 and 333.

[39]. Principles of Midwifery, edit. 4, page 451.

[40]. See a paper in the Philosophical Transactions, no. 309, p. 2387, entitled “Balls of hair taken from the uterus and ovaria of several women, by Mr. James Yonge.”

[41]. See our Physiological History of Conception and Utero-gestation, vol. i, p. 230.—Dr. Blundell’s Memoir, entitled “Experiments on a few controverted points respecting the Physiology of Generation.” Medico-Chirurg. Trans. vol. x, p. 245.

[42]. In the year 1788, Blumenbach shewed that corpora lutea may exist in the ovaries of virgins (Comment. Soc. Reg. Scient. Gotting. vol. ix.) Cuvier has also noticed the appearance of cicatrices in the ovaria of women who had never known any intercourse with the male.

[43]. Wilson on the Bones and Joints, p. 110.

[44]. It was the custom of the ancients to exhibit in the same sculpture in Bas relief, men of very different dimensions, of making kings and conquerors gigantic in stature, while their subjects and vassals were represented as only a fourth or fifth part of their size. This must have given origin to the fable of Giants and Pigmies; while a belief in such tales has been supported by the discovery of gigantic bones, which have through ignorance been received as human remains, but which, as Sir Hans Sloane in an interesting paper in the Philosophical Transactions (No. 404, p. 497,) very truly observes, are nothing more than the bones and teeth of Elephants or Whales: thus, says he, the fore fin of a whale, stripped of its web and skin, was not long since publicly shewn for the bones of a giant’s hand. The same explanation applies to those pretended skeletons of Giants of 12, 20, and 30 cubits high, as mentioned by Philostratus. The skeleton of 46 cubits which, according to Pliny (Hist. Nat. Lib. vii. c. 16,) was found in the cavity of a mountain in Crete, upon its overthrow by an earthquake. The skeleton 60 cubits high which Strabo (Lib. 17) says was found near Tangis (Tangier) in Mauritania, and supposed to be that of Antæus. To which list maybe added the skeleton of Asterius, son of Anactes—10 cubits. That of Orestes, dug up by special command of the Oracle, 7 cubits, &c. &c.

[45]. In a lecture on “Mathematical Beauty,” delivered by Professor Camper in the Academy of Drawing at Amsterdam, this celebrated physiologist has shewn that in tracing the figures of the body of the male and female in two imaginary ellipses of equal dimensions, a portion of the pelvis of the latter would be out of the ellipse, and her shoulders within it; whereas in the former, the shoulders would project beyond the limits of the figure, and his pelvis, on the contrary, would be entirely enclosed within it.

[46]. Sir M. Hale (1 P. C. 433) says, it cannot be legally known whether it were killed or not; and adds, “so it is if after such child were born alive and baptized, and after dies of the stroke given to the mother, this is not homicide.” It is difficult to conceive why the term baptized was introduced in this dictum: for whether it were the child of Jew, Turk, or Anabaptist, it is equally entitled to the protection of the law.

[47]. The Roman Emperor, at a congress held at Constantinople in 692, ordained, that it should be punished with the same rigour as homicide; and severe statutes were enacted against it by Antonine, as early as the 161st year of the christian era.

[48]. Exodus, c. xxi. A case illustrative of this law occurred at Stafford in the year 1811; when a man was executed for the murder of his wife, whose death he occasioned by inducing abortion, through extreme violence, as by elbowing her in bed, rolling over her, &c.

[49]. By the Stat. 21 Jac. c. 27. If a woman delivered of issue, which being born alive would be a bastard, endeavour by burying, drowning, &c. by herself or others, so as to conceal its death, that it may not appear, whether born alive or not, it is murder, unless she prove by one witness at least, that it was born dead. Ba. Abr. tit. Bastard.

[50]. We are strongly inclined to believe the assertion, that where the severity of a statute is excessive, judges, juries, and prosecutors, enter into a league to defeat its rigor.

[51]. The law of Scotland was yet more severe; the mere fact of concealing the pregnancy, whether the death of the child were proved or not, was a capital felony. See 1 Hume’s Com. 287, and 1 Burnet’s Crim. Law, tit. Child-murder, and many cases there cited. The child of Margaret Dickson, to whose case we have alluded, vol. ii, p. 91, was legitimate.

[52]. III. “And whereas doubts have been entertained respecting the true sense and meaning of a certain Act of Parliament made in England, in the twenty-first year of the reign of his late Majesty King James the first, intituled, an act to prevent the destroying and murthering of bastard children, and also of a certain Act of Parliament, made in Ireland in the sixth year of the reign of her late Majesty Queen Anne, intituled, an act to prevent the destroying and murthering of bastard children; and the same have been found in sundry cases, difficult and inconvenient to be put in practice;” for remedy whereof, be it enacted by the authority aforesaid, that, from and after the first day of July in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and three, the said two several acts, and every thing therein contained, shall be, and the same are hereby repealed; and that, from and after the said first day of July, in the said year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and three, the trials in England and Ireland respectively of women charged with the murder of any issue of their bodies, male or female, which being born alive would by law be bastard, shall proceed and be governed by such and the like rules of evidence and of presumption as are by law used and allowed to take place in respect to other trials for murder, and as if the said two several acts had never been made.

IV. Provided always, and be it enacted, that it shall and may be lawful for the jury by whose verdict any prisoner charged with such murder as aforesaid shall be acquitted, to find, in case it shall so appear in evidence, that the prisoner was delivered of issue of her body, male or female, which, if born alive, would have been bastard, and that she did, by secret burying, or otherwise, endeavour to conceal the birth thereof, and thereupon it shall be lawful for the court before which such prisoner shall have been tried, to adjudge that the prisoner shall be committed to the common gaol, or house of correction, for any time not exceeding two years.

