[631]. The Faculty of Leipsic decided “Dormientem in sella Virginem insciam deflorari posse 1. Valent. Pand. Med. Leg. p. 31. vide etiam ib. p. 33. De stupris in Somno à Fœminis admissis.” In stating the above authorities we are not to be considered as implicitly confiding in their truth.
[632]. Yet if she live long enough to make a deposition upon oath, it is admissible. Vide post Fleming & Windham’s case.
[633]. This belongs to a class of cases of which we shall take no other notice, than by referring the reader to the authorities. We do not believe that medical evidence can ever materially elucidate the fact, unless the crime be violent and accompanied by material bodily injury.
[634]. In the celebrated case of Mary Ashford, the prisoner Abraham Thornton, admitted the carnal knowledge, adding that it was with her own consent, but the whole of the evidence repelled the latter assertion; the death of his unhappy victim (however caused) rendered it impossible to convict him of Rape.
[635]. It is possible that a woman who has consented to her dishonor by one person, may on fear of discovery, or for some malignant motive, charge the crime on another; or as in the cases mentioned by Capuron, she may have produced external appearances of injury for the same nefarious purpose.
[636]. Farr and Faselius incline to the same opinion. The Parliament of Thoulouse passed a decree upon this subject, deciding that a woman violated might nevertheless conceive; the physicians having on that occasion reported, “posse quidem voluntatem cogi, sed non naturam, quæ semel irritata pensi voluptate fervescit, rationis et voluntatis sensum amittens.”
[637]. Or if she be a married woman, how is it possible to fix the filiation?
[638]. Sir W. Blackstone does not appear to have adverted to this statute. 4 Comm. 314. See Jac. L.D. by Tomlins, tit. Rape.
[639]. All persons, whether men or women, aiding in the perpetration of a Rape, are guilty of felony. Lord Baltimore’s case, 2 Burr. 2179.
[640]. It is somewhat singular that several eminent writers should have fallen into the error of citing Lord Castlehaven’s and Lord Audley’s as distinct cases; Mervin Touchet was Earl of Castlehaven in Ireland, and Baron Audley in England.