Act 1892, c. 514.

[228] _Supra_, p. 94, note 1.

[229] Bishop, Written Laws, secs. 119, 155; Potter’s Dwarris, Statutes, p. 185; 1 Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, “Construction,” p. 386.

[230] Masonic Mut. Ben. Assn. _v._ Beck, 77 Ind., 203. For the construction of particular words and phrases, see _infra_, p. 115 _et seq._

[231] For waiver of the privilege, see _infra_, p. 106.

[232] Penn Mut. L. I. Co. _v._ Wiler, 100 Ind., 92.

[233] Lunz _v._ Mass. Mut. L. I. Co., 8 Mo. App., 363.

[234] Kling _v._ City of Kansas, 27 Mo. App., 231.

[235] Gartside _v._ Conn. Mut. L. I. Co., 76 Mo., 446; said to be overruled by Groll _v._ Tower, 85 Mo., 249, in Squires _v._ City of Chillicothe, 89 Mo., 226; but followed in Thompson _v._ Ish, 99 Mo., 160.

[236] N. Y. Code Civ. Pro., s. 3,345. Disclosures by physicians are restricted by secs. 834, 836 of said Code.

[237] Code Civ. Pro., secs. 834, 836, as new existing are re-enactments with modifications of 2 R. S., p. 406, s. 73.

[238] People _v._ Stout, 3 Park Cr. Rep., 670; Edington _v._ Mut. L. I. Co., 67 N. Y., 185. Cf. Kendall _v._ Grey, 2 Hilt., 300; Pearsall _v._ Elmer, 5 Redf., 181. A disposition to construe the statute strictly was disclosed in the opinion of Earl, J., in Edington. _v._ Ætna L. I. Co., 77 N. Y., 564, but his personal views were disapproved in subsequent cases; see Grattan _v._ Metro. L. I. Co., 80 N. Y., 281; Renihan _v._ Dennin, 103 N. Y., 573; Buffalo Loan, etc., Co. _v._ Knights Templar, etc., 126 N. Y., 450. See also Jones _v._ Brooklyn, etc., Ry. Co., 3 N. Y. Supp., 253; in matter of Darragh, 52 Hun, 591; Marx _v._ Manhattan Ry. Co., 56 Hun, 575; Treanor _v._ Manhattan Ry. Co., 28 Abb. N. C., 47.

[239] See Collins _v._ Mack, 31 Ark., 684.

[240] N. Y. Code of Pro., s. 390; N. Y. Code of Civ. Pro., s. 870.

[241] Edington _v._ Mut. L. I. Co., 5 Hun, 1; s. c., 67 N. Y., 185.

Under sec. 873, Code Civ. Pro., as amended by Law 1893, c. 721, the plaintiff in an action for personal injuries may be compelled to submit to a physician’s inspection. Cf. Page _v._ Page, 51 Mich., 88.

[242] _Supra_, p. 96.

[243] Guptill _v._ Verback, 58 Iowa, 98. In this case, however, it was determined that it did not appear that a crime was intended.

[244] 2 R. S., 406, s. 73.

[245] Act 1876, c. 448, Code Civ. Pro., secs. 834, 836.

[246] Act 1877, c. 417, s. 1.

[247] 3 R. S., 1029, s. 19. Superseded by Code Crim. Pro., s. 392, as amended by Act 1892, c. 279, s. 7. People _v._ Murphy, 101 N. Y., 126. People _v._ Brower, 53 Hun, 217.

[248] Pierson _v._ People, 79 N. Y., 424; People _v._ Harris, 136 N. Y., 423.

[249] Pierson _v._ People, 18 Hun, 239.

[250] People _v._ Murphy, 101 N. Y., 126 (1886).

[251] People _v._ Brower, 53 Hun, 217 (1889). See also People _v._ Stout, 3 Park Cr. Rep., 670.

[252] Johnson _v._ Johnson, 4 Paige, 460; s. p., 14 Wend., 636; Hanford _v._ Hanford, 3 Edw. Ch., 468; Hunn _v._ Hunn, 1 T. & C., 499.

In Indiana, information as to abortion and criminal intimacy is protected in an action for criminal conversation. Harris _v._ Rupel, 14 Ind., 209. In Hewitt _v._ Prime, 21 Wend., 77 N. Y. (1839), in an action for seduction the testimony of a physician that he was asked for medicine to produce an abortion was admitted. It was stated that such testimony is not privileged, but there were other reasons for the judgment, and the case seems to be at variance with later decisions on that principle.

See also Briggs _v._ Briggs, 20 Mich., 34.

[253] Allen _v._ Pub. Adm., 1 Bradf., 221 (1850).

[254] Staunton _v._ Parker, 19 Hun, 55 (1879).

[255] Citing the fact that no objection was raised in the noted case of Delafield _v._ Parish, 25 N. Y., 1.

[256] Renihan _v._ Dennin, 103 N. Y., 573 (1886), followed in Loder _v._ Whelpley, 111 N. Y., 239 (1888). _In re_ Hannah, 11 N. Y. St. Rep., 807 (Supr. Ct., G. T., 1887). In matter of Connor (Sup. Ct., G. T.), 27 N. Y. St. Rep., 905 (1889); Mason _v._ Williams (Sup. Ct., G. T., 1889), 6 N. Y. Supp., 479; Van Orman _v._ Van Orman (Sup. Ct., G. T., 1890), 34 N. Y. St. Rep., 824. See also In matter of Halsey (N. Y. Surr.), 29 N. Y. St. Rep., 533 (1890). Allen _v._ Pub. Adm., 1 Bradf., 221, had been overruled in part by Edington _v._ Mut. L. I. Co., 67 N. Y., 185 (1876), but not on this point.

[257] _Supra_, p. 98.

[258] Heuston _v._ Simpson, 115 Ind., 62.

[259] Fraser _v._ Jennison, 42 Mich., 206. In this case the testimony was admitted on the ground that the representative could waive the privilege. See Thompson _v._ Ish, 99 Mo., 160.

[260] _In re_ Benson (Monroe County Court), 16 N. Y. Supp., 111 (1891). Some States have statutory provisions for the qualification of physicians as examiners in lunacy, _e.g._, Laws of Col., 1893, c. 119, s. 5; Laws of N. Y., 1874, c. 446, t. 1, art. 1, s. 1. The bearing of these provisions upon the statutory privilege has not been made clear.

[261] In matter of Baird, 11 N. Y. State Rep., 263 (1887).

[262] In matter of Hoyt, 20 Abb. N. C. (Sup. Ct., G. T., 1887).

[263] 13 N. Y. W. D., 505 (1880).

[264] Dilleber _v._ Home L. I. Co., 13 N. Y. W. D., 505 (1881).

[265] The following cases in which the rule has been enforced have arisen out of contracts of life insurance: Masonic Mut. Ben. Assn. _v._ Beck, 77 Ind., 203; Excelsior Mut. Aid Assn. _v._ Riddle, 91 Ind., 84; Penn Mut. L. I. Co. _v._ Wiler, 100 Ind., 92; Ætna L. I. Co. _v._ Denning, 123 Ind., 390; Lunz _v._ Mass. Mut. L. I. Co., 8 Mo. App., 363; Edington _v._ Mut. L. I. Co., 67 N. Y., 185; Grattan _v._ Metrop. L. I. Co., 80 N. Y., 281; s. p., 92 N. Y., 274; Conn. Mut. L. I. Co. _v._ Union Tr. Co., 112 U. S., 250.

[266] See Renihan _v._ Dennin. 103 N. Y., 573, dictum to same effect.

As to whether a physician may contradict his patient to prevent fraud, see _infra_, p. 111 _et seq._

[267] _Supra_, p. 97.

[268] _Infra_, p. 119.

[269] “Physician: A person who has received the degree of doctor of medicine from an incorporated institution; one lawfully engaged in the practice of medicine.”—Bouvier’s Law Dict., vol. ii., p. 412.

“Surgeon: One who applies the principles of the healing art to external diseases or injuries, or to internal injuries or malformations, requiring manual or instrumental intervention. One who practises surgery.”—Bouvier’s Law Dict., vol. ii., p. 698, _q. v._

[270] Edington _v._ Mutual L. I. Co., 5 Hun, 1.

[271] People _v._ Stout, 3. Park Cr. Rep., 670 (1858). In this case the witness was undoubtedly a duly qualified physician under the State law.

[272] Wiel _v._ Cowles, 45 Hun, 307 (1887) (Supreme Ct., Gen. T.). Sec. 356, N. Y. Penal Code, which was in operation at that time, was repealed by Act 1887, c. 647, s. 9, but the prohibition of unauthorized practice is now to be found in Act 1893, c. 661, s. 140.

[273] Kendall _v._ Gray, 2 Hilt., 300 (N. Y. Com. Pl., Gen. T., 1859).

[274] Brown _v._ Hannibal & St. J. R. R. Co., 66 Mo., 588.

[275] Carrington _v._ St. Louis, 89 Mo., 208.

[276] _Infra_, p. 128.

[277] Record _v._ Village of Saratoga Springs, 46 Hun, 448 (N. Y. Supr. Ct., Gen. T.).

[278] _Supra_, p. 96.

[279] Penn Mut. L. I. Co. _v._ Wiler. 100 Ind., 92; Morris _v._ Morris, 119 Ind., 341.

[280] Grand Rapids & Ind. R. R. Co. _v._ Martin, 41 Mich., 667; Fraser _v._ Jennison, 42 Mich., 206.

[281] Carrington _v._ St. Louis, 89 Mo., 208; Squires _v._ City of Chillicothe, 89 Mo., 226; Blair _v._ C. & A. R. R. Co., 89 Mo., 334; s. p., 89 Mo., 383; Adrereno _v._ Mut. Res. F. L. I. Co., 34 Fed. Rep., 870; Davenport _v._ City of Hannibal, 18 S. W. Rep., 1122.

[282] The most of the cases in which the rule has been enforced are those in which the physician has actually testified without raising the objection himself, and in which, therefore, the rule could not be enforced if the physician’s waiver were valid, but the following cases particularly are in point: Harris _v._ Rupel, 14 Ind., 209; Barton _v._ Allbright, 29 Ind., 488; Storrs _v._ Scougale, 48 Mich., 387; Lunz _v._ Mass. Mut. L. I. Co., 8 Mo. App., 363; Johnson _v._ Johnson, 14 Wend., 636; Hanford _v._ Hanford, 3 Edw. Ch., 468; People _v._ Stout, 3 Park Cr. Rep., 670.

[283] Mulhado _v._ Brooklyn City R. R. Co., 30 N. Y., 370; Heller _v._ Sharon Springs, 28 Hun, 344; Winner _v._ Lathrop, 67 Hun, 511.

[284] See Penn Mut. L. I. Co. _v._ Wiler, 100 Ind., 92; Territory _v._ Corbett, 3 Mont., 50; Johnson _v._ Johnson, 14 Wend., 636; Babcock _v._ People, 15 Hun, 347.