[53]. The act provides that if any person or persons shall wilfully and maliciously administer to, or cause to be administered to or taken by any woman any medicines, drug or other substance or thing whatsoever, or shall use or employ or cause or procure to be used or employed, any instrument or other means whatsoever with intent thereby to cause or procure the miscarriage of any woman not being or not being proved to be quick with child at the time of administering such things, or using such means, that then and in every such case, the person or persons so offending, their counsellors, aiders, and abettors, knowing of and privy to such offence, shall be and are hereby declared to be guilty of felony, and shall be liable to be fined, imprisoned, set in and upon the pillory, publicly or privately whipped, or to suffer one or more of the said punishments, or to be transported beyond the seas for any term not exceeding fourteen years, at the discretion of the court before which such offender shall be tried and convicted.

[54]. At the Chelmsford Assizes. Aug 1820, Robin Collins was indicted for administering steel filings and penny-royal water to a woman, with the intent to procure abortion. Mr. Baron Wood told the jury, in point of law, that if they were satisfied that the prisoner had administered the drugs with intent to procure miscarriage, though they were incapable of producing such effect, and though the young woman had willingly consented to take them, the case was within the statute, and they were bound to find the prisoner guilty. The jury immediately found the prisoner guilty. The learned judge expressed himself perfectly satisfied with the verdict, and animadverted in strong terms on the enormity and cruelty of the prisoner’s crime; public example required the severest visitation of punishment that the law authorised, in order to warn others against committing a similar crime, which unhappily was too prevalent. The sentence of the Court was that the prisoner should be transported for the term of fourteen years.

[55]. Whereby it is enacted that “if any person shall wilfully, maliciously and unlawfully administer to, or cause to be administered to or taken by any of His Majesty’s subjects, any deadly poison or other noxious and destructive substance or thing, with intent thereby to cause and procure the miscarriage of any woman then being quick with child, the offender shall suffer death as in cases of felony without benefit of clergy.”

[56]. By the law of most countries this crime is punished with more severity if committed after the quickening of the child, than before. The Roman Penal Code made the same distinction. By the decretals of the canon law (p. ii, causs. 32, p. ii, c. 8), “Non est homicida, quæ abortum procurat, antequam anima corporis sit infusa.”

[57]. On this subject see “Physiological Illustrations of Utero-gestation”, vol. i, p. 239.

[58]. Wm. Pizzy and Mary Codd were tried at Bury St. Edmonds, Aug. 11, 1808, for feloniously administering a certain noxious and destructive substance to Ann Cheney, with intent to produce a miscarriage. The trial, taken in short hand by Wm. Notcutt, was published at Ipswich in 1808; but we have not been able to procure a copy; we must therefore content ourselves with observing, on the authority of the Med. Journ. that the Counsel for the prisoners objected to receiving that part of the evidence which related to Pizzy’s manual operations upon Ann Cheney, as not relevant to the administration of the medicines which alone constituted the capital crime; the objection was over-ruled by the court, and the evidence was admitted for the purpose of proving the intention with which the medicines were administered. The examination of Ann Cheney before the magistrates was as follows:

“Saith that she is about the age of 27 years; that she has lived as servant with Mr. Simon Codd, of Haughley, about 12 years last past; that she is an unmarried woman, and was so in the month of February 1806. That in the said month of February 1806, she was delivered of a female bastard child; that she was alone when she was delivered, but that she called out for assistance, but no one came for some minutes; the child was born dead; she never saw it move, or heard it make a noise. That soon after she found herself with child, she acknowledged it to her mistress, Codd, and told her who was the father of the child. Her mistress said, if she would take that which she would get for her, she thought she could order it better than letting any body know it. Soon after that, she saw Mr. Pizzy of Middlesham, the farrier; she told him what was the matter with her; he then gave her some more medicines, and told her they were to make her miscarry. They had not that effect; that she continued to take medicines from him during her whole remaining time of pregnancy; she sometimes received them from her mistress, and sometimes from Pizzy; that her mistress knew what they were for, because she (her mistress) had told her what they were for; that the medicines did not answer the intended purpose; that about a week or ten days before she was delivered, Mr. Pizzy came, and upon her informing him that his medicines had not answered the purpose, he said she must go up stairs with him, which she did; they were alone; he laid her on the floor, on a great coat, upon her back; she put the coat over her head, so that she could not see; she then felt him put some instrument up into her body, which was very cold, like iron; but she did not see it; that, in consequence, she lost some blood, not very much nor very little—suppose about half a pint; did not feel much pain. Pizzy told her it was for the purpose of making her miscarry. Her mistress was at home, and knew for what purpose they went up stairs, but was not present. Pizzy came again the day before she was brought to bed. Examinant told him she had not miscarried; he then said he must try something further; her mistress was present, and heard this. Pizzy and examinant went up stairs again, but her mistress was not present. Pizzy laid her down, as he did before, on her back, and passed his hand three times up into her body half way of his arm, which was naked, which gave her a great deal of pain; and this examinant felt herself very wet, and never felt the child move afterwards. Examinant thinks she had not gone her time by six or seven weeks. She felt the child move after she was so first treated by Pizzy, and till within a day or two before the second time. She thinks she did not go her full time, from the treatment she received from Pizzy.”

[59]. It is said that a surgeon and midwife have been since tried for this crime before the Supreme Court of Justiciary, and sentenced to fourteen years transportation. Ibid.

[60]. Abortio—Abortus, formed of ab from, and orior to be born. Among the ancient physicians the term Abactus or Abigeatus, was used for a miscarriage procured by art, or force of medicines, in contradistinction to Abortus, which is natural. But the moderns acknowledge no such distinction.

