Medical Jurisprudence, Volume 3 (of 3)
livid. That fat which lay on the muscles of his belly, was of a loose
texture, inclining to a state of fluidity. The muscles of his belly were very pale and flaccid. The cawl was yellower than is natural; and on the side next the stomach and intestines looked brownish. The heart was variegated with purple spots. There was no water in the pericardium. The lungs resembled bladders half filled with air and blotted in some places with pale but in most with black ink. The liver and spleen were much discoloured; the former looked as if it had been boiled, but that part of it which covered the stomach was particularly dark. A stone was found in the gall-bladder. The bile was very fluid and of a dirty yellow colour, inclining to red. The kidneys were all over stained with livid spots. The stomach and bowels were inflated, and appeared, before any incision was made into them, as if they had been pinched, and extravasated blood had stagnated between their membranes. They contained nothing, as far as we examined, but a slimy bloody froth. Their coats were remarkably smooth, thin, and flabby. The wrinkles of the stomach were totally obliterated. The internal coat of the stomach and duodenum, especially about the orifices of the former, were prodigiously inflamed and excoriated. The redness of the white of the eye, in a violent inflammation of that part, or rather the white of the eye just brushed and bleeding with the beards of barley, may serve to give some idea how this coat had been wounded. There was no schirrus in any gland of the abdomen; no adhesion of the lungs to the pleura; nor indeed the least trace of a natural decay in any part whatever.
-------
(Dr. Lewis confirmed this part of the Evidence.)
-------
Dr. Addington Cross examined.
* * * *
_Prisoners Counsel._ Why do you believe it to be White Arsenic?
_Dr. A._ For the following Reasons: 1. This Powder has a milky Whiteness; so has White Arsenic. 2. This is gritty and almost insipid; so is White Arsenic. 3. Part of it swims on the surface of cold water like a pale sulphureous film; but the greatest part sinks to the bottom, and remains there undissolved; the same is true of white arsenic. 4. This thrown on red hot iron, does not flame, but rises entirely in thick white fumes, which have the stench of garlick; and cover cold iron held just over them, with white flowers; white arsenic does the same. 5. I boiled ten grains of this powder in four ounces of clean water, and then, passing the decoction through a filtre, divided into five equal parts, which were put into as many glasses: Into one glass I poured a few drops of Spirit of Sal Ammoniac; into another some of the Lixivium of Tartar; into the third some strong Spirit of Vitriol; into the fourth some Spirit of Salt; and into the last some Syrup of Violets. The Spirit of Sal Ammoniac threw down a few particles of pale sediment. The Lixivium of Tartar gave a white cloud, which hung a little about the middle of the glass. The Spirits of Vitriol and Salt made a considerable precipitation of a lightish coloured substance; which in the former, hardened into glittering chrystals, sticking to the sides and bottom of the glass. Syrup of Violets produced a beautiful pale green tincture. Having washed the saucepan, funnel, and glasses, used in the foregoing experiments, very clean, and provided a fresh filtre, I boiled ten grains of white arsenic bought of Mr. Wilcock, Druggist in Reading, in four ounces of clean water; and filtering it and dividing it into five equal parts, proceeded with them just as I had done with the former decoction. There was an exact similitude between the experiments made on the two decoctions. They corresponded so nicely on each trial, that I declare I never saw any two things in Nature more alike, than the decoction made with the powder found in Mr. Blandy’s gruel, and that made with white arsenic. From the experiments, and others, which I am ready to produce, if desired, I believe that powder to be White Arsenic.
* * * *
She had put a little of it into his cup of tea; but that he never drank it; that part of the powder swimming at top of the tea, and part sinking at the bottom, she had poured it out of the window.
See Hargrave’s State Trials. Vol. 10.
Extracts from the Evidence delivered on the Trial of _John Donellan_, Esq. for the Wilful Murder, by Poison, of Sir _Theodosius Edward Allesley Boughton_, Bart. at the Assizes at Warwick, on Friday, March 30th, 1781.
(_Taken in Short-hand by J. Gurney._)
-------
EVIDENCE FOR THE CROWN.
_Lady Anna Maria Boughton_, Mother of the deceased, Sworn—Examined by Mr. Howorth.
Q. Give the Jury an account of the physic you gave him, and the manner of its operation.
A. I asked him where the bottle was: he said it stood there upon the shelf. First of all he desired me to get him a bit of cheese in order to take the taste out of his mouth, which I did: he desired me to read the lable; I accordingly did, and found there was written upon it, _Purging draught for Sir Theodosius Boughton_.
Q. When you gave him the draught, did he make any, and what observations upon it?
A. As I was talking to him I omitted shaking the bottle: he, observing that, said, Pour it back again, and shake the bottle, and in so doing I spilt part of it upon the table; the rest I gave him. As he was taking it, he observed it smelt and tasted very nauseous; upon which I said, I think it smells very strongly like bitter almonds. I gave him the cheese; he chewed it, and spit it out. He then remarked that he thought he should not be able to keep the medicine upon his stomach. I asked him if he would have some water; I gave him some. He washed his mouth, and spit that out, and then laid down.
Q. Please to open that bottle, [giving Lady Boughton the genuine draught] and smell at it, and inform the Court whether that smells at all like the medicine Sir Theodosius took.
A. No, it does not.
Q. Please to smell to this, [giving Lady Boughton the draught with the laurel water added to it.]
A. This has a smell very like the smell of the medicine which I gave him.
Q. What was the first observation your Ladyship made of any appearances upon Sir Theodosius after taking the medicine?
A. In two minutes, or two minutes and a half, after he had taken it, he struggled very much; it appeared to me, as if it was to keep it down; and made a prodigious rattling in his stomach, and guggling; and he appeared to me to make very great efforts to keep it down.
_Court._ How did he make a rattling?
A. A noise in his stomach as if it would come up again.
Q. How long did you observe these symptoms continue?
A. About ten minutes; he then seemed as if he was going to sleep, or inclined to dose. Perceiving him a little composed, I went out of the room. I returned in about five minutes after into his room; then, to my great surprise, I found him with his eyes fixed upwards, his teeth clenched, and froth running out of each corner of his mouth.
Q. What did you do upon that?
A. I ran down stairs, and told the servant to take the first horse he could get, and go immediately for Mr. Powell, the Apothecary.
Q. Was any other person sent for?
A. No.
Q. When did you first see Mr. Donellan after that?
A. I saw him in less than five minutes; he came up to the bed chamber where my son was, and asked me, What do you want? I said I wanted to inform him what a terrible thing had happened; that it was an unaccountable thing in the doctor to send such a medicine, for if it had been taken by a dog, it would have killed him; and I did not think my son would live. He asked in what manner Sir Theodosius was taken; and I told him. Then he asked me where the physic bottle was? I shewed him the two draughts. He took up one of the bottles and said, Is this it? Yes, said I. He took it up, poured some water out of the water bottle, which was just by, into the phial, shook it, and then emptied it out into some dirty water which was in a wash-hand bason.