[285] Barton _v._ Allbright, 29 Ind., 488; Campau _v._ North, 39 Mich., 606; Territory _v._ Corbett, 3 Mont., 50; Blair _v._ Chic. & Alton R. R. Co., 89 Mo., 334; Johnson _v._ Johnson, 14 Wend. (N. Y.), 636.

[286] N. Y. Code Civ. Pro., s. 836 (Act 1876, c. 448), as amended Act 1877, c. 416, s. 185. Previous to the Code of Civil Procedure the provision for waiver was not in the statute, 2 R. S., 406, s. 73.

The amendment of 1891 allowed an express waiver of information, except confidential communications and such facts as would tend to disgrace the memory of the patient, by his personal representatives, or if the validity of the last will and testament of the patient is in question, by the executor or executors named in said will. Law 1891, c. 381.

The amendment of 1892 added the surviving husband, widow, heir at law, any of the next of kin or any other party in interest, in case the validity of the last will and testament of the patient is in question. Law 1892, c. 514. The present law contains the same provisions. Act 1893, c. 295.

[287] Westover _v._ Ætna L. I. Co., 99 N. Y., 56; Loder _v._ Whelpley, 111 N. Y., 239; Alberti _v._ N. Y., L. E. & W. R. R. Co., 118 N. Y., 77. Staunton _v._ Parker, 19 Hun, 55, is thus overruled.

[288] See In matter of Freeman, 46 Hun, 548 (N. Y. Supr. Ct., G. T.,1887).

See Adrereno _v._ Mut. Res. F. L. I. Co. (U. S. C. C. Mich.), 34 Fed. Rep., 870.

[289] Alberti _v._ N. Y., L. E. & W. R. R. Co., 118 N. Y., 77.

[290] Masonic Mut. Ben. Assn. _v._ Beck, 77 Ind., 203.

[291] Fraser _v._ Jennison, 42 Mich., 206.

[292] Groll _v._ Tower, 85 Mo., 249.

[293] Thompson _v._ Ish, 99 Mo., 160, distinguishes the New York statute from the Missouri statute; but seems to misinterpret Heuston _v._ Simpson, 115 Ind., 62, which does not hold that representatives cannot waive, but that they can invoke protection.

[294] State _v._ Depoister, 25 Pac. Rep., 1000.

[295] Johnson _v._ Johnson, 14 Wend., 636; Babcock _v._ People, 15 Hun, 347; Valensin _v._ Valensin, 14 Pac. Rep., 87 (Supr. Ct. Cal., 1887); cf. _In re_ Hannah, 11 N. Y. St. Rep., 807.

[296] Penn Mut. L. I. Co. _v._ Wiler, 100 Ind., 92; Allen _v._ Pub. Adm., 1 Bradf., 221; Edington _v._ Mut. L. I. Co., 67 N. Y., 185; see Westover _v._ Ætna L. I. Co., 99 N. Y., 56. Breisenmeister _v._ Supr. Lodge, etc., 45 N. W. Rep., 977 (Supr. Ct. Mich., 1890).

[297] Penn Mut. L. I. Co. _v._ Wiler, 100 Ind., 92.

[298] Harris _v._ Rupel, 14 Ind., 209. See also Carthage T. Co. _v._ Andrews. 1 N. E. Rep., 364.

[299] Morris _v._ Morris, 119 Ind., 341.

[300] Scripps _v._ Foster, 41 Mich., 742.

[301] Mason _v._ Libbey, 2 Abb. N. C., 137; Mott _v._ Consumers’ Ice Co., 2 Abb. N. C., 143.

[302] Territory _v._ Corbett, 3 Mont., 50.

[303] People _v._ Stout, 3 Park Cr. Rep., 670 (N. Y., Oy. and Ter., 1858).

[304] Johnson _v._ Johnson, 14 Wend., 636 (overruling s. c., 4 Paige, 460); Breisenmeister _v._ Supreme Lodge, etc., 45 N. W. Rep., 977 (Supr. Ct. Mich., 1890).

[305] Valensin _v._ Valensin, 14 Pac. Rep., 87 (Supr. Ct. Cal., 1887).

[306] N. Y. Code Civ. Pro., s. 2, 618.

[307] Hoyt _v._ Hoyt, 9 N. Y. St. Rep., 731 (N. Y. Supr. Ct., G. T.), affirmed 112 N. Y., 493.

[308] Hoyt _v._ Hoyt, 9 N. Y. St. Rep., 731 (N. Y. Supr. Ct., G. T.).

[309] Van Valkenburg _v._ Van Valkenburg, 90 Ind., 433.

[310] Dilleber _v._ Home L. I. Co., 69 N. Y., 256.

[311] Loder _v._ Whelpley, 111 N. Y., 29.

[312] _Supra_, p. 96.

[313] Valensin _v._ Valensin, 14 Pac. Rep., 87 (Supr. Ct. Cal., 1887).

[314] Masonic Mut. Ben. Assn. _v._ Beck, 77 Ind., 203.

[315] Dreier _v._ Continental L. I. Co., 24 Fed. Rep., 670; cf. Breisenmeister _v._ Supr. Lodge, etc., 45 N. W. Rep., 977 (Supr. Ct. Mich., 1890).

[316] Penn Mut. L. I. Co. _v._ Wiler, 100 Ind., 92.

[317] Williams _v._ Johnson, 112 Ind., 273.

[318] Ætna L. I. Co. _v._ Denning, 123 Ind., 390.

[319] Lane _v._ Boicourt, 27 N. E. Rep., 1111.

[320] McConnell _v._ City of Osage, 45 N. W. Rep., 550.

[321] Campau _v._ North, 39 Mich., 606.

[322] Dolton _v._ Albion, 24 N. W. Rep., 786.

[323] Carrington _v._ St. Louis, 89 Mo., 208; Squires _v._ Chillicothe, 89 Mo., 226; Thompson _v._ Ish, 99 Mo., 160.

[324] Mellor _v._ Mo. Pac. Ry. Co., 14 S. W. Rep., 758; 16 S. W. Rep., 849.

[325] Adrereno _v._ Mut. Res. F. L. I. Co., 34 Fed. Rep., 870.

[326] State _v._ Depoister, 25 Pac. Rep., 1000; but see dissenting opinion of Bigelow, J.; see also McKinney _v._ Grand St. R. R. Co., 104 N. Y., 352.

[327] Edington _v._ Mut. L. I. Co., 5 Hun, 1 (reversed in part by Edington _v._ Mut. L. I. Co., 67 N. Y., 185, but affirmed on this point).

[328] Cahen _v._ Continental L. I. Co., 41 N. Y. Super., 296 (overruled on another point but affirmed on this in 69 N. Y., 300).

[329] Jones _v._ Brooklyn, B. & W. E. Ry. Co., 3 N. Y. Supp., 253.

[330] Grattan _v._ Metrop. L. I. Co., 92 N. Y., 274.

[331] McKinney _v._ Grand St. R. R. Co., 104 N. Y., 352; see criticism of this case in Breisenmeister _v._ Supr. Lodge, 45 N. W. Rep., 977 (Supr. Ct. of Mich., 1890). See also Mason _v._ Libbey, 2 Abb. N. C., 137; see unanswered queries on similar points in People _v._ Schuyler, 106 N. Y., 298.

[332] See _In re_ Freeman, 46 Hun, 458, in which a will was admitted to probate on the concurrence of Learned, J., who held that the relation of physician and surgeon was not established, and Landon, J., who held that the request to sign constituted a waiver; Williams, J., dissenting, on the ground that the relation was established in the case, and the waiver could not be assumed without proof of the patient’s mental capacity to comprehend the waiver; that it was not proper to assume testator’s competency to waive in order to enable the witness to testify that the patient was competent to make a will.

On the analogous case of an attorney as witness to a will, see Matter of Coleman. 111 N. Y., 220; and N. Y. Code Civ. Pro., s. 836, as amended Act 1893, c. 295.

[333] Record _v._ Village of Saratoga Springs, 46 Hun, 448 (Supr. Ct., Gen. T., N. Y.). See also Hope _v._ Troy and Lansingburg R. R. Co., 40 Hun, 438; Jones _v._ B., B. & W. E. R. R. Co., 3 N. Y. Supp., 253.

[334] _Supra_, p. 113, note 7.

[335] 28 Abb. N. C., 37 (N. Y. Com. Pl., Gen. T., 1891).

[336] Marx _v._ Manhattan Ry. Co., 56 Hun, 575 (N. Y. Supr. Ct., Gen. T.).

[337] Buffalo L. & T. Co. _v._ Masonic Mut. Aid Assn., 126 N. Y., 450.

[338] _Supra_, p. 98.

[339] Collins _v._ Mack, 31 Ark., 684. The main point of this decision was that the information was not necessary; see _infra_. p. 124.

[340] _v._ Briggs, 20 Mich., 34.

[341] _Ibid._

[342] Fraser _v._ Jennison, 42 Mich., 206; Breisenmeister _v._ Supr. Lodge, etc., 45 N. W. Rep., 977 (Supr. Ct. Mich., 1890).

[343] Dalman _v._ Koning, 54 Mich., 321.

[344] Brown _v._ Mut. L. I. Co., 65 Mich., 306.

[345] Breisenmeister _v._ Supr. Lodge, etc., 45 N. W. Rep., 977.

[346] Cooley _v._ Foltz, 48 N. W. Rep., 176.

[347] Lunz _v._ Mass. Mut. L. I. Co., 8 Mo. App., 363; Gartside _v._ Conn. Mut. L. I. Co., 76 Mo., 446 (said to be overruled by 85 Mo., 249; see 89 Mo., 226, but followed in Thompson _v._ Ish, 99 Mo., 160). For an argument on the distinction between _information_ and _communications_, see brief of respondent’s counsel in Gartside _v._ Conn. Mut. L. I. Co.

[348] 27 Mo. App., 231 (1887).

[349] Streeter _v._ City of Breckenridge, 23 Mo. App., 244.

[350] _Ibid._

[351] Corbett _v._ St. L., I. M. & S. Ry. Co., 26 Mo. App., 621.

[352] Thompson _v._ Ish, 99 Mo., 160.

[353] People _v._ Stout, 3 Park Cr. Rep., 670.

[354] Edington _v._ Mut. L. I. Co., 5 Hun, 1; s. p., 67 N. Y., 185; Grattan _v._ Met. L. I. Co., 80 N. Y., 281.

[355] Grattan _v._ Met. L. I. Co., 80 N. Y., 281; Van Orman _v._ Van Orman, 34 N. Y. St. Rep., 824 (Supr. Ct., G. T.); Wilcox _v._ Wilcox, 46 Hun, 32.

[356] Sloan _v._ N. Y. C. R. R. Co., 45 N. Y., 125; Dilleber _v._ Home L. I. Co., 69 N. Y., 256.

[357] Cahen _v._ Continental L. I. Co., 69 N. Y., 300.

[358] 77 N. Y., 564.