[61]. See our history of the Juniperus Sabina, vol. ii, p. 578.

[62]. It is a curious circumstance, that, although Hippocrates prohibited physicians from assisting in procuring abortion, he relates the case of a young woman whom he had recommended to dance, and use other violent exercise, for that purpose, in whom it produced the effect, and without materially injuring the woman.

[63]. Amor. l. 2, eleg. 14.

[64]. Tertull. de Anima, apud oper. p. 323, ed Rigalt.

[65]. On the uncertainty of the signs of murder in the case of Bastard Children. Read before the London Medical Society, and published in the sixth volume of “Medical Observations and Inquiries.”

[66]. A dissertation on Infanticide, in its relations to Physiology and Jurisprudence, by W. Hutchinson, M.D. Edit. 2, London 1821.

[67]. See our chapter on the methods of treating Asphyxia, vol. ii, p. 75.

[68]. We have no word in the English language so expressive as viable. That adopted by Dr. Gordon Smith, rearable, is a very clumsy substitute. The subject has been very fully discussed by Professor Capuron, to whose most excellent work, entitled “La Medecine Legale, relative a l’Art des Accouchemens,” we must refer the reader.

[69]. Dr. Hutchinson states that the weight of the fœtus at the full term of utero-gestation has generally been rated too high; apparently from this having been stated from conjecture, rather than from the evidence of the balance.

It appears from the observations of Dr. Hunter, made at the British Lying-in hospital, on the bodies of several thousand new-born and perfect children, that the weight of the smallest was about four pounds; and of the largest eleven pounds two ounces; that of by far the greater proportion was from five to eight pounds. Dr. Clarke’s inquiries furnished nearly similar results; he found that the average weight of male children was seven pounds five ounces and seven drachms; and that of female, six pounds eleven ounces and six drachms, (Phil. Trans. vol. lxxiv.) Dr. Clark, of Dublin, found it vary from four to eleven pounds. Dr. Merriman states, in his lectures, that he delivered one which weighed fourteen pounds, (it was born dead,) and Dr. Croft delivered one alive weighing fifteen pounds. It is somewhat less in France than in England; of fifteen hundred and forty-one examined by Camus, under circumstances similar to the foregoing, the greatest weight was nine pounds, and of this there were sixteen instances; the ordinary, from five to seven; and the average six pounds and about a quarter; there were thirty-one instances in which it was as low as three pounds, although Baudelocque states that he saw several instances in which the weight was about ten pounds, a few where it was twelve, and one of thirteen. Subsequent observations on twenty thousand children at the Hospice de la Maternité, at Paris, have shewn a few instances where it has been one hundred and sixty-eight ounces, that is ten pounds and a half, which has been the highest term. In Germany it appears to be nearly the same as in France; for Roederer states the average weight to be from five pounds to six pounds and a half.—Hutchinson, L. C.

[70]. We have already given a scale of the dimensions of the skeleton of the fœtus, according to the accurate observations of M. Beclard, vol. iii, p. [75].

[71]. See Dr. Merriman on difficult parturition, p. 51.

[72]. Baglivi. Op. Omnia, p. 299.

[73]. Margaret Dickson, whose remarkable resuscitation after execution we have already noticed (vol. ii, p. 91) was convicted on the evidence of a medical person, who deposed that the lungs of the child swam in water.

[74]. De. Offic. Med. de Vulner. renunciat.

[75]. Op. Patholog. Pract. t.i.

[76]. De Fallaci Pulmon, Infant. Experiment.

[77]. On the uncertainty of the signs of murder in the case of bastard children.

[78]. Memoires de l’Academie Royale des Sciences, Année, 1769.

[79]. Anatom. Reform. p. 71.

[80]. It should be understood, adds Dr. Hutchinson, that these children had never been fed before they were placed in the turning box at the hospital; which, perhaps, with the want of due warmth, &c. may have prevented their lungs being as much dilated as those of children of the same age, under ordinary circumstances.

[81]. Stockholm, Acad. Hand. t. xx, p. 40.

[82]. Dissert. de Docimas. Pulm. Ploucq.

[83]. This author relates the results of four hundred examinations of bodies of children made at the Hospice de la Maternité at Paris, for the purpose of furnishing some evidence on this subject, and the results of them are almost as various as it was possible for them to have been, within a certain range.

[84]. Principles of forensic medicine, p. 336.

[85]. The umbilical cord generally separates from the navel on about the fifth day, and is almost always partially detached on the fourth; the ulcerated surface is commonly healed by the eighth or ninth day.

[86]. Principles of forensic medicine, p. 311.

[87]. See vol. i, p. 219, tit. Supposititious Children.

[88]. At this moment London is infested by numerous bands of infant depredators, who in desperate hardihood, skill, perseverance, and combination, emulate the oldest criminals; female infants are permitted to walk the most public streets at mid-day, whose apparent age might bring their criminal associates within the statute 18 Eliz. The new vagrant act may give an useful stimulus to the police on this point, however vexatious and impolitic it may be on others.

[89]. Alice de Walborough, æt. 13, was burnt for murdering her mistress.

[90]. At Abingdon assizes, Feb. 23, 1629, before Whitlock justice, one John Dean, an infant between eight and nine years, was indicted, arraigned, and found guilty of burning two barns in the town of Windsor; and it appearing upon examination that he had malice, revenge, craft, and cunning, he had judgment to be hanged, and was hanged accordingly. Note, 1 H. P. C. p. 25. At Dorchester assizes, March 1794, Elizabeth Marsh, aged 15 years, was convicted of the murder of John Nevil, her grandfather, at Morden, and was executed.