Q. Did you make any observation upon that conduct?
A. After he had thrown the contents of the first bottle into the wash-hand bason of dirty water, I observed that he ought not to do that: I said, What are you at? you should not meddle with the bottle. Upon that he snatched up the other bottle, and poured water into it, and shook it; then he put his finger to it, and tasted it. I said, What are you about? you ought not to meddle with the bottles. Upon which he said, I did it to taste it.
Q. Had he tasted the first bottle?
A. No.
_Catharine Amos_ sworn. Examined by Mr. Geast.
Q. Did you live at Lawford-hall at the time of the death of Sir Theodosius Boughton?
A. Yes.
Q. In what capacity?
A. I was cook.
Q. Was you sent for by Lady Boughton?
A. I was sent for to my lady, by the other maid, Sarah Blundell, who is dead. I was called up stairs into that room where Sir Theodosius lay.
Q. When you came into the room in what situation was Sir Theodosius Boughton?
A. He did not stir hand or foot, but frothed at his mouth. I wiped the froth four or five times from his mouth.
Q. Was the body motionless?
A. The stomach heaved very much.
Q. Was there any noise?
A. He guggled at the throat.
Q. Give an account of any other circumstances that you observed?
A. I did not observe any thing more.
Q. Where did you go to from thence?
A. I went below stairs about my work. My work lay below stairs.
Q. How long afterwards was it before you saw Mr. Donellan?
A. It might be about a quarter of an hour. I saw him in the passage. Mr. Donellan said, Sir Theodosius was out very late over night a fishing, that it was very silly of him, as he had been taking such physick as he had been taking of, before time.
Q. That is before that time?
A. Yes.
Q. Did he give any reason why he had been out so late a fishing?
A. No.
Q. Did he say any thing more at that time?
A. Not to the best of my knowledge.
Q. Did you see Mr. Donellan the day that the body was opened?
A. Yes.
Q. What did Mr. Donellan say at that time?
A. He said there was nothing the matter, that it was a blood-vessel had broke which had occasioned Sir Theodosius’s death.
Q. Did Mr. Donellan bring any thing to you at or about the time of Sir Theodosius’s death?
A. No.
Q. At any time before his death?
A. No, nothing at all.
Q. Did he never bring you any thing for any purpose?
A. No.
Q. Was any thing brought to you by Mr. Donellan within a fortnight or three weeks before the death of Sir Theodosius Boughton?
A. No.
_Counsel for the Prisoner to Lady Boughton._ Did Sir Theodosius Boughton speak at all after he had taken the medicine?
_Lady Boughton._ Not at all.
_Mr. Geast to Catharine Amos._ You said you was cook maid?
A. Yes.
Q. Was the oven under your direction?
A. Yes.
Q. Was any thing brought to you at any time?
A. Yes, a still.
Q. Who brought it?
A. Mr. Donellan.
Q. When was it?
A. Sometime after Sir Theodosius’s death.
Q. How long after?
A. To the best of my remembrance it might be a fortnight.
Q. What was there in it?
A. Nothing. It had been washed. He desired me to put it into the oven to dry it, that it might not rust; I said if I put it in then it would unsolder it, as it was made of tin.
_Dr. Rattray_ sworn. Examined by Mr. Balguy.
Q. You are, I believe, a Physician at Coventry?
A. I am.
* * * * * * * *
Q. How soon after this was it that you was again sent for upon this melancholy occasion?
A. On the 9th of September; I think it was on a Saturday.
Q. Who did you receive a message from at that time?
A. I really do not know; I received a message by some strange round-about way, in consequence of which I went, but I don’t know who sent it. Mr. Wilmer and I went in company; we met Mr. Bucknill, Mr. Powell, of Rugby, and Mr. Snow, of Southam; those were all the physical people I believe. Mr. Bucknill opened the body.
Q. Where did you meet at that time?
A. In the church-yard at Newbold.
Q. The body had then been interred?
A. It had been in the vault at Newbold as I understood.
Q. What passed at that time?
A. We proceeded to the opening of the body as soon as we conveniently could, and inspected as far as we were able the appearances of the body.
Q. What were the material appearances that struck you at that time?
A. The material appearances where, in the first place, the body appeared upon a general view swoln or distended a good deal; the face of a round figure extremely black, with the lips swelled and retracted and shewing the gums; the teeth black except a small white speck on one of the fore teeth; the tongue protruding beyond the fore teeth, and turning upwards towards the nose; the blackness descended upon the throat, gradually diminishing as it got towards the breast, and the body was spotted in many parts but not very material. There was another circumstance which for decency I have omitted, but if called upon I am ready to mention.
_Mr. Balguy._ That circumstance is not at all material. I meant to ask you merely to such appearances as were material. Were there any appearances upon the body sufficient to cause or confirm an opinion you may by and by give upon the subject?
A. We proceeded to open the body, and in dissecting the skin the fat appeared in a dissolving state a little watery; on getting into the cavity of the belly the bowels in the lower belly seemed to put on the appearance of inflammation. I choose to make use of the valgar term _appearance_, in order to convey a general idea of the appearance things in that state generally put on.
Q. Was it so with the stomach too?
A. Yes: the orifices of the stomach and the small arch of the stomach; the heart upon opening the pericardium, the membrane which encloses it, appeared to be in a natural state; the lungs appeared what I call suffused with blood, looking red and spotted in many places with black specks; and on the back part the blood had settled in a deep red colour, almost approaching to purple; the diaphragm was in the same state, and in general upon the depending surfaces of the body the blood was settled in the like manner; the kidneys appeared black as tinder, and the liver much in the same state. These I think are most of the appearances I need mention upon the present occasion.
Q. Have you heard the evidence of Mr. Powell, the apothecary?
A. I have.
Q. And have heard too the evidence of Lady Boughton?
A. I have.
Q. Now from the evidence of Mr. Powell and the evidence of Lady Boughton, independent of appearances, for I would have you forget them for the present instant; what was in your judgment the occasion of Sir Theodosius Boughton’s death?
A. Independent of the appearances of the body, I am of opinion that the draught, in consequence of the symptoms which succeeded the swallowing of it, as described by Lady Boughton, was poison; and the immediate cause of his death.
Q. Please to smell upon that bottle; what in your judgment is the noxious medicine in that bottle?
A. I know the liquid well; it is a distillation of laurel leaves, commonly called laurel water.
Q. You have heard Mr. Powell’s account of the mixture he prepared for Sir Theodosius Boughton; was the mixture innocent and proper?
A. In my opinion it was perfectly innocent.
Q. You have said that in your judgment laurel water is contained in this bottle?
A. Yes.
Q. Have you made any particular experiments upon the effects of laurel water?
A. I have several.
Q. You will please to relate the particular experiments you have made, and the appearances in consequence of those experiments?