[359] See also Staunton _v._ Parker, 19 Hun, 55.

[360] 103 N. Y., 573; see also Grattan _v._ Met. L. I. Co., 80 N. Y., 281.

[361] Grattan _v._ Nat. L. I. Co. of U. S., 15 Hun, 74; Edington _v._ Mut. L. I. Co., 5 Hun, 1; see s. c., 67 N. Y., 185.

[362] Per Smith, J., in Steele _v._ Ward, 30 Hun, 555.

[363] People _v._ Brower, 53 Hun, 217.

[364] People _v._ Harris, 136 N. Y., 423.

[365] Burley _v._ Barnhard, 9 N. Y. St. Rep., 587 (Supr. Ct., G. T., 1887).

[366] Pandjiris _v._ McQuillen, 37 N. Y. St. Rep., 602 (Supr. Ct., G. T., 1891).

[367] Hoyt _v._ Hoyt, 9 N. Y. St. Rep., 731 (Supr. Ct., G. T., 1887).

[368] Hoyt _v._ Hoyt, _ibid._

[369] In matter of Boury, 8 N. Y. St. Rep., 809 (Supr. Ct., G. T., 1889).

[370] Brown _v._ R. W. & O. R. R. Co., 45 Hun, 439.

[371] Numirich _v._ Supr. Lodge K. & L. of H., 3 N. Y. Supp., 552 (Trial Term, City Ct. of N. Y., 1889); Patten _v._ U. L. & A. Ins. Assn., 133 N. Y., 450.

[372] Patten _v._ United L. & A. Ins. Assn., 133 N. Y., 450.

[373] In matter of Darragh, 15 N. Y. St. Rep., 452 (N. Y. Surr.).

[374] In matter of Darragh, 52 Hun, 591 (Supr. Ct., G. T.), see _infra_, p. 128.

[375] Masonic Mut. Ben. Assn. _v._ Beck, 77 Ind., 203.

[376] Heuston _v._ Simpson, 115 Ind., 62; Penna. Co. _v._ Marion, 23 N. E. Rep., 973.

[377] Guptill _v._ Verback, 58 Iowa, 98.

[378] Guptill _v._ Verback, 58 Iowa, 98.

[379] McConnell _v._ City of Osage, 45 N. W. Rep., 550.

[380] Raymond _v._ Burlington, C. R. & N. Ry. Co., 65 Iowa, 152.

[381] _Ibid._

[382] See argument in Edington _v._ Mut. L. I. Co., 67 N. Y., 185. See argument for difference between _information_ and _communications_ in brief for respondent, Gartside _v._ Conn. Mut. L. I. Co., 76 Mo., 446.

[383] _Supra_, p. 115.

[384] Act of Congress, May 2d, 1890, c. 182.

[385] Collins _v._ Mack, 31 Ark., 684.

[386] Cahen _v._ Continental L. I. Co., 69 N. Y., 300; see Grattan _v._ Met. L. I. Co., 24 Hun, 43.

[387] Hoyt _v._ Hoyt, 112 N. Y., 493.

[388] Freel _v._ Market St. Cable Ry. Co., 31 Pac. Rep., 730.

[389] People _v._ Glover, 71 Mich., 303.

[390] Per Learned, J., In matter of Freeman, 46 Hun, 458 (Supr. Ct., Gen. T., 1887).

[391] Renihan _v._ Dennin, 103 N. Y., 573; and cases in notes following.

[392] People _v._ Stout, 3 Park Cr. Rep., 670 (N. Y. Oy. and Ter., 1858); see Grossman _v._ Supreme Lodge, etc., 6 N. Y. Supp., 821 (Gen. T. Supr. Ct., 1889), visiting physician at a hospital attending out of curiosity with regular physician.

[393] People _v._ Schuyler. 106 N. Y., 298, affirming 43 Hun, 88.

[394] In matter of Baird, 11 N. Y. St. Rep., 263 (N. Y. Supr. Ct., Chambers, 1887, per Donohue, J.).

[395] See 28 Abb. N. C., 55. note.

[396] Grattan _v._ Met. L. I. Co., 24 Hun, 43 (Supr. Ct., Gen. T., 1881); 92 N. Y., 274.

[397] People _v._ Murphy, 101 N. Y., 126.

[398] People _v._ Kemmler, 119 N. Y., 580; People _v._ Sliney, 137 N. Y., 570.

[399] Heath _v._ Broadway & S. A. Ry. Co., 8 N. Y. Supp., 863 (Super. Ct., Gen. T., 1890).

[400] Henry _v._ N. Y., L. E. & W. R. R. Co., 57 Hun, 76 (Supr. Ct., Gen. T., 1890).

[401] Renihan _v._ Dennin, 103 N. Y., 573; Jones _v._ B., B. & W. E. Ry. Co., 3 N. Y. Supp., 253.

[402] Ætna L. I. Co. _v._ Deming, 123 Ind., 390; Raymond _v._ B., C. R. & N. Ry. Co., 65 Iowa, 152.

[403] Grattan _v._ Metr. L. I. Co., 24 Hun, 43 (Supr. Ct., Gen. T., 1881).

[404] Edington _v._ Ætna L. I. Co., 13 Hun, 543 (Supr. Ct., Gen. T., 1878), affirmed 77 N. Y., 564. The broad expressions of this latter case were disapproved in Renihan _v._ Dennin, 103 N. Y., 573, but it does not appear that this point was not properly decided.

[405] In matter of Darragh, 52 Hun, 591 (Supr. Ct., Gen. T., 1889), 15 N. Y. St. Rep., 452 (N. Y. Surr.) Brigham _v._ Gott, 3 N. Y. Supp., 518 (Supr. Ct., Gen. T., 1889).

[406] Stowell _v._ American Co-op. Assn., 23 N. Y. St. Rep., 706 (Supr. Ct., Gen. T., 1889).

[407] _Supra_, p. 98.

[408] 8 Mo. App., 363.

[409] 27 Mo. App., 231.

[410] Gartside _v._ Conn. Mut. L. I. Co., 76 Mo., 446; see also Burley _v._ Barnhard, 9 N. Y. St. Rep., 587 (N. Y. Supr. Ct., Gen. T.).

[411] Grattan _v._ Metr. L. I. Co., 92 N. Y., 274.

[412] Fisher _v._ Fisher, 129 N. Y., 654.

[413] Grattan _v._ Metr. L. I. Co., 24 Hun, 43 (Supr. Ct., Gen. T., 1881).

[414] Per Learned, J., In matter of Freeman, 46 Hun, 458.

[415] _Supra_, p. 98.

[416] Collins _v._ Mack, 31 Ark., 684.

[417] Raymond _v._ B., C. R. & Nor. Ry. Co., 65 Iowa, 152.

[418] Campau _v._ North, 39 Mich., 606.

[419] Brown _v._ Metr. L. I. Co., 65 Mich., 306.

[420] People _v._ Glover, 71 Mich., 303.

[421] Breisenmeister _v._ Supr. Lodge, etc., 45 N. W. Rep., 977 (Supr. Ct. Mich., 1890).

[422] Jacobs _v._ Cross, 19 Minn., 523.

[423] Norton _v._ City of Moberly, 18 Mo. App., 457.

[424] Streeter _v._ City of Breckenridge, 23 Mo. App., 244.

[425] Kling _v._ City of Kansas, 27 Mo. App., 231.

[426] Hewitt _v._ Prime, 21 Wend., 77 (N. Y. Supr. Ct. of Judic., 1839). See Edington _v._ Mut. L. I. Co., 67 N.Y., 185.

[427] 53 Hun, 217 (Supr. Ct., Gen. T., 1889).

[428] Sloan _v._ N. Y. C. R. R. Co., 45 N. Y., 125.

[429] Edington _v._ Mut. L. I. Co., 67 N. Y., 185. See also People _v._ Stout, 3 Park Cr. Rep., 670 (N. Y. Oy. and Ter., 1858).

[430] People _v._ Harris, 136 N. Y., 423.

[431] Babcock _v._ People, 15 Hun, 347; see also People _v._ Harris, _supra_.

[432] 77 N. Y., 564; see also s. p., 17 W. D., 566.

[433] 80 N. Y., 281.

[434] 80 N. Y., 281.

[435] Jones _v._ Brooklyn, Bath and West End Ry. Co., 3 N.Y. Supp., 253 (City Ct. of Brooklyn, Gen. T., 1888).

[436] Grattan _v._ Metr. L. I. Co., 24 Hun, 43 (Supr. Ct., Gen. T., 1881).

[437] In matter of Freeman, 46 Hun, 458.

[438] People _v._ Schuyler, 43 Hun, 88, affirmed 106 N. Y., 298.

[439] 9 N. Y. St. Rep., 31 (Supr. Ct., Gen. T.), affirmed 112 N. Y., 493. Although this point was discussed, the case was really decided on the ground that the objector had lost her right to object if she ever had it.

[440] Brown _v._ R. W. & O. R. R. Co., 45 Hun, 439 (Supr. Ct., Gen. T.).

[441] In matter of O’Neil, 26 N. Y. St. Rep., 242 (N. Y. Surr., 1889).

[442] Taylor, Ev., s. 2; Greenleaf, Ev., s. 2.

[443] McConnell _v._ City of Osage, 45 N. W. Rep., 550.

[444] Harris _v._ Rupel, 14 Ind., 209.

[445] Van Valkenberg _v._ Van Valkenberg, 90 Ind., 433.

[446] Storrs _v._ Scougale, 48 Mich., 387; see also Dolton _v._ Albion, 24 N. W. Rep., 786.

[447] Page _v._ Page, 41 Mich., 88; see also McQuigan _v._ D. & L. R. R. Co., 129 N. Y., 50; Roberts _v._ Ogdensburgh, etc., Ry. Co., 29 Hun, 158; McSwyny _v._ Broadway & S. A. Ry. Co., 7 N. Y. Supp., 459; and cf. N. Y. Code Civ. Pro., s. 873, as amended Act 1893, c. 722.

[448] Winner _v._ Lathrop, 67 Hun, 511.

[449] Lunz _v._ Mass. Mut. L. I. Co., 8 Mo. App., 363.

[450] Johnson _v._ Johnson, 4 Paige, 460 (Chancery, 1834); see also Hanford _v._ Hanford, 3 Edw. Ch., 468 (Vice Chan., 1841).

[451] 14 Wend., 636 (Ct. of Errors, 1835).

[452] 112 N. Y., 493.

[453] Edington _v._ Ætna L. I. Co., 17 W. D., 1883 (N. Y. Supr. Ct., Gen. T.); Hoyt _v._ Hoyt, 9 N. Y. St. Rep., 731 (Supr. Ct., Gen. T.), affirmed 112 N. Y., 493.

[454] Johnson _v._ Johnson, 14 Wend., 636; Babcock _v._ People, 15 Hun, 347; Valensin _v._ Valensin, 14 Pac. Rep., 87 (Supr. Ct. Cal., 1887).