[91]. Giles East, a boy under 17 years of age, was convicted at the Kingston Assizes of carnally knowing a girl of 9 years of age, (stat. 18 Eliz.) and was executed Jan. 20, 1823.

[92]. At Bury assizes 1748, William York, a boy of ten years of age, was convicted before Lord Chief Justice Willes for the murder of a girl of about five years of age, and received sentence of death: but the Chief-Justice, out of regard to the tender years of the prisoner, respited execution, till he should have an opportunity of taking the opinion of the rest of the judges, whether it was proper to execute him or not, upon the special circumstances of the case, which he reported to the judges at Serjeant’s-inn in Michaelmas term following.

The boy and girl were parish children, put under the care of a parishioner, at whose house they were lodged and maintained; on the day the murder happened, the man of the house and his wife went out to their work early in the morning, and left the children in bed together; when they returned from work, the girl was missing; and the boy being asked what was become of her, answered that he had helped her up and put on her cloaths, and that she was gone he knew not whither. Upon this, strict search was made in the ditches and pools of water near the house, from an apprehension that the child might have fallen into the water. During this search, the man, under whose care the children were, observed, that a heap of dung near the house had been newly turned up; and upon removing the upper part of the heap, he found the body of the child about a foot’s depth under the surface, cut and mangled in a most barbarous and horrid manner.

Upon this discovery, the boy, who was the only person capable of committing the fact that was left at home with the child, was charged with the fact, which he stiffly denied.

When the coroner’s jury met, the boy was again charged, but persisted still to deny the fact. At length, being closely interrogated, he fell to crying, and said he would tell the whole truth. He then said, that the child had been used to foul herself in bed; that she did so that morning (which was not true, for the bed was searched and found to be clean); that thereupon he took her out of the bed, and carried her to the dung heap; and with a large knife, which he found about the house, cut her in the manner the body appeared to be mangled, and buried her in the dung heap; placing the dung and straw that was bloody under the body, and covering it up with what was clean; and having so done, he got water and washed himself as clean as he could.

The boy was the next morning carried before a neighbouring justice of the peace, before whom he repeated his confession, with all the circumstances he had related to the coroner and his jury. The justice of the peace very prudently deferred proceeding to a commitment, until the boy should have an opportunity of recollecting himself. Accordingly he warned him of the danger he was in if he should be thought guilty of the fact he stood charged with, and admonished him not to wrong himself: and then ordered him into a room, where none of the crowd that attended should have access to him.

When the boy had been some hours in this room, where victuals and drink were provided for him, he was brought a second time before the justice, and then he repeated his former confession: upon which he was committed to gaol.

On the trial evidence was given of the declarations before-mentioned to have been made before the coroner and his jury, and before the justice of the peace; and of many declarations to the same purpose which the boy made to other people after he came to gaol, and even down to the day of his trial; for he constantly told the same story in substance, commonly adding that the devil put him upon committing the fact. Upon this evidence, with some other circumstances tending to corroborate the confessions, he was convicted.

Upon this report of the Chief-Justice, the judges, having taken time to consider it, unanimously agreed,

1st, That the declarations stated in the report were evidence proper to be left to the jury.

2dly, That supposing the boy to have been guilty of this fact, there are so many circumstances stated in the report, which are undoubtedly tokens of what my Lord Chief-Justice Hale somewhere calleth a mischievous discretion, that he is certainly a proper subject for capital punishment, and ought to suffer; for it would be of very dangerous consequence to have it thought, that children may commit such atrocious crimes with impunity.

There are many crimes of the most heinous nature, such as in the present case the murder of young children, poisoning parents or masters, burning houses, &c. which children are very capable of committing; and which they may in some circumstances be under strong temptations to commit; and therefore, though the taking away the life of a boy of ten years old may savour of cruelty, yet as the example of this boy’s punishment may be a means of deterring other children from the like offences; and as the sparing this boy, merely on account of his age, will probably have a quite contrary tendency, in justice to the public, the law ought to take its course; unless there remaineth any doubt touching his guilt.

In this general principle all the judges concurred: but two or three of them, out of great tenderness and caution, advised the Chief-Justice to send another reprieve for the prisoner; suggesting that it might possibly appear on farther inquiry, that the boy had taken this matter upon himself at the instigation of some person or other, who hoped by this artifice to screen the real offender from justice.

Accordingly the Chief-Justice did grant one or two more reprieves; and desired the justice of the peace who took the boy’s examination, and also some other persons in whose prudence he could confide, to make the strictest inquiry they could into the affair, and report to him. At length he, receiving no farther light, determined to send no more reprieves, and to leave the prisoner to the justice of the law at the expiration of the last: but, before the expiration of that reprieve, execution was respited till farther order, by warrant from one of the Secretaries of State: and at the Summer assizes 1757, he had the benefit of his Majesty’s pardon, upon condition of his entering immediately into the sea-service.

[93]. There is a precedent in the register, fol. 309, b, of a pardon granted to an infant within the age of seven years, who was indicted for homicide: in this case the jury found, that he did the fact before he was seven years old. 1 H. P. C. note, p. 27.

[94]. See preceding Note.

[95]. Vide ante, vol. i, tit. Ideots and Lunatics.

[96]. If the fact be found, he must be committed under the statutes 48 & 49 Geo. 3, for safe custody. See vol. i, p. 306.

[97]. “By the common law, if it be doubtful whether a criminal, who at his trial is in appearance a lunatic, be such in truth or not, it shall be tried by an inquest of office to be returned by the sheriff of the county wherein the court sits, and if it be found by them that the party only feigns himself mad, and he still refuse to answer, he shall be dealt with as one that stands mute.” 1 Hawk. P. C. p. 2, and authorities there cited; as to standing mute see vol. 2, p. 56, and 12 Geo. 3, c. 20.