A. Mr. Wilmer and I made experiments together; our first experiment with laurel water was upon a middle sized dog; I held his mouth open and there was I believe nearly two ounces of laurel water poured down his throat. I held the dog between my knees: in half a minute as nearly as I can guess, he dropped dead to the ground without any motion, except a tremulous motion once or twice of the lower jaw. The next animal on which I tried the laurel water was likewise in company with Mr. Wilmer. To an aged mare, we gave at repeated intervals out of an horn, I believe about a pint and an half of laurel water In about two minutes she was precipitated to the ground with her head under her, and then tumbled on her back kicking violently; she afterwards lay without kicking but seemed convulsed, her eyes rolling about, rearing up her head as if in agonies, gulping at her stomach as if something lay there exceeding offensive to her; and at that instant and during the whole time she lived afterwards, heaving in the flanks in a most extraordinary manner, and at the end of fifteen minutes she expired. After this in company with Mr. Ewbank of Coventry, I gave to a cat about a spoonful of laurel water which I had myself seen distilled; it was pale and limpid as pure distilled waters, and seemed very weak. The cat though I believe she had not half the quantity I intended she should have taken, died in three minutes.
Q. What quantity did you pour down the cat’s throat?
A. About a spoonful, about half an ounce. At Southam, the beginning of this week, I gave in presence of Mr. Snow, to another aged horse, about a pint of laurel water, distilled by Mr. Snow. Upon his receiving into his stomach the first horn full, which was a small one, no bigger than we used in the former experiment, he dropped to the ground.
_Court._ What was the quantity that horn held?
A. I suppose three or four ounces. It was impossible to give the animal the whole of it, full half was spilt. I conceived it to be very strong, and desired Mr. Snow would give her no more at that time, in order to try the strength of it. The horse dropped; he endeavoured to raise himself up, but could rise no farther than by setting himself upon his buttocks like a dog. I perceived he had entirely lost the use of his hinder parts. We then gave him another horn full, which in its turn knocked him down very soon, and at intervals we gave him several horns full to the amount of above a pint in the whole, and at the end of twenty-eight minutes he expired, violently convulsed, groaning, his tongue lolling out of his mouth; and indeed the first horse’s tongue had a very extraordinary appearance, for it darted backward and forward in the manner of a dart, but this horse lolled his tongue out like a dog when running. In both the horses the artery in the neck beat much, even after the animal had ceased to breathe, except we call the motion of the lower jaw, a kind of gasping, breathing. I saw all the bodies opened, and in all of them there was a violent distention of the veinous system, of the whole veins in the body, the stomach, bowels, lungs, and so on. The veins were distended and full of blood, the lungs appeared red and suffused. I said before that I did not use the term _inflammation_ in any other way than to convey the vulgar idea the appearance of red colour given to any part by blood. The lungs suffused with blood looking very red, and in the first horse it was of the colour of a deep pink; very different I conceive from the natural colour.
Q. You have smelled to the bottle which has the laurel water in it, do you know any smell in medicine that corresponds in smell with that mixture?
A. I do not know any medicine that smells like it.
Q. Does the smell described by Lady Boughton, something like bitter almonds, convey to you an idea of that mixture?
A. It does, and I have given the laurel water to many people to smell to, and they always described the smell to be something like bitter almonds. I do not exactly know how they expressed themselves, but they meant to say that.
Q. In your judgment is the quantity that one of these bottles contains of laurel water sufficient to take away life from any human creature?
A. In my opinion it is.
Q. I have now got your opinion upon the subject, independent of any appearances you observed upon the body of Sir Theodosius Boughton. Now are you from these appearances confirmed, or otherwise, in the opinion you have given?
A. Confirmed in it so far as upon viewing a body so long after the death of the subject one can be allowed to form a judgment upon such appearances.
_Dr. Rattray._ Cross-examined by Mr. Newnham.
Q. If I do not misunderstand you, Doctor, the last account you gave in answer to the question, Whether you are confirmed in this opinion by the appearance; you said Yes, so far as you might be allowed to form an opinion viewing the body so long after the death of the subject?
A. Yes; so far as we may be allowed to form a judgment upon appearances so long after death.
Q. By your putting it in that way, do you, or do you not mean to say that all judgment upon such a subject, in such a case, is unfounded?
A. I cannot say that, because from the analogy between the appearances in that body, and those distinguishable in animals killed by the poison I have just mentioned, I think them so much alike that I am rather confirmed in my opinion with respect to the operation of the draught.
Q. Those bodies were instantaneously opened?
A. Yes, so much so that there was the peristaltick motion of the bowels upon their being pricked.
Q. This was upon the eleventh day after Sir Theodosius’s death?
A. Yes.
Q. What was the appearance of the body when you first went to Lawford Hall?
A. At the first time I saw the body, what I did see of it was, the face was in the condition I have described, with a maggot crawling over its surface, it was black as I have described, it was quite in the same state; in short, I saw no difference the last day, excepting that the maggot was not upon it then.
Q. Were you or not offended by a violent stench as you approached the dead body?
A. We were.
Q. Had not putrefaction considerably taken place?
A. I believe it had.
Q. Does not putrefaction increase very much in the space of five or six days, in a hot summer?
A. I should think it must certainly increase.
Q. Was or not the body, in a very high state of putrefaction when you saw it?
A. Upon the shroud being removed, the body appeared to me much fairer than I expected; I expected to have seen it in a very black putrified state, but the external appearance was not quite so highly so, as I expected.
Q. You mentioned that the body was much swelled?
A. It was swelled.
Q. Appearing upon a gangrene, I suppose?
A. It rather put on the appearance of gangrene.
Q. I understand you have set your name to a description of certain appearances that met your eye when you examined the body—I mean your examination?
A. I have undoubtedly.
Q. Did you, or did you not, concur with Mr. Wilmer as to the appearances of the body?
A. In general we did.
Q. You set your name to that examination?
A. I did not set my name to any thing but my own examination.
Q. Wherein the appearances are particularly described?
A. They are not particularly described, there is something said about the stomach and bowels.
Q. For what purpose then did you attend there?
A. I did not know that it was necessary before a coroner’s jury to enter into the particulars; I was quite a novice in the business.
Q. Do you mean a novice in the mode of dissection.
A. No, in the business before a coroner.
Q. Did the account you set your name to, contain a true description of the appearances that met your eye upon the occasion?
A. So far as they went it did.
Q. Did you ever hear or know of any poison whatever occasioning any immediate external appearances on the human body?
A. No, no immediate external appearances in the case of vegetable poisons, except what I have heard, but they have not fallen under my own knowledge.
Q. So far for the external appearance. Now I shall be glad to know whether all the appearances you speak of in the face, the protuberance of the tongue, and the lips being swelled and retracted, whether those are not all signs of putrefaction?
A. I really don’t know that they are.
Q. I do not mean to give you any offence, but I beg leave to ask whether you have been much used to anatomical dissection?
A. I have been as far as persons not particularly intended for anatomical pursuits—I am not a professor of anatomy.
Q. Did you ever attend the dissection of a human body that was poisoned, or suspected to have been poisoned?
A. Never.
Q. From the external appearances of the different parts of the body you draw no kind of conclusion or inference, and form no opinion?
A. No, I don’t form any strong opinion from them.
Q. How were the appearances when the cavity of the abdomen was opened?
A. I have described them in general.
Q. Not being an anatomical man it has slipped my memory, will you please to repeat it?
A. I believe I did not before mention the omentum or caul, that was suffused with blood of a brownish red, the stomach and bowels appeared in general red, which is vulgarly called an inflammation.