[455] Kelly _v._ Levy, 8 N. Y. Supp., 849 (G. T. N. Y. City Ct., 1890).

[456] Mott _v._ Consumers’ Ice Co., 2 Abb. N. C., 143 (N. Y. Com. Pl., Sp. T., 1877).

[457] Edington _v._ Mut. L. I. Co., 5 Hun, 1; Renihan _v._ Dennin, 103 N. Y., 573; Record _v._ Village of Saratoga Springs, 46 Hun, 448; Loder _v._ Whelpley, 111 N. Y., 239.

[458] _Supra_, p. 101 _et seq._

[459] _Supra_, p. 101 _et seq._

[460] _Supra_, p. 107.

[461] Grattan _v._ Nat. L. I. Co. of U. S., 15 Hun, 74.

[462] Buffalo L. T. & S. D. Co. _v._ Knights T. & M. M. Aid Assn., 126 N. Y., 450.

[463] Edington _v._ Ætna L. I. Co., 13 Hun, 543; see Grattan _v._ Nat. L. I. Co. of U. S., 15 Hun, 74.

[464] McConnell _v._ City of Osage, 45 N. W. Rep., 550.

[465] Cooley _v._ Foltz, 48 N. W. Rep., 176.

[466] People _v._ Schuyler, 43 Hun, 88 (N. Y. Supr. Ct., Gen. T.), affirmed 106 N. Y., 298; Stowell _v._ American Co-operative Assn., 23 N. Y. St. Rep., 706 (N. Y. Supr. Ct., Gen. T.); Henry _v._ N. Y., L. E. & W. R. R. Co., 57 Hun, 76 (N. Y. Supr. Ct., Gen. T.); Edington _v._ Ætna L. I. Co., 77 N. Y., 564; Gartside _v._ Conn. Mut. L. I. Co., 8 Mo. App., 592.

[467] Gartside _v._ Conn. Mut. L. I. Co., 8 Mo. App., 592.

[468] Feeny _v._ Long Island R. R. Co., 116 N. Y., 375.

[469] Numirich _v._ Supr. Lodge K. & L. of H., 3 N. Y. Supp., 552 (Trial Term, City Ct. of N. Y., 1889); see also _supra_, p. 115.

[470] Herrington _v._ Winn, 60 Hun, 235 (Supr. Ct., Gen. T., 1891).

[471] In matter of Halsey, 29 N. Y. St. Rep., 533 (N. Y. Surr., 1890); cf. Matter of Darragh, 52 Hun, 591.

[472] Patten _v._ United L. & A. Ins. Assn., 133 N. Y., 450.

[473] Brigham _v._ Gott, 3 N. Y. Supp., 518 (Supr. Ct., Gen. T., 1889); _supra_, p. 124.

[474] Buffalo L. T. & S. D. Co. _v._ K. T. & Mas. Mut. Aid Assn., 126 N. Y., 450.

[475] Harris _v._ Rupel, 14 Ind., 209; Sullings _v._ Shakespeare, 46 Mich., 408; Storrs _v._ Scougale, 48 Mich., 387; Buffalo, etc., Co. _v._ Knights T. & Mas. Mut. Aid Assn., 126 N. Y., 450.

[476] Coryell _v._ Stone, 62 Ind., 307; People _v._ Schuyler, 43 Hun, 88, affirmed 106 N. Y., 298.

[477] _Supra_, p. 123.

[478] _Supra_, p. 119.

[479] Penn Mut. L. I. Co. _v._ Wiler, 100 Ind., 92. Valensin _v._ Valensin, 14 Pac. Rep., 87 (Supr. Ct. Cal., 1887); cf. _In re_ Hannah, 11 N. Y. St. Rep., 807.

[480] Mason _v._ Libbey, 2 Abb. N. C., 137; Mott _v._ Consumers’ Ice Co., 2 Abb. N. C., 143.

[481] Lane _v._ Boicourt, 27 N. E. Rep., 1111; see also Winner _v._ Lathrop, 67 Hun, 511 (N. Y. Supr. Ct., G. T.).

[482] Scripps _v._ Foster, 41 Mich., 742.

[483] Grattan _v._ Metr. L. I. Co., 80 N. Y., 281.

[484] See p. 137, this volume, for the medical laws of the several States and Territories; for history of physician’s right of action for services, see Graham _v._ Gautier, 21 Tex., 117; see Wood _v._ Munson, 70 Hun, 468. In Georgia and Alabama a physician’s books are evidence in such actions. Code Ala., 1886, s. 2,777; Code Ga., 1882, s. 3,777.

[485] Kendall _v._ Grey, 2 Hilt., 300.

[486] Kling _v._ City of Kansas, 27 Mo. App., 231; Pierson _v._ People, 79 N. Y., 424.

[487] _Supra_, p. 103. Matter of Coleman, 111 N. Y., 220.

[488] _Supra_, p. 103.

[489] _Supra_, p. 104.

[490] _Supra_, p. 127.

[491] Laws of N. Y., Act 1893, c. 661, secs. 23, 31. In New York physicians are also required to attest certificates of the fact of birth for registration (Act 1893, c. 661, secs. 22, 31), and to certify the existence of contagious and infectious diseases (_ib._, s. 24).

[492] See suggestions on the policy of the New York law in Conn. Mut. L. I. Co. _v._ Union Tr. Co., 112 U. S., 250; Pearsall _v._ Elmer, 5 Redf., 181; and _contra_, Edington _v._ Mut. L. I. Co., 5 Hun, 1.

[493] A valuable note is appended to this last case, citing the law literature of burial-grounds, burials, etc., and also giving in full the opinion of the Special Term of the New York Supreme Court, in the case of Secord _v._ Secord, not elsewhere reported. And see also The Law of Burial, 4 Bradf., 503. (Matter of Beekman St.)

[494] Ambrose _v._ Kerreson, 10 C. B., 776; Bradshaw _v._ Beard, 12 Com. B., n. s., 344; Johnson _v._ Marinus, 18 Abb. N. C., 72; Hewitt _v._ Bronson, 5 Daily, 1; Cunningham _v._ Reardon, 98 Mass., 538.

[495] In New York State, section 305 of the Penal Code provides: “A person has the right to direct the manner in which his body shall be disposed of after his death; and also to direct the manner in which any part of his body, which had become separated therefrom during his lifetime, shall be disposed of; and the provisions of this chapter do not apply to any case where a person has given directions for the disposal of his body or any part thereof inconsistent with those provisions.” See also Patterson _v._ Patterson, 59 N.Y., 583; Me. R. S., ch. 13, sec. 1; Minn. Gen. Stats., sec. 6,220; N. D. Comp. Laws. sec. 6,549; Oklahoma Stats., sec. 2,188. See also Williams _v._ Williams, Law Rpts., 20 Ch. D., 659; 2 Wms. on Exrs., p. 968; Secord _v._ Secord, _supra_.

[496] Chappel _v._ Cooper, 13 M. & W., 252.

[497] Secord _v._ Secord, _supra_; Wyncoop _v._ Wyncoop, 42 Pa. St., 293; Bogert _v._ Indianapolis, 13 Ind., 135; Snyder _v._ Snyder, 60 How. Prac., 368; Law of Burial, 4 Bradf., 503.

[498] 1 Bishop Crim. Law, sec. 506; see also Roscoe’s Cr. Ev., 445, 446; Stephens’ Dig. Crim. L., sec. 292; Reg. _v._ Clark, 15 Cox C. C., 171.

[499] Some of the United States have enacted statutes declaring it to be a misdemeanor to attach or seize under execution a dead body. Arizona Pen. Code, 491, etc.; Cal. Pen. Code, sec. 295; Me. R. S., chap. 124, sec. 26; Mass. Pub. Stat., chap. 207, sec. 46; N. Dak. Comp. Laws, sec. 6,563; Oklahoma Stat., sec. 2,202; R. I. Pub. Stat., sec. 3,222.

[500] So in Meagher _v._ Driscoll, 96 Am. Dec., 759, it was held that a dead body is not the subject of property, and after burial it becomes a part of the ground to which it has been committed; “Earth to earth, ashes to ashes, dust to dust.”

[501] 1st Pres. Ch. _v._ 2d Pres. Ch., 2 Brewster, 372; and see also Pierce _v._ Proprietors Swan Point Cem., _supra_.

[502] Craig. _v._ 1st Pres. Ch., 88 Pa. St., 42; Charleston _v._ Wentworth Cem., 4 Strob. (S. Car.), 306; Coates _v._ New York City, 7 Cow., 585; Hamilton _v._ New Albany, 30 Ind., 482; Paige _v._ Symonds, 63 N. H., 17.

[503] Peters _v._ Peters, 43 N. J. Eq., 140; Lowry _v._ Plitt, 11 Phila., 303; Weld _v._ Walker, _supra_; _In re_ Downs, 14 N. Y. St. Rep., 189; Morland _v._ Richardson, 22 Beav., 596; s.c. 24 id., 33; Guthrie _v._ Weaver, 1 Mo. App., 136; 4 Step. Com., 371; Reg. _v._ Theiss, 10 B. & S., 298.

[504] Weld _v._ Walker, _supra_; see also Johnson _v._ Marinus, _supra_.

[505] See also Com. _v._ Slack, 19 Pick., 304; People _v._ Fitzgerald, 105 N. Y., 146; People _v._ Richards, 138 N. Y., 137. In this last case it was held that a tomb, although constructed in the form of an elaborate mausoleum and built above the surface of the ground, was not a “building, erection or enclosure,” within the meaning of the criminal statutes defining the crime of burglary in entering a “building, erection or enclosure;” and hence that entering such a tomb and taking therefrom a dead body with its grave-clothes and cerements would not amount to the crime of burglary.

[506] County of Northampton _v._ Innes, 2 Carey (Pa.), 156; Com. _v._ Hannan, 4 Barr. (Pa.), 269; Alleg. Co. _v._ Watts, 3 Barr. (Pa.), 468; Van Hovenbergh _v._ Hasbrouck, 45 Barb. (N. Y.), 197; Cosford _v._ Board Supervisors, 38 N. Y. St. Rep., 964; Co. of Alleg. _v._ Shaw, 34 Pa. St., 301; Board of Com. _v._ Jameson, 86 Ind., 154; Mo. Rev. Laws, sec. 2,469; No. Car. Laws, 1887, chap. 269; Tenn. Code, sec. 6,150; N. Y. Laws of 1874, chap. 535, sec. 2; N. Y. Laws, 1889, chap. 500, amending sec. 308 of The Pen. Code.

[507] Am. & Eng. Enc. of Law, vol. 4, p. 171.

[508] 4 Co., 57; 3 Com. Dig., 242.

[509] 1 Black. Com., 347.

[510] Am. & Eng. Enc. of Law, vol. 4, p. 173.

[511] Giles _v._ Brown, 1 Mill (S. C.) Const., 230; People _v._ Devine, 44 Cal., 452.

[512] Bouvier’s Law Dict., vol. 1, p. 405.