[98]. For the case of Bellingham executed for the murder of Mr. Percival, see Appendix to Collinson on Lunacy.

[99]. Lord Ferrers committed the murder of his steward Johnson after drinking porter to excess. See State Trials. John Dey of Dereham, in Norfolk, after a paroxysm of drunkenness rose in the middle of the night, and cut the throats of his father and mother, ravished the servant maid in her sleep, and afterwards murdered her! A somewhat analogous case was presented to us in the history of Nicholson, who murdered Mr. and Mrs. Bonar at Chiselhurst. These men were, however, condemned and executed.

[100]. Here again the law of the land is at variance with what we conceive to be the law of Nature; and it is at variance with itself, for it is a strange anomaly that by the law of real property, an infant in ventre sa mere may take an estate from the moment of its conception, and yet be hanged four months afterwards for the crime of its mother.

[101]. This is another instance in which the question of superfœtation may arise, for a woman, according to that doctrine, may be delivered of one child, and at the same time be pregnant of another.

[102]. Sir Mathew Hale says this case did occur at Aylesbury.

[103]. For the Scotch law on this subject see Burnett’s Crim. Law, 595.

[104]. Cases of mistaken identity have occurred more frequently than persons unacquainted with the subject could suppose. We shall relate a few instances. At the Old Bailey sessions, for September 1822, before the Common Serjeant and Middlesex Jury, Joseph Redman was indicted for assaulting William Brown, on the King’s highway, and taking from his person a gold watch, &c. his property. Prosecutor stated, on cross-examination, that he knew a man of the name of Greenwood, so much like the prisoner, with his hat on, that he should hardly know one from the other. Greenwood was in custody, and appeared at the bar, when the similarity between them struck every body with astonishment. The prisoner, Redman, proved an alibi, and the jury returned a verdict of not guilty. We have frequently in the preceding parts of our work alluded to the case of Richard Coleman, a brewer’s clerk, who was indicted at the assizes held at Kingston, in Surry, in March 1749, for the rape and murder of Sarah Green on the 23d of July preceding, when he was capitally convicted, and executed on Kennington Common, on the 12th of April 1749. In this case, Coleman was positively sworn to by Sarah Green, just before her death, as being one of the assailants. Two years after the execution of this unfortunate man, it was discovered that James Welch, Thomas Jones, and John Nicholls, were the persons who had treated Sarah Green in the inhuman manner which had occasioned her death. John Nicholls was admitted King’s evidence, and Welch and Jones were accordingly convicted and executed. Another case in which the identity of a person was erroneously sworn to, was that of Mr. James, a tailor, who was robbed on the Dulwich road, by the notorious gang of highwaymen that infested the environs of London, and was headed by a person named Cooper, who, after a life of crime, suffered death for the murder of Saxby, near Dulwich. In this case Mr. James swore positively to two soldiers in the Guards, who were accordingly tried for the offence, but, fortunately, acquitted. A short time after this event the same gang robbed one Jackson, a farmer, in a lane near Croydon, for which robbery two farriers, named Skelton and Killet, were apprehended, and being tried at the ensuing assizes for Surry, the latter was acquitted, but the former was convicted on the positive oath of the person robbed, and, although innocent, suffered death.

Martin Clinch, bookseller, and James Mackley, printer, were tried at the Old Bailey, in 1797, before Mr. Justice Grose, for the wilful murder of Syder Fryer, Esq. at the back of Islington workhouse, and were convicted and executed. On this occasion the identity of the prisoners was positively sworn to by Miss Ann Fryer, who was in company with her cousin, the deceased, at the time of the robbery and murder. Some years afterwards Burton Wood, who was executed on Kennington common, and Timms, who suffered a similar fate at Reading, severally confessed at the gallows the commission of the deed, for which Clinch and Mackley had innocently suffered. To the above interesting cases we may add that of Robert and Daniel Perreau (twin brothers,) who were tried in 1775, and executed for a forgery upon Mr. Adair. These persons so nearly resembled each other that Mr. Watson, a money scrivener, who had drawn eight bonds, by order of one or other of the brothers, hesitated to fix on either, in consequence of their great personal resemblance; upon being pressed, however, to make a positive declaration, he at length fixed upon Daniel. The name of these unfortunate men is familiar to the public, from the well known exclamation of our late king, upon being asked to pardon Dr. Dodd, “if I save Dodd, I shall have murdered the Perreaus.”

Upon the subject of personal identity, a curious question has presented itself for discussion, which requires some notice on this occasion—the degree of light which may be necessary to enable an observer to distinguish the features, so that the person maybe hereafter identified? In a case which occurred in France in 1809, of a person shot in the night, it was stated that the flash of the pistol enabled the witness to identify the features of the assassin. The possibility of the statement was referred to the physical class of the Institute, who reported against it. Still, however, M. Foderé, who relates the circumstances, is inclined to believe that, if the persons be at a small distance, and the night be dark, such an event is by no means impossible. (Med. Leg. t. i, p. 28.) The following English case may be here introduced in illustration of the question. “John Haines was indicted, January 12, 1799, for maliciously and feloniously shooting at H. Edwards, T. Jones, and T. Dowson, Bow-street officers, on the highway. Edwards deposed that, in consequence of several robberies having been committed near Hounslow, he, together with Jones and Dowson, were employed to scour that neighbourhood; and that they accordingly set off in a post-chaise on the evening of Saturday, November 10th, when they were attacked near Bedfont by two persons on horseback, one of whom stationed himself at the head of the horses, while the other went to the side of the chaise. The night was dark, but from the flash of the pistols he could distinctly see that it was a dark-brown horse, between 13 and 14 hands high, of a very remarkable shape, having a square head, and very thick shoulders; and, altogether such that he could pick him out of fifty horses; he had seen the horse since at Mr. Kendall’s stables, in Long Acre. He also perceived, by the same flash of light, that the person at the side-glass had on a rough-shag, brown great coat.”