Q. Might not that be owing to a transfusion of the blood?
_Dr. Rattray._ From what cause?
_Mr. Newnham._ From putrefaction.
_Dr. Rattray._ Do you, by a transfusion of the blood, mean the passage of the blood from the arteries into the veins?
_Mr. Newnham._ Yes.
_Dr. Rattray._ I cannot think it could arise from putrefaction.
Q. That is your opinion?
A. It is.
Q. Did you look at the stomach?
A. Yes.
Q. As Sir Theodosius Boughton is represented to have died in a few minutes after taking this medicine, did you with correctness and attention examine the stomach?
A. The contents of the stomach were about a spoonful and an half, or a couple of ounces of a slimy reddish liquor, which I rubbed between my finger and thumb, and it contained no gritty substance that I could perceive.
Q. Is it not usual to find some such quantity of liquor in the stomach?
A. The stomach after death must contain something more or less according to different circumstances.
Q. You said the stomach and the orifice of it and the small arch of it bore the appearance of inflammation; pray is not inflammation and appearance of inflammation much the same thing.
A. All that I have to say upon the present business is I perhaps don’t know the cause of inflammation; but there is an appearance of inflammation upon the stomach and bowels, owing to an injection of blood into the veinous system, the veins being full of blood, put on a red appearance.
Q. If you will not take upon you to say what is the cause, what are the signs of inflammation?
A. An appearance of redness, sometimes but not always attended with pain, and sometimes throbbing.
Q. Did you pursue your search through the bowels?
A. No; I cannot say I did, nor did I think it in my power.
Q. How far did you pursue your search in the stomach?
A. We examined the contents of the stomach; we took the stomach out, but in taking it out a great part of the contents issued out of the bowels next to it; and the smell was so offensive I did not choose to enter into that matter.
Q. Whether a pursuit or enquiry, from an inspection through the bowels, was not as likely to have led to a discovery of the cause of the death, as any other part of the body which you did examine?
A. I do not believe a pursuit through the whole extent of the bowels could have led to any discovery in these circumstances.
Q. Are not the bowels the seat of poison?
A. When it passes in there, no doubt it affects the bowels.
Q. Then why did you not examine into the contents of the bowels?
A. I did not think it in the power of any one to examine into the contents of the bowels; their contents being so strong and disagreeable.
Q. Whether you do not form your judgment upon the appearances?
A. Not altogether; they corroborate my opinion upon the effect of the draught.
Q. Did you or did you not know the contents of the draught Mr. Powell had prepared when you was examined before the coroner?
A. Yes; I did.
Q. And you knew from the account given you how long Sir Theodosius Boughton lived after he took that draught?
A. I took my information from Lady Boughton.
Q. Then whether many reasons have not occurred, subsequent to that time, considerably, to induce you to form your judgment that he died of arsenick?
A. Not subsequent to that time; at that time I did think he died of arsenick; but I am now clear that I was then mistaken.
Q. Why may you not be mistaken now?
A. I cannot conceive that in these circumstances any one can be mistaken as to the medicine; from the sensible qualities described by Lady Boughton, I believe it to be of that nature.
Q. Did not you know at that time the symptoms described by Lady Boughton?
A. I did.
Q. Then was not your judgment at that time as ripe for information as it is now?
A. It is now since I have received the information.
Q. Whether you did not, after you heard Lady Boughton describe the symptoms, and after you saw the body opened, give it as your opinion that he died of arsenick?
A. I have had such an opinion.
Q. And have declared so?
A. I did.
Q. Was there or was there not a large quantity of extravasated blood in the thorax?
A. On each side the lungs there was.
Q. About what quantity?
A. I think not quite a pint on each side the right and left lobe of the lungs.
Q. Would not the rupture of a blood vessel occasion death?
A. The rupture of a blood vessel undoubtedly would have occasioned death; but it would not in my apprehension have been attended with the same appearances.
Q. Might not a blood vessel in an effort to reach be broken?
A. I should conceive, that if, in an effort to reach, a blood vessel of that magnitude had ruptured that he must have died immediately without convulsions.
Q. But supposing a person recovering from convulsions, for he is stated to be inclined to sleep?
A. It is a case I am not supposing probable.
Q. Is it possible?
A. Every thing is possible under God.
Q. Did you never hear of any person dying of an epilepsy or of an apoplexy with symptoms like those, being in convulsions?
A. I do not think the symptoms described as having taken place in Sir Theodosius Boughton are like to an epilepsy.
Q. Nor an apoplexy?
A. They were entirely in my opinion the effects of the draught.
Q. Might not an epilepsy or an apoplexy be accompanied with those symptoms?
A. I never saw either of them attended with an heaving at the stomach.
Q. When respiration grows feeble; is it not a common case that the muscles of the throat are very much relaxed?
A. All the effects that succeeded the draught I believe were the consequences of it; and if the muscles were relaxed or foam proceeded from the mouth, they were in consequence of it.
Q. Is it not commonly the case with persons who die of almost every disorder?
A. Very often.
Q. Are not the muscles of the throat instrumental in respiration?
A. So far as to the passage of the air in and out.
Q. Is it not a very common appearance a few minutes before death, when respiration grows feeble for froth to issue from the mouth?
A. No, not commonly. I have seen it in epilepsies.
Q. What was your reason for supposing at one time that the deceased died of arsenick?
A. Every man is mistaken now and then in his opinion, and that was my case; I am not ashamed to own a mistake.
Q. Have you been very nice in your experiments; for instance, in the conveying the laurel-water into the animals?
A. If there was any want of nicety the subject had less of it than I intended.
Q. When an animal, suppose a dog or cat, is striving to refuse a draught you are forcing into its mouth, whether it is not common for some part of the liquor to get into the lungs?
A. If it did it would make it cough, but be attended with no bad consequences unless it was poison.
Q. Did you ever convey poison immediately into the stomach?
_Dr. Rattray._ Do you mean by perforation through the ribs?
_Mr. Newnham._ Yes.
_Dr. Rattray._ I never have.
Q. Did you ever convey any into the veins of an animal?
A. I never have.
Q. Did you observe or smell that liquor which came out of the stomach?
A. I could not avoid smelling it.
Q. Had it the same offensive smell?
A. It in general had; one could not expect any smell but partaking of that general putrefaction of the body; but I had a particular taste in my mouth at that time, a kind of biting acrimony upon my tongue. And I have in all the experiments I have made with laurel-water, always had the same taste, from breathing over the water, a biting upon my tongue, and sometimes a bitter taste upon the upper part of the fauces.
Q. Did you impute it to that cause then?
A. No, I imputed it to the volatile salts escaping the body.
Q. Were not the volatile salts likely to occasion that?
A. No. I complained to Mr. Wilmer, “I have a very odd taste in my mouth, my gums bleed.”
Q. You attributed it to the volatility of the salts?
A. At that time I could not account for it, but in my experiments afterwards with the laurel-water, the effluvia of it has constantly and uniformly produced the same kind of taste; there is a very volatile oil in it I am confident.