[513] Lancaster County _v._ Dern, 2 Grant (Pa.), 262. In this case a concussion or collision took place in a street between the sleighs of two parties, whereby a woman sustained an injury by the shaft, or some other part of one of the parties’ sleigh, striking her immediately above the eye, and penetrating the brain. Surgical aid was immediately called in, and the woman received all the care and attention that the exigencies of the case required till five days afterward, when she died in consequence of the wound received. On the sixth day the coroner held an inquest, and in this, an action to recover for his services against the county, it was _held_ he could recover.

[514] County of Lancaster _v._ Mishler, 100 Pa. St., 624. In this, a suit by the coroner against the county to recover his fees, it was _held_ that this presumption was not conclusive, and evidence was admissible to show that he acted in bad faith and knowingly without sufficient cause or reason. The Court said: “The duty of a coroner to hold an inquest rests on sound reason, on that reason which is the life of the law. It is not a power to be exercised capriciously and arbitrarily against all reason. The object of an inquest is to seek information, and obtain and secure evidence, in case of death by violence or other undue means. If there be reasonable ground to suspect it was so caused, it becomes the duty of the coroner to act. If he has no grounds for suspecting that the death was not a natural one, it is a perversion of the whole spirit of the law to compel the county to pay for such services.”

[515] County of Fayette _v._ Batton, 108 Pa. St., 591. It appeared in this case, that nineteen persons came to their death suddenly and almost simultaneously by an explosion of fire-damp in a coal-mine. The coroner held a separate inquest over each body at the respective homes of the deceased, qualifying the same jury separately over each body, and the inquest returned a separate finding in each case. It was _held_ that this was the necessary and proper course to pursue under the circumstances, and that the coroner was entitled to the legal fees in each case. In Boislinieu _v._ Board of Co. Commissioners, 32 Mo., 375, it was _held_ that the coroner is the sole judge as to the propriety or necessity of holding the inquest, and his action in that respect is not subject to revision by the county commissioners, and he is entitled to fees under the statute notwithstanding the verdict of the coroner’s jury discloses that the deceased died of a natural death, and not by casualty or violence.

[516] Am. & Eng. Enc. of Law, vol. 4, p. 175.

[517] Garnett _v._ Ferrand, 6 Barn. & Cress., 611.

[518] People _v._ Fitzgerald, 43 Hun (N. Y.), 46.

[519] People _v._ Devine, 44 Cal., 452; Commonwealth _v._ Hawkins, 3 Gray (Mass.), 463.

[520] People _v._ Fitzgerald, 105 N. Y., 146.

[521] Jameson _v._ Board of Comrs., 64 Ind., 524.

[522] Regina _v._ White, 3 Ellis & Ellis (Eng.), 137. In this case a second inquisition found by a coroner’s jury was quashed by the court upon application of the defendants who were charged therein with wilful murder. In People _v._ Budge, 4 Park Crim. Rep. (N.Y.), 519, a coroner’s jury found that the death was caused by suicide, and nearly four months afterward the coroner summoned another jury and held a second inquest, at which the jury found that the deceased was killed by another, whereupon the coroner issued a warrant of commitment under which the accused was imprisoned, but on _habeas corpus_ he was discharged from imprisonment on the ground that the second inquisition was unauthorized.

[523] The King _v._ Ferrand, 3 Barn. & Ald. (Eng.), 260; 2 Hawk P. C., 77.

[524] Mass. Pub. Stat., chap. 26, §§ 1 and 10.

[525] County of Northampton _v._ Innes, 2 Casey (Pa.), 156; Commonwealth _v._ Hannan, 4 Barr (Pa.), 269.

[526] Allegany County _v._ Watts, 3 Barr (Pa.), 462; Van Hoevenbergh _v._ Hasbrouck, 45 Barb. (N. Y.), 197. The New York legislature has made provision making the physician’s services in such a case a charge against the county and the physician must look to the county for his pay. Cosford _v._ Board of Supervisors, 38 N. Y. St. Rep., 964; 15 N. Y. Supp., 680. In Pennsylvania a physician or surgeon, employed by the coroner to make a post-mortem examination, may recover from the county a reasonable compensation for his services; and the county commissioners have no power to appoint a surgeon to perform such services, so as to preclude the coroner from selecting a proper person, in the exercise of his discretion. County of Allegany _v._ Shaw, 34 Pa. St., 301. It has been held that the authority of a coroner to employ a chemist to discover whether poison caused the death of one on whose body he holds an inquest does not restrict him to the employment of a resident of the county, and that the analysis of the chemist must not be made in the county of the coroner, and that even though the latter was, by corrupt appliances of others, induced to employ a chemist, it is no defence to a suit by the chemist to recover compensation for his services. Board of Commissioners _v._ Jameson, 86 Ind., 154.

In New York he is empowered by statute to employ not more than two competent surgeons to make post-mortem examinations and dissections and to testify to the same. N. Y. Laws of 1874, chap. 535, § 2.

[527] People _v._ Fitzgerald, 105 N. Y., 146. In this case, upon application of the defendant and upon affidavits showing sufficient reasons therefor, a coroner of Chemung County, N. Y., directed the exhumation of the body of a man, who died in California about one year previous and was buried in Chemung County; for the purpose of a post-mortem examination to determine whether the deceased was murdered, and the body was accordingly exhumed, and an examination had without empanelling a jury. An indictment was found against the defendant charging her with body-stealing under section 311 of the New York Penal Code, against body-stealing. It was _held_ that conceding the proceeding to have been irregular, a conviction under that provision of the Penal Code could not be sustained, and this, without regard to the motives which actuated the defendant; that if she had committed any offence it was not that of body-stealing.

[528] Crisfield _v._ Perine, 15 Hun, 200, affirmed 81 N. Y., 622. This was an action of assault and battery and it appeared that the defendant was a coroner, and that he held an inquest on the dead body of a man who died after receiving personal injuries in an affray which he had with his nephew. A post-mortem examination was about to be made by two surgeons employed by the coroner for that purpose. The plaintiff, who was also a physician and surgeon, was in the room when the examination was about to be entered upon and said that he wished to remain and witness it, but the coroner asked him to leave, and on his refusing caused him to be put out of the room. For this act this suit was brought. It was _held_ that the suit could not be maintained.

[529] Mass. Pub. Stat., chap 26, § 19.

[530] _Ib._, chap. 26, § 11.

[531] Commonwealth _v._ Dunan, 128 Mass., 422.

[532] Mass. Pub. Stat., chap. 26, §§ 12, 13, 17.

[533] Mass. Pub. Stat., chap. 26. § 18.

[534] N. Y. Criminal Code, § 773.

[535] N. Y. Revised Statutes, part iv., chap. iii., § 102.

[536] N. Y. Criminal Code, § 774.

[537] _Ib._, § 775.

[538] _Ib._, § 777.

[539] _Ib._, § 778.

[540] _Ib._, § 779.

[541] N. Y. Crim. Code, § 780.

[542] _Ib._, § 776.

[543] _Ib._, § 782.

[544] _Ib._, § 783.

[545] 2 Hawk P. C., 77; King _v._ Ferrand, 3 Barn. & A. (Eng.), 260.

[546] Rex _v._ Ferrand, 3 B. & Ald., 260.

[547] _In re_ Coroners, 11 Phila. (Pa.), 387.

[548] Crisfield _v._ Perine, 15 Hun, 200, affirmed 81 N. Y., 622.

[549] 2 Hawk P. C., 77.

[550] Matter of Collins, 11 Abb. Pr. (N. Y.), 406; 20 How. Pr., 111. In this case it was held that a commitment issued by a coroner against a person charged with murder is not void for the omission of the allegation that he caused the death “feloniously,” if it is such that the fact that he caused the death feloniously may be collected on its face. And see People _v._ Beigler, 3 Park Crim. Rep. (N. Y.), 316.

[551] Rex _v._ Bowen, 6 Car. & P., 602; Rex _v._ Bennett, 6 Car. & P., 179.

[552] State _v._ Evans, 27 La. An., 297.

[553] Rex _v._ Nicholas, 7 Carr & Payne (Eng.), 538.

[554] People _v._ White, 22 Wend. (N. Y.), 167.

[555] Matter of Collins, 11 Abb. Pr. (N. Y.), 406; 20 How. Pr., 111.

[556] Matter of Ramscar, 10 Abb. N. C. (N. Y.), 442. The prisoner in this case was detained on a commitment issued by a coroner, he not having had an examination, and the Court directed an examination before a magistrate.

[557] N. Y. Code Crim. Pro., § 145.

[558] People _v._ Devine, 44 Cal., 452; Commonwealth _v._ Hawkins, 3 Gray (Mass.), 463.

[559] People _v._ Monden, 103 N. Y., 211.

[560] People _v._ Willett, 92 N. Y., 29. In this case upon the trial of an indictment for murder, evidence was received on the part of the prosecution, under objection and exception, to the effect that upon the coroner’s inquest a witness testified that shortly after the murder a stranger called at her house and asked the way to Sandy Hill, and also for a drink of water; that the prisoner with a number of others was placed around a room, and the witness pointed out the prisoner as the one who so called; also that a number of persons, including the prisoner passed behind her, each one repeating the question asked her by the stranger, and she identified the prisoner by his voice, and that the prisoner on that occasion did not Footnote: deny that he was such stranger. It was held that the prisoner was not bound to speak and his silence could not be regarded as an evidence of guilt, and that the evidence was improperly received. The Court said: “The question whether the defendant was bound to speak, and understood that he was at liberty to speak, if he chose, was submitted to the jury by the Court in his charge, and an exception taken thereto. The doctrine as to silence being taken as an implied admission of the truth of allegations spoken or uttered in the presence of a person, does not apply to silence at a judicial proceeding or hearing. And if the proceedings before the coroner were of a judicial character the evidence was erroneously received. It is very apparent that the examination before the coroner partook of a judicial character, and what then transpired must be considered as a part of the proceedings; the coroner was there, a jury had been empanelled, and witnesses were examined whose testimony was returned as a portion of the coroner’s proceedings. It is difficult to see upon what ground it can be claimed that the experiments which were made were not in connection with the proceedings before the coroner and a part thereof.”

[561] Hendrickson _v._ People, 10 N. Y., 13.

[562] People _v._ McMahon, 15 N. Y., 384.

[563] Teachout _v._ People, 41 N. Y., 7.

[564] People _v._ Mondon, 103 N. Y., 211.

[565] People _v._ McGloin, 91 N. Y., 241.