Writers on forensic medicine have enumerated the various circumstances, by which the countenance of an individual may be so changed, as to defeat every attempt to identify him. Foderé mentions the following, age; loss, or acquisition of fat; change in the colour of the eyes or hair; the effects of climate, diet, diseases, and passions of the mind. These may also be metamorphosed by art. The influence of mental anxiety in changing the countenance is universally acknowledged—

Danger, long travel, want, or woe,

Soon change the form that best we know;

For deadly fear can time outgo,

And blaunch at once the hair;

Hard toil can roughen form and face,

And want can quench the eye’s bright grace,

Nor does old age a wrinkle trace

More deeply than despair.

Marmion, Canto I.

[105]. Or Guillot’s daughter, so named from a physician of the name of Guillot, its inventor; it is singular, that a somewhat similar engine, which is or was preserved in the Tower of London, was called the Maiden in Scotland, and in England the Earl of Exeter’s daughter. By the same figure, the Gunner’s daughter is the carriage to which a sailor is lashed for punishment.

[106]. In this opinion we are further confirmed by the debate in the House of Commons, March 1823, on the case of Colonel Allen.

[107]. We have heard of Martinets of the old school who have reprimanded their surgeons for such interference; we hope the instances are rare.

[108]. No person ought to be entrusted with the execution of any sentence, who has been personally offended by the crime committed; for this reason the commanding officer of a regiment, who has a direct personal interest in the preservation of its discipline, and therefore may entertain angry feelings towards offenders, is not the most proper person to superintend executions.

[109]. This species of defence was set up in the case of M‘Quirk, who was pardoned for the murder of George Clarke at a contested election, for Middlesex, (see Foote’s Remarks.) We have again to report that precedents ought not to be drawn from times of turbulence or political dissention.

[110]. See Apoth. Comp. v. Warburton, 3 Barn. & Ald. 46; Apoth. Comp. v. Roby, K. B. Feb. 28, 1822; Apoth. Comp. v. Barstow, York assizes Aug. 1822.

[111]. Skinner 568. 4 Inst. 251. 2 Brownl. 255, 256, &c. 1 Ld. Raym. 454.

[112]. 2 Brownl. 256, 260.

[113]. 14 & 15 H. 8. cap. 5. 1 Roll. 598. 4 Inst. 251. Rastal Physicians 3. 2 Bulst. 185. Lit. Rep. 168, 169, 172, 212, 215, 246, 247, 248, 249. 1 Jones 261. Cr. Jac. 121, 159, 160. Cr. Car. 256. Palm. 486.

[114]. 1 Mar. c. 9. Rastal’s Physicians 7. Lit. Rep. 169, 172, 173, 212, 213, 215, 248, 249, 350, 351. 1 Jones 263. Cr. Car. 257. Cr. Jac. 121. 4 Inst. 251. 2 Brownl. 257, 262, 265, 266.

[115]. 2 Brownl. 261, 262.

[116]. 14 & 15 H. 8. cap. 5.

[117]. 11 Co. 59. a. Co. Lit. 36. a. 2 Inst. 81. Hard. 305.

[118]. Rastal. Physician 1.

[119]. 14 & 15 H. 8. c. 5. 1 Roll. 598. 4 Inst. 251. Rastal Physician 3. 2 Bulstr. 185. Lit. Rep. 168, 169, 172, 212, 215, 246, 247, 248, 249. 1 Jones 261. Cr. Jac. 121, 159, 160. Cr. Car. 256. Palm. 486. Cart. 115. 6 Mod. 125.

[120]. 1 Mar. c. 9. Rastal Physician 7. Lit. Rep. 169, 172, 173, 212, 213, 215, 248, 249, 350, 351. 1 Jones 263. Cr. Car. 257. Cro. Jac. 121. 4 Inst. 251. 2 Brownl. 357, 262, 265, 266. Cart. 115.

[121]. 2 Brownl. 264.

[122]. 2 Brownl. 264.

[123]. 2 Brownl. 264.

[124]. 2 Brownl. 264.

[125]. 2 Brownl. 258.

[126]. 2 Brownl. 264.

[127]. 2 Brownl. 263.

[128]. 2 Brownl. 258.

[129]. Gobd. 418. 2 Roll. Rep. 356. Wing. Max. 239.

[130]. 2 Co. 55. a. 3 Co. 59. b. Gobd. 324. Co. Lit. 381. 5 Co. 99. a.

[131]. Wing. Max. 239.

[132]. Wing. Max. 239.

[133]. 2 Brownl. 264. Cart. 115.

[134]. 2 Brownl. 264.

[135]. Co. Lit. 141. a. Hob. 87. Bridg. 11. 2 Brownl. 266. Dyer 220. pl. 14.

[136]. Co. Lit. 141. a.

[137]. 7 Co. 14. a. Calvin’s case. Hob. 87. 2 Brownl. 198, 265. Hard. 140.

[138]. 8 E. 3. 30. b.

[139]. 2 Inst. 401, 402.

[140]. 2 Brownl. 265. 2 Inst. 402. F. N. B. 209. f.

[141]. 2 Brownl. 265. Vet. N. B. 138. b. 2 Inst. 442.

[142]. 2 Inst. 580, 581, 582, &c. Skinner 464.

[143]. 2 Inst. 588. 2 Brownl. 198, 265.

[144]. 2 Brownl. 265. 2 Inst. 587.