Q. Do not you understand that there cannot be any information at all obtained in consequence of dissecting animals which have been destroyed by laurel-water?
A. I do not think that the operation of these sort of substances upon the inside of the stomach produce any violent appearances of redness, but in most of the animals I have seen there has been small red spots inside, of the size of a shilling perhaps, but the effect in the trials I have made has been a driving the blood from the part of the body where it should be. I believe the effect of the poison is to empty the arteries in general, and push the blood into the veins; that is my opinion at present, so far as I have gone into the matter.
Q. But you was mistaken at first relative to forming an opinion that the death was occasioned by arsenick?
A. Yes.
_Mr. Balguy._ You say that when the shroud came to be taken off the body you found the body less offensive than you had expected?
A. Less black.
Q. When you first saw the body on the 4th of September, did you or not take the shroud off?
A. We did not.
Q. You saw nothing but the face?
A. Nothing but the face.
Q. If at that time Captain Donellan had insinuated to you any suspicion of poison, whether you would or not have taken the shroud from the body?
A. I verily believe, had I known the tendency of the enquiry, I should have sat there for a month rather than have left the body unopened.
Q. Should you at that time if the suspicion had been disclosed have proceeded to open the body?
A. I should have attended the opening of it.
_Mr. Newnham._ I understand you to say that when the body was opened, the external appearances did not contribute in any way to your forming a judgment one way or other?
A. Nobody would attempt to form a judgment upon the external appearances altogether.
Mr. _Bradford Wilmer_ sworn. Examined by Mr. Wheeler.
Q. You was sent for to Lawford-hall at the same time Dr. Rattray was?
A. I was; I went there with Dr. Rattray.
Q. When first you came there did you see Captain Donellan?
A. I did. He desired us to walk into the parlour; after we had had some refreshment we were told that the coffin was unsoldered, and we were desired to walk up stairs.
Q. Was any thing said to you at that time as to the means by which Sir Theodosius Boughton had died?
A. Not the least in the world.
Q. Nothing said of poison?
A. I never heard a word of poison.
Q. When you did go up stairs, what part did you see of the corpse?
A. Only the face.
Q. We have learned from Dr. Rattray that you did not proceed any farther, how happened that?
A. The body was so extremely putrid, that I declared my opinion to Dr. Rattray that the proposed enquiry could give no sort of information.
Q. Supposing it had been communicated to you that Sir Theodosius Boughton had died by poison, should you have been satisfied without opening it?
A. I should then have opened the body at all events.
Q. You did not then open the body?
A. I certainly did not.
Q. You afterwards did open it at the time Dr. Rattray has spoken of?
A. I was present at the opening of the body, by Mr. Bucknill.
Q. Have you been employed in any experiments with Dr. Rattray?
A. I have.
Q. Without going into every particular of Dr. Rattray’s account, do you and he concur in general as to the effect of that medicine?
A. I wish you would be more particular in that question.
Q. Do you agree with Dr. Rattray in what he has said respecting those experiments at which you was present?
A. I do in general; but as Dr. Rattray has not described the appearances which were visible upon the dissection of the horse, with your lordship’s permission I will read my minutes. “On the 20th of March, one ounce of the laurel water was given to a young greyhound; while Dr. Rattray held the mouth open, I poured the water into the dog’s throat; as soon as it was swallowed the Doctor released its head to observe the effects of the poison, when, to our great surprise, he fell down upon his side, and without the least struggle or any perceptible motion (except what the doctor has explained about the dropping of the lower jaw) expired. On the 22d of March, in the presence of Sir William Wheeler, a pint and a quarter of laurel-water was given to a mare aged twenty-eight years. Within a minute from the time it was swallowed she seemed affected; her flanks were observed to heave much, and a trembling seized her limbs; in two minutes she suddenly fell down upon her head, and in a short time after was very violently convulsed; the convulsions continued about five minutes, at the expiration of which time, she laid still, but her breathing was very quick and laborious, and her eyes much affected with spasms. At this time four ounces more of the water were given her, after which she seemed much weaker, but without any more return of convulsions, and in about fifteen minutes from the time of her first seizure, she expired.”
Q. After her first convulsion she was quieter?
A. She was. “Upon opening the abdomen, a strong smell of laurel-water was perceptible; the colon, one of the large intestines, was not altered from its usual appearance, but the small intestines appeared of a purple colour, and the veins were much distended with blood; the stomach contained some hay mixed with laurel water; its internal surface was not inflamed, except in a small degree near the lower orifice of the stomach; the lungs appeared remarkably full of blood; the small vessels upon their surface being as visible as if they had been injected with red wax.”
Q. Whether you in general concur in sentiments with Dr. Rattray, as to the effect of laurel-water?
_Mr. Wilmer._ Do you mean upon the human body, or upon brutes?
_Mr. Wheeler._ Upon both.
A. It has in four instances been fatal in the human body; I do not know it of my own knowledge, but from my reading.
Q. Have you any doubt of its being fatal?
A. Not the least in the world.
Q. Now do you apprehend the quantity contained in that bottle is sufficient to take away life?
A. I imagine one bottle of that size full of laurel-water, would be sufficient to kill in half an hour’s time any man in this court.
Mr. _Bradford Wilmer_. Cross-examined by Mr. Green.
Q. Were there any symptoms in this case peculiarly different from the symptoms attending a case of epilepsy or apoplexy?
A. The appearance of the body in the putrid state in which it was when I had an opportunity of observing it, could give me no information to form an opinion upon respecting the cause of the death.
Q. Have you had any opportunities in your own experience of observing epilepsies?
A. I have. They are of two kinds, either primary or symptomatick. It happens sometimes that without the least previous notice, a man in the most perfect state of health, in the midst of pleasure or engaged in business, as Suetonius says of Julius Cæsar, may in a moment, be seized with the epilepsy, his senses will leave him, he will fall down, be convulsed, foam at the mouth, his tongue will be black, and he either may die or recover. As to the symptomatick epilepsy, I can speak from experience: a patient of mine had a violent pain and tumour in his finger; as soon as the pain, which gradually went up his arm, reached his arm-pit, he fell down epileptick, and convulsed. But if previous to an epilepsy, the patient heave very much at the stomach, and shew signs of sickness, I should conclude the cause of that epilepsy was in the stomach.
Q. Epilepsies proceed from various causes?
A. Numerous causes.
Q. Will not the loss of blood occasion an epilepsy?
A. I believe not.
Q. What quantity of blood was there in the stomach?
A. I did not measure it; I conclude about two pints; it lodged in the cavity of the thorax.
Q. Might not that occasion convulsions?
A. I do not know; but if I might be allowed to reason from analogy, I should conclude it would, for in all slaughtered animals, when the blood runs out from them in a full stream, they lie quiet, but they never die without convulsions. The loss of blood will evidently occasion convulsions.
_Mr. Wheeler._ From the appearances of the body, and after the evidence you have heard given both by Lady Boughton and the other witnesses, what do you attribute this gentleman’s death to?