[566] Williams _v._ Commonwealth, 29 Pa. St., 102. In this case the prosecution was permitted to prove upon the trial that a justice of the peace had held an inquest on the body of a dead person, and appointed another person foreman of the inquest, and directed him to swear witnesses; and while the inquest was still sitting, the foreman called upon and requested the defendant to be sworn and give evidence as a witness, and he was duly sworn and was examined by the foreman, in presence of the inquest. It was held on appeal that his evidence was admissible. On this point the Court said: “If the defendant had been awakened out of sleep, charged with crime, and then, in the necessary confusion of his faculties sworn to testify, I should have steadfastly resisted the subsequent introduction of the testimony against him. The common law, which justifies an accused man in entire silence, appears in beautiful contrast to the continental systems, which permit the criminal to be racked by inquisitorial skill, until something be wrung from him which may be patched up into proof of guilt. This case shows nothing of the kind. The phrase ‘called up’ commented on by the counsel, does not appear in the record, and if employed by the witnesses related doubtless to the ordinary case of calling forth a witness, and not awakening him from slumber. When the defendant was sworn before the inquest, he had neither been charged with nor suspected of crime. He might have declined to testify, and this would have pointed suspicion directly to him. He took the risk of a statement, and cannot complain that he met the legitimate consequences of the act. In the eye of all the authorities, it was a voluntary statement.”

[567] Clough _v._ The State, 7 Neb., 320.

[568] The facts upon which the following statements are based have been largely drawn from Taylor. See Stevenson’s Taylor, vol. i., p. 204 _et seq._

[569] Recent attention to such subjects by Italian writers places them in the foremost rank. Although their system of judicature differs from our own, this fact does not lessen the value of their medico-forensic literature.

[570] Canada Med. and Surg. Journal, 1875, vol. iii., pp. 56-60.

[571] Some interesting facts by Dr. W. H. Holmes regarding “The Condition of Bodies Long Buried” may be found in the Boston Med. and Surg. Journal, July 23d, 1891.

[572] Quar. Journal of Psychological Medicine, N. Y., 1869, vol. iii., p. 691.

[573] See writer’s article, “Cephalometry, Craniometry,” in “Reference Handbook of the Medical Sciences.”

[574] See writer’s “Cruise of the Corwin” to Alaska and the Northwest Arctic Ocean, Washington, 1883.

[575] See writer’s article, “Feet,” in “Reference Handbook of the Medical Sciences;” also, Ellis, T.S., “On the Human Foot,” London, 1889.

[576] See Dwight: “The Closure of the Cranial Sutures as a Sign of Age,” Boston Med. and Surg. Journal, April 29th, 1890.

[577] See Dwight: “The Sternum as an Index of Sex, Height, and Age,” Journal of Anatomy and Physiology, vol. xxiv.

[578] Boston Med. and Surg. Journal, March, 1850, vol. xii., p. 162.

[579] The British Medical Journal, April 18th, 1874, p. 527.

[580] Taylor’s “Med. Jurisprudence,” vol. i., p. 157.

[581] Theatre-goers are familiar with the establishment of personal identity by means of traces of a perfume in the play of “Diplomacy.”

[582] New York Med. Journal, vol. x., p. 412.

[583] New York Med. Record, August 18th, 1877.

[584] Annales d’Hygiene Publique, 1883.

[585] Med. Gazette, vol. xli., p. 650.

[586] In a series of papers to Riv. Sper. di freniat, Reggio-Emilia, 1883.

[587] See Mr. Galton’s paper in Nature, June 21st, 1888, p. 173; also in his recent work on Finger Prints.

[588] For a few classical citations that are more erudite than profitable see Zeitschrift für Ethnologie, Berlin., 1888, xx., p. 412.

[589] See “Guy’s Hospital Report,” xix., 1874; also “Histoire Médicale de Tatouage” in Archiv. de Médecine Navale, tom. 11, 12, Paris, 1869. A later study on the medico-legal importance of tattooing may be found in Lo Spallanzani, Roma, 1891, 2s, xx., 169, 208.

[590] According to Lombroso, all who are tattooed on the back or the sexual organs have without exception either been among the Pacific Islands or sojourned in a prison.

[591] A paper by Dr. J. N. Hall on “The Medico-Legal Value of Powder-Stains in Gunshot Wounds,” with a report of cases, may be found in the Transactions of the Colorado Medical Society, 1890, xx., 94.

[592] Bulletin de l’Acad. de Méd., 17 janvier, 1853, t. xviii., p. 348.

[593] La Escula de Medicina, Mexico, 1880-81.

[594] Lyon Medical, 1880.

[595] Med. Press and Circular, May 30th, 1888, p. 576.

[596] Phil. Trans., B., 1891.

[597] See Proc. Royal Soc., London, May 28th, 1891. A medico-legal study of imprints may also be found in Archiv d’Anthropologie Criminel, 15th July, 1891.

[598] See Annual of the Universal Medical Sciences, 1888, vol. v., pp. 143-147.

[599] See paragraph II., General Orders No. 33, Adjutant-General’s Office, April 1st, 1889.

[600] In 1892 only three failures are recorded.

[601] “Précis de Méd. Lég.,” 2d Ed., 1890.

[602] “Med. Jurisprud.,” 11th Amer. Ed., 1892.

[603] Arrêt du tribunal de Lyon, 8 et 15 décembre, 1859.

[604] “Lectures on Med. Jurisprud.,” 1878, pp. 422, 423.

[605] See Figs. 10 and 11.

[606] “Lehrbuch der Speciellen Chirurgie.”

[607] “Manuel de Leg.,” 5th Ed., 1892.

[608] “Précis de Med. Leg.,” 2d Ed., 1890.

[609] Taylor: “Medical Jurisprudence,” 11th American Edition (1892).

[610] Taylor: “Medical Jurisprudence,” 11th American Edition (1892).

[611] London Med. Gaz., vol. xvi., p. 596.

[612] Ch. Vibert: “Précis de Médecine Légale,” 2d Ed., p. 205.

[613] Taylor’s “Medical Jurisprudence,” 11th Amer. Ed., 1892.

[614] London Lancet, Jan. 21st, 1893, and N. Y. Med. Journal, March 11th, 1893, and May 13th, 1893.

[615] Ann. d’Hyg., 1847, t. 2, p. 377.

[616] Taylor: “Medical Jurisprudence,” 11th Amer. Ed., 1892.

[617] “Med. Jurisprud.,” 11th Amer. Ed., 1892.

[618] “On Homicide,” p. 187.

[619] Med. Gaz., May, 1840.

[620] Guy’s Hosp. Gaz., 1873.

[621] Vibert: “Précis de Médecine Légale,” 2d Ed., 1890.

[622] Vibert: “Précis de Médecine Légale,” 2d Ed., 1890.

[623] Vibert: “Précis de Médecine Légale,” 2d Ed., 1890.

[624] Vibert: “Précis de Médecine Légale,” 2d Ed., 1890.

[625] Quoted by Vibert from the “Traite de pathologie externe” of Follin and Duplay.

[626] “Med. Jurisprud.,” 11th Amer. Ed., 1892.

[627] “Med. Jurisprud.,” 11th Amer. Ed., 1892.

[628] “Med. Jurisprud.,” 11th Amer. Ed., 1892.

[629] Taylor: “Medical Jurisprudence,” 11th Amer. Ed., 1892.

[630] Taylor: “Medical Jurisprudence,” 11th Amer. Ed., 1892.

[631] Taylor: “Medical Jurisprudence,” 11th Amer. Ed., 1892.

[632] Taylor: “Medical Jurisprudence,” 11th Amer. Ed., 1892.

[633] Taylor: “Medical Jurisprudence,” 11th Amer. Ed., 1892.

[634] Med. Times, 1854, ii., p. 238.

[635] “Ueber die Kopf-Verletzungen,” 1842, p. 57.

[636] “Précis de Médecine Légale,” 2d Ed., 1890, p. 203.

[637] “Med. Jurisprud.,” 11th Amer. Ed., 1892.

[638] Taylor, “Med. Jurisprud.,” 11th Amer. Ed., 1892.

[639] Lutaud: “Man. d. Méd. Lég.,” 5th Ed., 1892.

[640] “Med. Jurisprudence,” 11th Amer. Ed., 1892.

[641] “Med. Jurisprudence,” 11th Amer. Ed., 1892.

[642] Taylor: “Med. Jurisprudence,” 11th Amer. Ed., 1892.

[643] Willis: “Circumstantial Evidence,” p. 97.

[644] “Lectures on Med. Jurisprudence,” p. 424.

[645] See “Med. Leg.,” trad. par Brouardel, p. 601.

[646] “Med. Jurisprudence.” 11th Amer. Ed., 1892.

[647] “Med. Jurisprudence,” 11th Amer. Ed., 1892.

[648] “Med. Jurisprudence,” 11th Amer. Ed., 1892.

[649] “Med. Jurisprudence,” 11th Amer. Ed., 1892.

[650] Ann. d’Hyg., 1863, t. 1. p. 463.

[651] “Med. Jurisprudence,” 11th Amer. Ed., 1892.

[652] “Med. Jurisprudence,” 11th Amer. Ed., 1892.

[653] Vibert: “Précis de Méd. Lég.,” 2d Ed., 1890.

[654] “Med. Jurisprudence,” 11th Amer. Ed., 1892.

[655] “Précis de Méd. Lég.,” 2d Ed., 1890, p. 264.

[656] “Précis de Méd. Lég.,” 2d Ed., 1890.

[657] “Précis de Méd. Lég.,” 2d Ed., 1890, p. 246.

[658] “Précis de Méd. Lég.,” 2d Ed., 1890.

[659] “Med. Jurisprudence,” 11th Amer. Ed., 1892.

[660] “Med. Jurisprudence,” 11th Amer Ed., 1892, p. 334.

[661] London Lancet, 1873, i., p. 697.

[662] “An American Text-Book of Surgery,” p. 496.

[663] “Med. Jurisprudence,” 11th Amer. Ed., 1892.

[664] “Med. Jurisprudence,” 11th Amer. Ed., 1892.

[665] “Med. Jurisprudence,” 11th Amer. Ed., 1892.

[666] Edin. Med. and Surg. Jour., Oct., 1845, p. 527.

[667] “Manuel de Méd. Lég.,” 5th Ed., 1892.

[668] “Méd. Lég.,” t. 2, p. 243.

[669] Beck, vol. ii., pp. 329, 333; Wharton and Stillé, 2d Ed., p. 580; N. A. Med. and Chir. Review, March, 1859, p. 299; N. Y. Med. Times, Apr. and May, 1855; Amer. Jour. Med. Sciences, July, 1861, p. 292, and Aug., 1829, p. 307.

[670] Amer. Jour. Med. Sci., July, 1861, p. 292. Case of bullet in heart wall for twenty years.

[671] Edin. Med. and Surg. Jour., Oct., 1844, p. 557.

[672] “Méd. Lég.,” t. 2, p. 253.

[673] “Med. Jurisprudence,” 11th Amer. Ed., 1892.

[674] “Manuel Méd. Lég.,” 5th Ed., 1892.

[675] Quoted by Taylor, “Med. Jurisprudence,” 11th Amer. Ed., 1892, p. 340.

[676] “Med. Jurisprudence,” 11th Amer. Ed., 1892, p. 351.

[677] Senn, “Experimental Surgery,” 1889.

[678] Senn, “Experimental Surgery,” 1889.