[145]. Dy. 313. pl. 91. 1 Co. 47. a. Dav. 2. a. Co. Lit. 1. b. Cro. Car. 82, 83. 2 Roll. Rep. 246, 247. 1 Jones 234. Lit. Rep. 43.

[146]. 1 And. 45. 3 Leon. 58. 4 Leon, 40, 41.

[147]. 4 Co. 43 a.

[148]. 2 Ventr. 170. 4 Co. 43. a. 5 Co. 61. a. 11 Co. 59. b. 1 Roll. Rep. 95. Cawly 78. Noy 82. Bridgm. 122. Cro. Jac. 481. Wing. Max. 695.

[149]. Postea 154. b. Raymond 330. Hawkes’s Max. 21. Styles 391.

[150]. Cro. El. 208. 2 Leon. 47. Owen 84, 85. 1 And. 245. 6 Co. 64. b. 3 Bulstr. 66, 185. 2 Roll. Rep. 276. Winch. 92. Lane 69. Lit. Rep. 64, 67, 289. Styles 391.

[151]. Wing. Max. 67. Lit. Rep. 66.

[152]. Lit. Rep. 66. Wing. Max. 67. Styles 78.

[153]. Cart. 120, 121.

[154]. Postea 121. a.

[155]. 2 Inst. 379, 380. W. 2. c. 11. Plowd. 17. b. Rast. Account 2.

[156]. Postea 120. b. 2 Brownl. 266. 2 Inst. 380. 2 Bulstr. 139. Fitz. Barr. 44. Br. Account 6. Br. Det. 16. Br. Execution 135. Br. Faux Imprisonment 32.

[157]. 2 Brownl. 266. 15 R. 2. c. 2. 8 H. 6. c. 9. 6 Mod. 125.

[158]. Antes 60. b. 41. a. 8 Co. 41. 11 Co. 43. b. F. N. B. 73. d.

[159]. Antes fo. 38. b. 41. a. 60. b. F. N. B. 73. d. 10 Co. 103. a. Rep. Q. A. 146.

[160]. 2 Brownl. 257, 262, 265, 266. Rast Phys. 7. Lit. Rep. 169, 172, 173, 212, 213, 248, 249, 350, 331. Cr. Jac. 121. Cr. Car. 257. 1 Jones 263. Car. 115. 4 Inst. 251.

[161]. 14 & 15 H. 8. cap. 5. Roll. 598, 4 Inst. 251. Rast. Phys. 3. 2 Bulstr. 185. Lit. Rep. 168, 169, 172, 212, 215, 246, 247, 248, 249. 1 Jones 261. Cro. Jac. 121, 159, 160. Cro. Car. 256. Palm. 486. Cart. 115. 8 Co. 133. b. 1 Lev. 195.

[162]. Cro. Jac. 133. Doct. pl. 70, 325. Lit. Rep. 172. Moor 464. 1 Sid. 336. Dyer 39. pl. 62. Fitzgib. 250.

[163]. Cr. Jac. 133. Cr. Car. 5. Mo. 464. Postea 133. b. 9 Co. 110. b. Doct. pl. 70, 325. Palm. 287. Lit. Rep. 172, 252. 2 Bulstr. 94. Antes 93. a. 1 Sid. 336.

[164]. 7 Co. 25. a. Dyer 15. pl. 78. Cr. Car. 209. Co. Lit. 303. b. 6 Mod. 119.

[165]. Hob. 199. Hard. 38.

[166]. Styles 354.

[167]. 3 Co. 52. b.

[168]. 3 Co. 52. b. Cro. El. 62. 1 Leon. 242.

[169]. Antea 119. b. 2 Brownl. 266. 2 Inst. 380. Bar. 44. Br. Account 6. Br. Det. 16. Br. Exec. 135. Br. Faux Imprisonment 32. 2 Bulstr. 139. 6 Mod. 125.

[170]. 2 Brownl. 266. Hardr. 482.

[171]. Antea 119. b.

[172]. 13 El. cap. 7. 1 Jac. cap. 15.

[173]. 4 Inst. 277 & 278.

[174]. 15 R. 2. c. 2. 8 H. 6. c. 9.

[175]. Dr. Stanger had before made an unsuccessful application to this Court. He had obtained a rule calling on the president and fellows of the college to shew cause why a mandamus should not issue “commanding them to admit him to examination for admission into the class or order of candidates for election into the society or fellowship of the said college.” But as Dr. Stanger had presented himself to the comitia minora to be examined, which court is constituted by one of the bye-laws with power only to examine candidates of a certain description within which Dr. Stanger did not come, this Court in Easter term 1796 discharged the rule for the mandamus; saying that it did not appear that Dr. Stanger had a right to be examined by the comitia minora; but that if he had any title as being one of the homines facultatis under the charter, he should apply to the body at large. The Court also intimated at that time a strong opinion that the bye-laws were reasonable and valid.

[176]. V. 1 Salk. 193 S. C.

[177]. N. B. Mr. Nourse was in fact a very good Scholar.

[178]. 2 Wils. 359.

[179]. In the close of the first book of Paulus Zacchias’s famous Quæstiones Medicolegales, there is a full discussion of the point of filiation, as between two husbands, where a woman soon after the death of her first husband marries a second. The question is raised in these words. “Filius mulieris, quæ illico ab obitu conjugis alteri nupsit, et novem decemve mensium spatio peperit; cujusdam præsumi debeat.” See Paul. Zacch. lib. 1. tit. 5 quæstio ultima. The same point is investigated in the learned treatise by Alphonsus a Caranza, De Partu Naturali et Legitimo. See cap. 26. s. 71. The first book of Paulus Zacchias, who was a physician at Rome, first came out in 1621. The tract by Alphonsus a Caranza was first published about five years afterwards.