A. After having heard Lady Boughton’s evidence, and therefore being acquainted with the symptoms which preceded the death of Sir Theodosius Boughton, I am clearly of opinion that his death was occasioned by a poisonous draught administered to him by Lady Boughton on the morning of his death.
_Court._ Is the heaving in the stomach or the belly a circumstance which attends an epilepsy?
A. It is not.
_Dr. Ashe_ sworn. Examined by Mr. Geast.
Q. You are a Physician and live at Birmingham?
A. Yes.
Q. You have heard the evidence that has been given?
A. I have.
Q. What in your judgment was the cause of the death of Sir Theodosius Boughton?
A. I think he died in consequence of taking that draught, after the taking of which he was seized in so extraordinary a manner.
Q. Mention the particular reasons you have for thinking so?
A. It does not appear, from any part of the evidence that has been this day given, that the late Sir Theodosius had any disease upon him of a nature either likely or in a degree sufficient to produce those violent consequences which happened to him, neither do I know in nature any medicine, properly so called, which administered in any dose, and in any form, could possibly produce the same effects. I know nothing but a poison speedy in its operation that could be attended with such terrible consequences: As to the appearances of the body upon dissection they were certainly, as far as could be collected at that distant period from the time of the death, and in such hot weather, similar to those appearances which are found in the bodies of animals that are killed by poisons collected from vegetable substances, not from mineral ones.
Q. Will you please to look at that phial?
A. The vehicle of it is laurel-water.
Q. Would that quantity be sufficient to cause death?
A. I do not know how this is distilled, or how firm it may be, but I know it may be made in this quantity to destroy animal life in a few seconds. I do not know who distilled this, but I have made it frequently myself, and in such a degree of strength as to destroy animal life in a few seconds; if it is distilled enough to collect the essential oil, a tea-spoonful of it would destroy animal life in a few seconds.
_Court._ If it was made on purpose?
A. Certainly; I dare say as strong a poison might be made from bitter almonds as that.
Q. Do you or not, from the evidence you have heard, believe Sir Theodosius Boughton died of poison?
A. I do.
_Court._ You are not to give your opinion from the evidence in general, but upon the symptoms those witnesses have described?
A. By the symptoms those evidences have described, I am of opinion that Sir Theodosius Boughton died of poison.
_Dr. Parsons_ sworn. Examined by Mr. Howorth.
Q. You are I believe professor of anatomy in the university of Oxford?
A. I am.
Q. You have heard the symptoms attending the death of Sir Theodosius Boughton described by the witnesses produced to-day?
A. I have.
Q. What in your judgment occasioned the death of Sir Theodosius Boughton?
A. From the description of the state of the young Baronet’s health, previous to his taking the second dose, which was supposed to be similar to that which he had taken two or three days before, and from the violent nervous symptoms that immediately followed the taking thereof, it is my opinion that he died in consequence of taking the second dose; which instead of being a composition of jalap and rhubarb only, proved to contain a poison, and of what nature that poison was, appears sufficiently from the description that Lady Boughton gives of its smell when she poured it out in order to give it to her son; her ladyship said it smelt like the taste of bitter almonds, which particularly characterises the smell of laurel-water. Perhaps it may not be improper to produce some laurel-water for the jury to smell at, that they may judge how well it agrees with the description that Lady Boughton has given of the supposed physick. The violent nervous symptoms that came on subsequent to his taking the second dose took place so soon, and were so different from what attended the taking of the first, that undoubtedly they were caused by something it had in it very different from the contents of the first, much more active, and as it proved more deleterious. Jalap sometimes disagrees with the stomach and may produce sickness, but with respect to Sir Theodosius Boughton this medicine did not create any sickness when given the first time.
_Court._ Could all the ingredients in the medicine mentioned by Mr. Powell produce in Sir Theodosius Boughton the effects described?
A. No; I apprehend they could not; and as a proof of it, they did not produce any such effects in the first instance, or dose.
Q. Are the symptoms which have been described by Lady Boughton such as would attend an epilepsy, or is there any and what difference?
A. The epilepsy is distinguished by a total abolition of sense, but an increase of motion in several of the muscles, so that the patient will appear much convulsed, and seems to see and hear every thing that is said and done, and to observe whatever is passing; yet when the fit goes off he has no knowledge or recollection of what has happened. Apoplexy is a sudden privation of all the powers of sense, and voluntary motion: the person affected seeming to be in a profound sleep, accompanied with considerable noise in breathing. As so little therefore is said of convulsions as a part of Sir Theodosius’s symptoms, the state in which he lay seems to have been more of the apoplectick kind than epileptick.
Q. It has been described by Lady Boughton that soon after taking this draught the stomach heaved very much, and a noise could be perceived as issuing from it; now is that in your judgment to be attributed to either epilepsy or apoplexy, or the effect of the medicine?
A. The effects of the medicine I think undoubtedly, and not spontaneous epilepsy or apoplexy; it is very immaterial whether you call the symptoms epileptick or apoplectick; for which ever they resembled most I consider them but as symptomatick.
Q. Was the heaving of the stomach the effect of apoplexy or epilepsy, or of this draught?
A. No doubt, I think the draught was the cause, especially as laurel-water, which the draught seems to have contained from its peculiar smell, will produce similar effects.
Q. Then your judgment is, that the fatal effects were produced by the medicine thus taken?
A. I think there can be no doubt of that as they commenced almost as soon as he swallowed the draught; and a mixture such as he is supposed to have taken, is known to have the power of producing them.
Q. And from your knowledge of the effects produced by laurel water, your opinion is that laurel-water was the poison thus administered to Sir Theodosius Boughton?
A. It is. Dr. Rutty relates a case of a girl of eighteen years of age and in perfect health, who took a quantity, less than two spoons full of the first runnings of simple water of laurel leaves; whereupon within half a minute she fell down, was convulsed, foamed at the mouth, and died in a short time.
Q. Could those effects be produced (speak from your own judgment) by laurel-water?
A. I have no doubt of it. Dogs and other quadrupeds (as we are informed) that take it, fall immediately into totterings and convulsions of the limbs, which are presently followed by a total paralysis; these convulsions, with some additional circumstances, as foaming at the mouth and loss of sense, constitute the epilepsy which is described among the effects of vegetable poisons.
Dr. _Parsons_ cross-examined by Mr. Newnham.
Q. From the appearances of health in Sir Theodosius Boughton, and from the medicine not having occasioned any bad symptoms before, you conclude his death was occasioned by some other medicine substituted instead of that or in addition to it?
A. Most certainly; especially as the smell of it bespoke its having received the addition of a very poisonous ingredient.
Q. Have you never known instances of persons being taken suddenly when engaged in pleasure or business, or at dinner, dying convulsed, epileptick, or apoplectick?
A. I have; but those who die suddenly of apoplexy are generally persons of a full habit; and who are neither so thin nor so young as Sir Theodosius Boughton.