[679] “Med. Jurisprudence,” 11th Amer. Ed., 1892.

[680] Med. Times and Gazette, 1864, ii., 527.

[681] Med.-Chir. Rev., 1836, p. 296.

[682] “Med Jurisprudence,” 11th Amer. Ed., 1892, p. 347.

[683] Lancet, 1872, ii., p. 10.

[684] Lancet, 1870, ii., p. 471.

[685] See Taylor, “Med. Jurisprudence,” 11th Amer. Ed., 1892, p. 348.

[686] “Med. Jurisprud.,” 11th Amer. Ed., 1892.

[687] See Taylor, “Med. Jurisprud.,” 11th Amer. Ed., 1892, p. 351.

[688] Reported by Teale, Lon. Clin. Society, Feb. 26th, 1875.

[689] Reineke, Brit. and For. Med. and Surg. Rev., April, 1876.

[690] “Experiences sur les effets de chaleur, etc.,” Jour. de Physique, lxiii., p. 77. Paris, 1805.

[691] Henke’s “Zeitschrift,” 1860.

[692] Brit. and For. Med.-Chir. Rev., 1855.

[693] Caspar’s “Vierteljahrschrift,” 1864.

[694] Flint, “Practice of Medicine,” p. 685; Aitken, “Practice of Medicine,” vol. ii., p. 388.

[695] Flint, “Practice of Medicine,” p. 685; Aitken, “Practice of Medicine,” vol. ii., p. 391.

[696] Levick, Amer. Jour. Med. Sciences, Oct., 1866.

[697] Katzenbach, New York Med. Jour., vol. xvii., p. 91.

[698] Wood, Phil. Med. Times, Aug. 5th, 1876.

[699] Hanfield Jones, Brit. Med. Jour., July, 1870, p. 35.

[700] Pouillet, Comptes Rendus, 1836, p. 782.

[701] Taylor, “Med. Jurisprudence,” 8th Amer. Ed., p. 444; also the Med. Gazette, vol. xviii., p. 89.

[702] Chambert, Annales d’Hygiene. 1859.

[703] Buchner, Prager Vierteljahr., i., p. 129.

[704] Tidy, “Legal Medicine,” vol. ii., p. 124.

[705] Taylor, “Med. Jurisprudence,” 8th Amer. Ed., p. 407.

[706] Tidy, “Legal Medicine,” vol. ii., p. 99.

[707] Caspar, “Forensic Medicine,” vol. i., p. 314; Schjerning, Vierteljahr. für gericht. Med., xli., 1884.

[708] The “Parkman Case,” Boston, 1850.

[709] Report of the “Druse Case,” Trans. New York State Med. Society, 1887, p. 417.

[710] See the Druse Case above.

[711] Annales d’Hygiene, 1835, ii., p. 387.

[712] Edinb. Med. and Surg. Journal, vol. xxxv., p. 320, April, 1831.

[713] Ann. d’Hygiene, 1846, i., p. 320.

[714] Friedrich’s Blatter f. gericht. Med., 1877, Heft iii., p. 210.

[715] “Path. Research, on Vital and Post-Mortem Burning,” 1850.

[716] “Forensic Medicine,” vol. iv., p. 299.

[717] “Forensic Medicine,” Ed. 1877, p. 886.

[718] “Med. Jurisprudence,” Amer. Ed., 1880. p. 408.

[719] Annales d’Hygiene, 1859, 2d ser., xi., 342, 379.

[720] Vierteljahr. f. gericht. Med., Bd. xxxvi., Heft i., 1880.

[721] Eulenb., Vierteljahr. f. gericht. Med., xli., 1885, xlii., 1887.

[722] Tidy, “Legal Med.,” vol. i., p. 108; also Buzzard, London Lancet, vol. i., p. 60, 1863.

[723] Eulenberg’s Vierteljahr. f. gericht. Med., xli., p. 44 _et seq._

[724] “Die Verbrennungen und Verbrühungen.”

[725] Wien. med. Presse, 1868, pp. 309, 605.

[726] Berliner klinische Wochenschrift, 1876, No. 17; 1877, No. 46.

[727] Eulenberg’s Vierteljahr. f. gericht. Med., xlii., p. 47.

[728] See page 643 of this section

[729] Asclepiad, 1890, vii., pp. 102-117.

[730] Compt. Rendu Soc. Biol., 1890, ii., pp. 383-387.

[731] Archiv. Biol. de Gand., 1887, vii., pp. 217-227.

[732] “On the Value of Certain Signs,” etc., Edinburgh, 1873.

[733] “Lehrbuch gericht. Med.,” 1891, p. 502.

[734] Bull. Acad. Méd., 1876, v., p. 763.

[735] Archiv. gén. de Méd., 1856, p. 302.

[736] “Lehrb. d. ger. Med.,” 1891. p. 500.

[737] “Leçons sur les anæsthésiques,” Paris, 1875, p. 471.

[738] Viert. f. ger. Med., etc., 1871, xv., pp. 58-96.

[739] Translation in Ann. d’Hyg., 1832, viii., p. 432.

[740] Med. Record, N. Y., 1882, xxii., p. 427.

[741] See Maier (Friedreich’s Blat., 1882, p. 460); Moreaud (Virchow’s Archiv, 1880, i., p. 648); Petrina (Prag. med. Woch., 1880, No. 39); Wagner (Jahr. f. Psych., 1889, viii.). [Hofmann, “Lehrbuch,” pp. 570-572]. See Cases 17, 19, 31.

[742] Bull. Ac. Méd., 1876, v., p. 761.

[743] Ass. Franç. Av. Sci. (1883), 1884, xii., pp. 1042-1045.

[744] Rev. d’Hyg. thér., 1890, ii., pp. 67-72 and 131-137.

[745] Alger. Méd., 1887, xv., pp. 78-90.

[746] Viert. ger. and öff. Med., 1870, xii., pp. 340-369.

[747] Ann. d’Hyg., 1867, xxviii., pp. 388-402.

[748] Viert. f. ger. Med., etc., 1870, xiii., pp. 247-260.

[749] _Loc. cit._

[750] “Med. Jur.,” Amer. ed., 1892, p. 411.

[751] Tidy, “Med. Jur.,” Amer. ed., 1884, iii., p. 263.

[752] Ann. d’Hyg., 1867, xxviii., p. 393.

[753] “Lehrb. d. ger. Med.,” 1891, p. 504.

[754] “Pendaison,” etc., 1870, p. 169.

[755] _Op. cit._, p. 393.

[756] _Op. cit._, p. 504.

[757] _Op. cit._, p. 394.

[758] “Handb. ger. Med.,” i., 1881, p. 569.

[759] Compt. rend. Soc. Biol. (1879), 1880, i., p. 310.

[760] Compt. rend. Soc. Biol. (1881), 1882, iii., pp. 159-161 and 165-168.

[761] Tidy, _op. cit._

[762] “Med. Jur.,” Am. ed., 1892, p. 413.

[763] Lyon thesis, 1883, No. 188, p. 85.

[764] Tidy, _op. cit._

[765] Gaz. Méd. de Par., 1875, xlvi., pp. 90-92.

[766] “Handb. ger. Med.,” i., p. 571.

[767] Tidy, _op. cit._

[768] Tardieu, “Pendaison,” etc., p. 174.

[769] Virchow’s Archiv, 1880, lxxix., p. 409, and 1878, lxxiv., p. 401.

[770] Tidy, “Leg. Med.,” Am. ed., iii., p. 265.

[771] “Ger. Med.,” i., p. 623 and 632.

[772] Edinb. Med. Jour., 1856, ii., p. 824.

[773] “Med. Jur.,” Am. ed., 1892, p. 414.

[774] “Ger. Med.,” i., p. 632.

[775] Paris thesis, 1874, No. 291.

[776] Paris thesis, 1859, No. 9.

[777] Page, “On the Value of Certain Signs,” etc., Edinburgh, 1873.

[778] “Ger. Med.,” i., 573.

[779] Tardieu, “Pendaison,” etc., p. 178.

[780] _Op. cit._, p. 29.

[781] Vier. f. ger. Med., etc., 1867, vii., pp. 140-174.

[782] “Ger. Med.,” i., p. 576.

[783] _Ib._, p. 572.

[784] “Ger. Med.,” i., p. 575.

[785] “On the Value of Certain Signs,” etc., Edinburgh, 1873, p. 24.

[786] “Vier. f. ger. Med., etc., 1886, xlv., p. 295.

[787] “Leg. Med.,” Am. ed., iii., p. 267.

[788] “Med. Jur.,” Am. ed., 1892, p. 415.

[789] Ann. d’Hyg., 1867, xxviii., pp. 388-402.

[790] “Med. Jur.,” Am. ed., 1892, p. 416.

[791] _Ib._, p. 415.

[792] “Pend.,” p. 186.

[793] “Med. Jur.,” Am. ed., 1892, p. 415.

[794] _Op. cit._, p. 415.

[795] “Med. Jur.,” Am. ed., 1892. p. 419.

[796] “Pend.,” p. 208.

[797] _Ib._, p. 242.

[798] Med. Times and Gaz., 1871, i., p. 671, and 1876, i., p. 93.

[799] Med. Record, N. Y., 1882, xxii., p. 428.

[800] Ohio Med. Record, 1878, ii., pp. 350-352.

[801] Arch. Laryngol., N. Y., 1880, i., p. 144.

[802] Indian Med. Gaz., 1888, xxiii., p. 299.

[803] Archiv. anthrop. crim., Paris, 1886, i., p. 229.

[804] “Lehrbuch f. ger. Med.,” 5th ed., 1890-91.

[805] “Med. Jur.,” Am. Ed., 1892, p. 394.

[806] Aertz. Intel. Bl., 1876, xxiii., p. 324.

[807] Practitioner, 1870, iv., p. 193.

[808] Mitt. d. Wien med. Doct. Colleg., 1878, iv., pp. 97-112.

[809] Centralb. f. med. Wiss., 1875, xiii., p. 403.

[810] Arch. gen. de Med., 1856, vii., p. 310.

[811] Archiv. anthrop. crim., Paris, 1886, i., p. 229.

[812] Bull. Acad. Roy. Med., 1893, vii., pp. 331-342.

[813] Lyon thesis, 1883, No. 188.

[814] Paris thesis, 1879, No. 172. p. 39.

[815] “Forensic Med.,” Appendix, p. 561.

[816] “Med. Jur.,” Am. Ed., 1892, p. 394.

[817] Tidy, _op. cit._, p. 240.

[818] Tardieu, “Pendaison,” 1870, p. 16.

[819] Lyon thesis, 1891, No. 647.

[820] Münch. med. Woch., 1893, xl., pp. 87-91, 127-129, 194.

[821] Tracy, Pop. Sci. Mo., 1878, xiii., pp. 349-354.

[822] Lancet, 1847, i., p. 403.

[823] “Med. Jur.,” Am. Ed., 1892, p. 396.