[180]. The book here cited is a collection of adjudications in the supreme court of Friesland. The author was Johannes a Sande, who was himself a senator of that court. An improved edition of the book came out in 1656. The particular case above cited was adjudged 27th October, 1617. What increases the latitude of the decision for the legitimacy is, that the husband was for some time a valetudinarian, and for 14 days before his death confined to his bed. The book being probably rare amongst English lawyers, and the arguments in the case comprising very ancient and curious research in a moderate compass on the ultimum tempus pariendi for women, the whole of Sande’s report of the case will be given in a note at the end of the present article.

[181]. 27. Octobris. Anno 1634.

[182]. See the case of Carrascola, the Neapolitan Admiral.

[183]. For a curious argument on this case see one of the subsequent pamphlets in Howell.

Transcriber’s Note

This book uses inconsistent spelling and hyphenation, which were retained in the ebook version. Many typographical errors in Latin and French sections were left as printed. Ditto marks and dashes used to represent repeated text have been replaced with the text that they represent. Some corrections have been made to the text, including adapting the spelling in the table of contents and Index to match the main text, and normalizing punctuation.

Page numbering is restarted in the appendix so to page numbers in the appendix have been prefixed with a_.

Further corrections are noted below:

p. [17]: from having being intoxicated -> from having been intoxicated

[Footnote 8]: Feb. 7, 16S3 -> Feb. 7, 1683

p. [30]: to solve this problemn without -> to solve this problem without

p. [35]: our chaprer on rape -> our chapter on rape

p. [50]: be too frequently, or too forcible urged -> be too frequently, or too forcibly urged

p. [84]: Alhough a child -> Although a child

[Footnote 48]: this law occured at Stafford -> this law occurred at Stafford

[Footnote 54]: physicians from assissting in procuring -> physicians from assisting in procuring

p. [96]: will be very liable so endanger the life -> will be very liable to endanger the life

p. [98]: evidence of the orensic physician -> evidence of the forensic physician

p. [156]: Cave’e case -> Cave’s case

p. [172]: earliest and lastest periods of -> earliest and latest periods of

p. [172]: indentity of, 222 -> identity of, 222

p. [a_25]: the aid Act expressed -> the said Act expressed

p. [a_38]: belonging to the said Corporaration -> belonging to the said Corporation

p. [a_59]: Mystery or Profession of an Apothcary -> Mystery or Profession of an Apothecary

p. [a_62]: ascertaining the skill and abililities -> ascertaining the skill and abilities

p. [a_64]: Certificate of such fitness aad qualification -> Certificate of such fitness and qualification

p. [a_69]: be deemed a Trespassser -> be deemed a Trespasser

p. [a_70]: pass against the Plantiff -> pass against the Plaintiff

p. [a_74]: sive aliquibus Pharmacpœiis -> sive aliquibus Pharmacopœiis

p. [a_86]: nominand’ & sssignand’ & successores -> nominand’ & assignand’ & successores

p. [a_95]: onely are to be undetstood -> onely are to be understood

p. [a_98]: unskilfull or temerarious practice -> unskilful or temerarious practice

Anchor position of [Footnote 111] assumed

[Footnote 115] 2 Brownl. 201, 202. -> 2 Brownl. 261, 262.

Anchor position of [Footnote 148] assumed

p. [a_137]: one of the two univerties -> one of the two universities

p. [a_142]: means of constituing a -> means of constituting a

p. [a_144]: but it sufficient to say -> but it is sufficient to say

p. [a_146]: Mary instituled An Act touching the Corporation of Physicians in -> Mary intituled An Act touching the Corporation of Physicians in

p. [a_147]: was repungant to the Statute Laws -> was repugnant to the Statute Laws

p. [a_148]: of their learniug and skill -> of their learning and skill

p. [a_177]: said secretary shall immediarely acquaint -> said secretary shall immediately acquaint

p. [a_179]: To tho Secretary to the Commissioners -> To the Secretary to the Commissioners

p. [a_193]: proper to remove plaintiff home -> proper to remove the plaintiff home

p. [a_204]: evidence in a canse in London -> evidence in a case in London

p. [a_206]: Of this the prothonotory had -> Of this the prothonotary had

p. [a_207]: no additional experiments were necessasy -> no additional experiments were necessary

p. [a_213]: on a trial of legitimancy -> on a trial of legitimacy

p. [a_213]: unless very extroardinary indeed -> unless very extraordinary indeed

p. [a_213]: other precedents and authorites -> other precedents and authorities

p. [a_219]: decimo Augusti, Anuo 1631 -> decimo Augusti, Anno 1631

p. [a_222]: moribus ac pndicitiâ minimè -> moribus ac pudicitiâ minimè

p. [a_230]: Pesident of the said College -> President of the said College

p. [a_231]: there was no water in the diaphragam -> there was no water in the diaphragm

p. [a_236]: Where those fits owing to any -> Were those fits owing to any

p. [a_238]: slighty dicoloured by a little -> slightly discoloured by a little

p. [a_238]: the Apotheeary produced a powder -> the Apothecary produced a powder

p. [a_242]: Spirits of Vitrol and Salt -> Spirits of Vitriol and Salt

p. [a_248]: A. Who did you receive a message from -> Q. Who did you receive a message from

p. [a_248]: Were did you meet -> Where did you meet

p. [a_248]: the tongue potruding beyond the fore teeth -> the tongue protruding beyond the fore teeth

p. [a_256]: I connot say I did -> I cannot say I did

p. [a_264]: if previous to an epilepy -> if previous to an epilepsy

p. [a_275]: decline giving any opiniou -> decline giving any opinion