Q. Have you never known instances of persons of a thin habit being attacked by an apoplexy or an epilepsy?
A. By epilepsy they may.
Q. Have you never heard of a person having the appearance of perfect health being seized with an epilepsy without any primary cause giving any warning, have you never heard of people in perfect health being seized with an epilepsy or apoplexy?
A. Yes; apoplexy proceeding from repletion or the sudden bursting of a blood-vessel; epilepsy may proceed from a variety of causes partial or general, in the head or elsewhere; but very seldom I believe proves so suddenly fatal.
Q. Might not those have happened to Sir Theodosius Boughton?
A. There can be no doubt of the possibility of their attacking him, but I think there is no reason to go so far for a cause as to _possibility_, when this medicine as all the world knows will effect it.
Q. That is assuming as a fact that he took two ounces of laurel-water?
A. A much less quantity would be sufficient for the purpose, if we may credit Dr. Rutty’s account.
Q. You collect that from the similarity of the smell?
A. We have nothing else to judge from but the similarity of the smell.
Q. Is not that the case with a variety of things; will not black cherry-water have that smell?
A. Black cherry-water is said to have the same smell, but it is now out of use; I don’t suppose there is an apothecary in the island who has it, and therefore it could not be substituted by accident for the other vehicle.
Q. Will not bitter almonds have that smell?
A. Yes; and spirits flavoured with them are said to be poisonous to the human species.
Q. You ground your opinion upon the description of its smell by Lady Boughton?
A. Yes; we can ground our opinion upon nothing else but that and the subsequent effects.
_Mr. John Hunter_ sworn; examined by Mr. Newnham.
Q. Have you heard the evidence that has been given by these gentlemen?
A. I have been present the whole time.
Q. Did you hear Lady Boughton’s evidence?
A. I heard the whole.
Q. Did you attend to the symptoms her ladyship described, as appearing upon Sir Theodosius Boughton, after the medicine was given him?
A. I did.
Q. Can any certain inference upon physical or chirurgical principles be drawn from those symptoms, or from the appearances externally or internally of the body, to enable you, in your judgment to decide, that the death was occasioned by poison?
A. I was in London then, a gentleman who is in Court waited upon me with a copy of the examination of Mr. Powell and Lady Boughton, and on account of the dissection, and the physical gentlemen’s opinion upon that dissection.
Q. I don’t wish to go into that, I put my question in a general way?
A. The whole appearances upon the dissection, explain nothing but putrefaction.
Q. You have been long in the habit of dissecting human subjects? I presume you have dissected more than any man in Europe?
A. I have dissected some thousands during these thirty-three years.
Q. Are those appearances you have heard described, such in your judgment, as are the result of putrefaction in dead subjects?
A. Entirely.
Q. Are the symptoms that appeared after the medicine was given, such as necessarily conclude that the person had taken poison?
A. Certainly not.
Q. If an apoplexy had come on, would not the symptoms have been nearly or somewhat similar?
A. Very much the same.
Q. Have you ever known or heard of a young subject dying of an apoplectic or epileptic fit?
A. Certainly; but with regard to the apoplexy not so frequent, young subjects will perhaps die more frequently of epilepsies than old ones; children are dying every day from teething, which is a species of epilepsy arising from an irritation.
Q. Did you ever in your practice, know an instance of laurel-water being given to a human subject?
A. No, never.
Q. Is any certain analogy to be drawn from the effects of any species of poison upon an animal of the brute creation, to that it may have upon a human subject?
A. As far as my experience goes, which is not a very confined one, because I have poisoned some thousands of animals, they are very nearly the same, opium for instance will poison a dog similar to a man; arsenic will have very near the same effect upon a dog, as it would have, I take it for granted, upon a man; I know something of the effects of them, and I believe their operations will be nearly similar.
Q, Are there not many things which kill animals almost instantaneously, that will have no detrimental or noxious effect upon a human subject; spirits, for instance, occur to me?
A. I apprehend a great deal depends upon the mode of experiment; no man is fit to make one, but those who have made many, and paid considerable attention to all the circumstances that relate to experiments, it is a common experiment which I believe seldom fails, and it is in the mouth of every body, that a little brandy will kill a cat: I have made the experiment, and have killed several cats, but it is a false experiment; in all those cases where it kills the cat, it kills the cat by getting into her lungs, not into her stomach, because, if you convey the same quantity of brandy, or three times as much into the stomach, in such a way as the lungs shall not be affected, the cat will not die; now in those experiments that are made by forcing an animal to drink, there are two operations going on, one is a refusing the liquor, by the animal, its kicking and working with its throat, to refuse it, the other is a forcing the liquor upon the animal, and there are very few operations of that kind, but some of the liquor gets into the lungs. I have known it from experience.
Q. If you had been called upon to dissect a body, suspected to have died of poison, should you or not have thought it necessary to have pursued your search through the guts?
A. Certainly.
Q. Do you not apprehend that you would have been more likely to receive information from thence than any other part of the frame?
A. That is the track of the poison, and I should certainly have followed that track through.
Q. You have heard of the froth issuing from Sir Theodosius’s mouth, a minute or two before he died, is that peculiar to a man dying of poison, or is it not very common in many other complaints?
A. I fancy it is a general effect, of people dying in what you may call health, in an apoplexy, or epilepsy, in all sudden deaths, where the person was a moment before that in perfect health.
Q. Have you ever had an opportunity of seeing such appearances upon such subjects?
A. Hundreds of times.
Q. Should you consider yourself bound, by such an appearance, to impute the death of the subject to poison?
A. No, certainly not; I should rather suspect an apoplexy, and I wish in this case, the head had been opened to remove all doubts.
Q. If the head had been opened, do you apprehend all doubts would have been removed?
A. It would have been still farther removed, because, although the body was putrid, so that one could not tell whether it was a recent inflammation, yet an apoplexy arises from an extravasation of blood in the brain, which would have laid in a coagulum. I apprehend although the body was putrid, that would have been much more visible than the effect any poison could have had upon the stomach or intestines.
Q. Then in your judgment upon the appearances the gentlemen have described no inference can be drawn from thence that Sir Theodosius Boughton died of poison?
A. Certainly not; it does not give the least suspicion.
_Mr. John Hunter_ Cross-examined by _Mr. Howorth_.
Q. Having heard the account to-day that Sir Theodosius Boughton, apparently in perfect health, had swallowed a draught which had produced the symptoms described, I ask you whether any reasonable man can entertain a doubt that that draught whatever it was produced those appearances?
A. I don’t know well what answer to make to that question.
Q. Having heard the account given of the health of this young gentleman on that morning, previous to taking the draught, and the symptoms that were produced immediately upon taking the draught, I ask your opinion as a man of judgment, whether you don’t think that draught was the occasion of his death?
A. With regard to his being in health, that explains nothing; we frequently, and indeed generally see the healthiest people dying suddenly, therefore I shall lay little stress upon that; as to the circumstances of the draught, I own they are suspicious, every man is just as good a judge as I am.
Court. You are to give your opinion upon the symptoms only, not upon any other evidence given.
_Mr. Howorth._ Upon the symptoms immediately produced, after the swallowing of that draught, I ask whether, in your judgment and opinion, that draught did not occasion his death? A. I can only say, that it is a circumstance in favour of such an opinion.