[824] See articles of Huppert, Vier. ger. Med., etc., xxiv., pp. 237-252, and Müller-Beninga, Berlin. klin. Woch., 1877, xiv., p. 481.

[825] Jour. Amer. Med. Assn., 1885, i., p. 658.

[826] “Pend.,” etc., p. 22.

[827] Dorpat Diss., 1891.

[828] Arch. gén. de Méd., 1856, vii., p. 315.

[829] _Op. cit._, p. 308.

[830] Lancet, 1871, ii., p. 98.

[831] Glasgow Med. Jour., 1880, xiv., p. 387.

[832] Philadelphia Medical Times, 1875.

[833] Lancet, 1869, i., p. 636.

[834] Indian Med. Gaz., 1876, xi., p. 29.

[835] _Op. cit._, p. 245.

[836] “Med. Jur.,” Am. ed., 1892, p. 398.

[837] _Op. cit._, p. 523.

[838] _Op. cit._, Levy’s translation, 1881, p. 363.

[839] Deutsch. Archiv f. Staats, 1870, xxviii., p. 313.

[840] _Op. cit._, p. 281.

[841] Indian Med. Gaz., 1876, xi., p. 29.

[842] _Op. cit._, p. 287.

[843] “Med. Jur.,” p. 527.

[844] “Med. Jur.,” Am. ed., 1892, p. 399.

[845] Vier. f. ger. Med., 1870, xii., pp. 340-369.

[846] _Ib._, 1870, xiii., pp. 247-260.

[847] _Op. cit._, p. 281.

[848] Pellier, _op. cit._, p. 83.

[849] Ind. Med. Gaz., 1876, xi., p. 30.

[850] “Handbuch,” p. 571.

[851] Wien. med. Presse, 1881-1882, xxii., p. 1533.

[852] Vier. f. ger. Med., 1881, xxxv., p. 201.

[853] Lehrbuch, p. 532.

[854] _Op. cit._, p. 245.

[855] See Brit. and For. Med. Rev., ii., p. 214.

[856] _Op. cit._, p. 98.

[857] Paris thesis, 1859, No. 9.

[858] Paris thesis, 1874, No. 291.

[859] _Op. cit._, p. 245.

[860] _Op. cit._, p. 533.

[861] Med. Times and Gaz., 1871, i., p. 671.

[862] Lyon Méd., 1883, xliv., p. 11.

[863] Lehrbuch, p. 535.

[864] Vier. f. ger. Med. and öff. San., 1881, xxxv., pp. 201-248.

[865] Virchow’s Archiv, 1870, xlix., p. 290.

[866] Rev. Méd. de l’Est, 1890, xxii., pp. 545-554.

[867] Ann. d’Hyg., 1885, xiii., pp. 209-228.

[868] _Op. cit._, p. 105.

[869] Lehrbuch, p. 537.

[870] _Op. cit._, p. 607.

[871] _Op. cit._, p. 597.

[872] _Op. cit._, pp. 44, 54.

[873] Bull. Soc. Méd. Lég., Paris, 1875-76, iv., p. 373.

[874] Indian Med. Gaz., 1881, xvi., p. 275.

[875] Ann. d’Hyg., 1886, xvi., pp. 108-125.

[876] “Med. Jur.,” Am. ed., 1892, p. 408.

[877] Freidreich’s Bl. f. ger. Med., 1890, xxi., pp. 149-171.

[878] Vier. f. ger. Med., etc., 1880, xxxii., p. 232, foot-note.

[879] “Med. Jur.,” Am. ed., 1880, p. 448.

[880] Indian Med. Gaz., 1876, xi., p. 3.

[881] _Op. cit._, p. 132.

[882] _Op. cit._, p. 66.

[883] Amer. Jour. Obstet., 1886, xix., pp. 349-352.

[884] Tardieu., _op. cit._, p. 291.

[885] “Med. Jur.,” Am. ed., 1892, p. 428.

[886] Trans. Mass. Leg. Soc., 1878, i., pp. 14-24.

[887] See Ogston, p. 550.

[888] Med. Times and Gaz., 1878, i., p. 603.

[889] Johnson, Lancet, 1878, ii., p. 501.

[890] Med. chir. Trans., 1862, xlv., p. 449.

[891] Archiv. gén. de Méd., 1856, vii., p. 300.

[892] _Op. cit._, p. 539.

[893] “Amer. Pract.,” 1872, vi., pp. 193-206.

[894] Brit. Med. Jour., 1879, i., p. 970.

[895] “Nature,” 1879, xx., p. 108.

[896] Gaz. hebd. Méd., Paris, 1872, ix., p. 806.

[897] Bull. Acad. Méd., Paris, 1876, v., p. 764.

[898] Jour. Amer. Med. Ass., 1891, xvi., p. 805.

[899] Trans. Amer. Pæd. Soc., 1891, iii., pp. 128-132.

[900] Brit. Med. Jour., 1880, ii., pp. 122-124 and 163-165.

[901] Med. Rec., N. Y., 1893, xliii., p. 289.

[902] Amer. Jour. Med. Sci., 1891, ci., pp. 109-116.

[903] Coll. and Clin. Record, 1892, xiii., pp. 170-172.

[904] Glasgow Med. Jour., 1885, xxiv., pp. 344-354.

[905] Med. Press and Circ., 1889, xlviii., p. 433.

[906] Asclepiad, 1885, ii., pp. 171-187.

[907] Lancet, 1885, i., pp. 245-247, 289-292.

[908] Asclepiad, 1890, vii., p. 201.

[909] Bull. Acad. Méd., Paris, 1876, v., pp. 611, 754, 904; and 1881, x., pp. 847-852.

[910] _Op. cit._, p. 279.

[911] _Op. cit._, p. 288.

[912] Indian Med. Gaz., 1890, xxv., p. 257.

[913] Brit. Med. Jour., 1877, i., p. 444.

[914] _Ib._, 1891, p. 399.

[915] Lancet, 1889, ii., p. 255.

[916] Paris thesis, 1877, No. 327.

[917] Hofmann, “Lehrbuch,” p. 514.

[918] “Méd. Lég.,” 1874, p. 406.

[919] _Op. cit._, p. 554.

[920] _Op. cit._, p. 275.

[921] _Op. cit._, p. 288.

[922] _Op. cit._, p. 23.3

[923] Tardieu, _op. cit._, pp. 296, 298.

[924] Physician, etc., New York, 1880, xiii., p. 181.

[925] Trans. Mass. Med. Leg. Soc., 1878, i., pp. 14-24.

[926] _Op. cit._, p. 291.

[927] Second Kings, viii., 15.

[928] Taylor, _op. cit._, p. 482.

[929] _Op. cit._, p. 434.

[930] Taylor, “Med. Jur.,” Am. ed., 1880, p. 485.

[931] _Op. cit._, p. 31.

[932] Jour. de Méd. de Toulouse, 1851, iii., p. 237.

[933] _Op. cit._, p. 295.

[934] Ann. d’Hyg., 1843, xxx., p. 225.

[935] See writer’s “Bathing and Boating Accidents,” Jour. American Medical Association, April 19th, 1890.

[936] See writer’s article, “Memory, Diseases of,” in “Reference Handbook of the Medical Sciences.”

[937] Medical Record, August 22d, 1891.

[938] “Medico-Legal Experience in Calcutta,” Edinburgh, 1891.

[939] Indian Medical Gazette, December, 1888.

[940] Jour. of Orificial Surgery, April 1st, 1893, p. 709.

[941] Trans. of the Massachusetts Medico-Legal Society, vol. i., No. 8, 1885.

[942] Lesser, Dr. Adolph: “Ueber die wichtigsten Sectionsbefunde bei dem Tode durch Ertrinken in dünnflüssigen Medien,” Berlin, 1884.

[943] Gilberti, Dr. A.: “I Segni dell’ Annegamento nel Cadavere in Putrefazione,” 1889.

[944] Barlerin, Paul, le Dr.: “Etude Médico-légale sur la Submersion,” Tarare, 1891.

[945] Fagerlund, L. W.: Ueber das Eindringen von Ertränkungsflüssigkeit in die Gedärme.” Vierteljahrschrift für gerichtl. Med. und off. Sanitätswesen,” Berlin, 1890.

[946] Circular No. 3, War Department, Surgeon-General’s Office, Washington, 1871, pp. 129-131.

[947] The subject has been well studied by Dr. A. Carré, Archiv. de l’Anthropologie Criminelle et des Sciences Pénales, 15 Janv., 1892.

[948] Flint’s “Text-Book of Physiology,” Ed. 1877, p. 517; I. Forster, “Zeitschrift für Biologie,” tome ix., 1872.

[949] Foster, “Handbook of Physiology,” Ed. 1880, p. 457; Kirke’s “Handbook of Physiology,” 11th Ed., vol. i., p. 311.

[950] F. Spaeth, “Archiv für Hygiene,” 1886, pp. 68-81.

[951] Rochard, “Encyclopæd. d’Hygiene,” vol. ii., p. 796.

[952] For elaborate statements consult Edward Smith, “Foods,” Int. Sci. Ser., N. Y. Ed., 1878; Pavy, “On Food,” 2d Ed., 1881, N. Y., p. 467; Buck, “Hygiene,” Ed. 1879, vol. i., p. 190; Parkes, “Hygiene,” Ed. 1873, p. 179; Levy, “Traïté de Hygiene,” vol. i., p. 739.

[953] Corrigan, “On Famine and Fever,” etc., Dublin, 1849.

[954] Donnivan, “On Famine,” Dublin Med. Press, 1848, p. 67.

[955] Folet, Ann. de Hygiene et de Méd. Legal, 2d ser., vol. xlviii.

[956] Sloan, London Med. Gazette, vol. xvii., p. 265; Martin, Med. Times and Gazette, 1861, vol. i., p. 344.

[957] Chossat, “Récherches experimentales sur inanition,” Paris, 1843, p. 45.

[958] “Récherches experimentales sur inanition,” 1845.

[959] Bouchardat, “De l’Alimentation insuffissant,” Paris, 1852, p. 10.

[960] Greenfield, Brit. Med. Jour., Oct. 20th, 1877.

[961] Dr. McLoughlin, London Lancet, Nov. 2d, 1878.

[962] Reg. _v._ Jacobs and wife, Carmarthen Summer Assizes, 1890; also London Lancet, 1890, vol. ii., p. 132.

[963] Caspar, “Forensic Medicine,” Syd. Soc. Pub., vol. ii., p. 29; London Lancet, April 11th, 1877, pp. 580-620.

[964] Thornhill, Med. Gazette, Nov. 28th, 1835, p. 390.

[965] Caspar, “Forensic Medicine,” Syd. Soc. Pub., vol. ii., p. 36; Martin, Med. Times and Gazette, March 30th, 1861 (Case 132).

[966] “The Penge Case;” Reg. _v._ Staunton, Central Crim. Court, 1877.

[967] The case of Reg. _v._ Jacobs and wife.

[968] Holland, “On Morbid Effects of Deficiency of Food,” London, 1839.