Court. That the draught was the occasion of his death? A. No; because the symptoms afterwards are those of a man dying, who was before in perfect health; a man dying of an epilepsy or apoplexy, the symptoms would give one those general ideas.
Court. It is the general idea you are asked about now, from the symptoms which appeared upon Sir Theodosius Boughton immediately after he took the draught followed by his death so very soon after; whether, upon that part of the case, you are of opinion that the draught was the occasion of his death? A. If I knew the draught was poison, I should say, most probably, that the symptoms arose from that; but when, I don’t know that that draught was poison, when I consider that a number of other things might occasion his death, I cannot answer positively to it.
Court. You recollect the circumstance that was mentioned of a violent heaving in the stomach? A. All that is the effect of the voluntary action being lost, and nothing going on but the involuntary.
_Mr. Howorth._ Then you decline giving any opinion upon the subject? A. I don’t form any opinion to myself; I cannot form an opinion because I can conceive if he had taken a draught of poison it arose from that; I can conceive it might arise from other causes.
Q. If you are at all acquainted with the effects and operations of distilled laurel-water, whether the having swallowed a draught of that, would not have produced the symptom described? A. I should suppose it would; I can only say this of the experiments I have made of laurel-water upon animals, it has not been near so quick; I have injected laurel-water directly into the blood of dogs, and they have not died; I have thrown laurel-water, with a precaution, into the stomach, and it never produced so quick an effect with me, as described by those gentlemen.
Q. But you admit that laurel-water would have produced symptoms such as have been described? A. I can conceive it might.
_Mr. Newnham._ Would not an apoplexy or an epilepsy, if it had seized Sir Theodosius Boughton at this time, though he had taken no physic at all, have produced similar symptoms too? A. Certainly.
Q. Where a father has died of an apoplexy, is not that understood, in some measure, to be constitutional? A. There is no disease whatever, that becomes constitutional, but what can be given to a child. There is no disease which is acquired, that can be given to a child; but whatever is constitutional in the father, the father has a power of giving that to the children; by which means it becomes what is called hereditary; there is no such thing as an hereditary disease; but there is an hereditary disposition for a disease.
_Mr. Howorth._ Do you call apoplexy constitutional?
A. We see most diseases are constitutional; the small-pox is constitutional, though it requires an immediate cause to produce the effects. The venereal disease is hereditary. I conceive apoplexy as much constitutional as any disease whatever.
Q. Is apoplexy likely to attack a thin young man who had been in a course of taking cooling medicines before? A. Not so likely, surely, as another man; but I have, in my account of dissections, two young women dying of apoplexies.
Q. But in such an habit of body, particularly attended with the circumstance of having taken cooling medicines, it was very unlikely to happen? A. I do not know the nature of medicines so well as to know that it would hinder an apoplexy from taking effect.
Court. Give me your opinion in the best manner you can, one way or the other, whether upon the whole of the symptoms described, the death proceeded from that medicine, or any other cause? A. I do not mean to equivocate, but when I tell the sentiments of my own mind, what I feel at the time, I can give nothing decisive.
Extracts from the Evidence delivered on the Trial of _Robert Sawle Donnall_, Surgeon and Apothecary, for the wilful Murder, by Poison, of his Mother-in-Law, Mrs. _Elizabeth Downing_, Widow, at the Assize at Launceston, March 31, 1817.
(_Taken in short-hand by Alexander Fraser._)
-------
EVIDENCE FOR THE CROWN.
_Dr. Richard Edwards_ (examined by Mr. Sergt. Lens).
You are a physician, resident at Falmouth?—I am.
How many years have you been in the profession?—About sixteen years.
Do you recollect being called in, as a physician, to attend Mrs. Elizabeth Downing upon the 3rd of November?—Yes, Sir; I was called in between four and five o’clock on the Monday morning.
Were you in the habit of attending her?—Once before, at a distant period.
Several months before?—More than that.
When you came there, and when you were introduced into the room in which she was, what state did you find her in?—I was let into the house by Mr. Donnall; I went into the back room and asked him some questions as to Mrs. Downing’s illness, and he informed me she had an attack of Cholera Morbus.
Did any thing more pass that was material, before you went into the room where she was?—He told me she had a similar attack a fortnight before.
Did any further communication take place?—I asked him how long she had been ill, and he said she was taken ill the evening before.
Did any thing more pass?—Mr. Donnall told me that she had been at church twice that Sunday.
Did you then proceed into the room, or did any thing more pass?—Nothing more passed.
When you went into her room, she was in bed?—Yes, Sir, she was; I asked some questions of her attendants, before I spoke to Mrs. Downing; she required some rousing before she could answer questions.
Were you able to rouse her?—Yes, Sir.
Do you recollect any thing particular, as to her situation?—I asked her if she felt any pain, and she said she felt heat in her stomach, and also cramp in her legs; I then felt her pulse, and found it a frequent fluttering pulse. I then went down into the parlour again with Mr. Donnell, and wrote a prescription.
Did you make any further inquiries about the state of her body before you wrote the prescription?—I asked some questions of Mr. Donnall as to the state of her stomach and bowels, and he said that she had violent sickness, and that her bowels were very much relaxed.
After this you wrote the prescription?—Yes, Sir.
Did you at that time form, or could you form, any judgment of her danger, or that it was likely she would recover?—I found that she was in very great danger.
You had been apprised that she had symptoms of Cholera Morbus; did you observe any thing of that kind?—No; at that time she had no sickness.
Was her state such as to shew that she had?—There was nothing particular to draw my attention to that being her state; there was nothing to shew the causes of the disease at that time.
How long did you stay on that occasion?—I suppose about twenty minutes; I am not certain as to the time.
Did you learn from the prisoner whether he himself had given any medicine?—I understood that he had given an opening medicine and an emetic, a saline draught in a state of effervescence, and also a pill, and some opium mixed with the saline draught; I believe he told me ten drops of laudanum.
(By Mr. Justice Abbott.) Is that a large or a small dose?—It is a small dose.
(By Mr. Sergt. Lens.) Would that only quiet her?—It was given, he said, to quiet the irritation of the stomach.
Have you ever had occasion to attend a person who had been ill, and who died of Cholera Morbus?—I never had a patient who died of that disease. There is one circumstance I would mention: before I left Mr. Donnall, I told him that as the quantity of active medicine in the prescription was small, he had better give every three hours, instead of four hours, as directed in the prescription; and observed at the same time, that it was given in order to remove something which I considered to be offensive either in the stomach or bowels.
In the course of your experience, how soon does Cholera Morbus produce death?—In general not in less than two or three days; there may be some instances, but I never met with one that produced death in less than that time.
The space of time in this instance was fourteen hours?—Yes, Sir.
Can you tell me of any instance that Cholera Morbus would produce death in so short a time?—I never heard or knew of any instance of its producing death in so short a time.
In your judgment then, and from what you know since, did this patient die of Cholera Morbus or not?—Certainly not.
You say you staid about twenty minutes?—About that time.
You then took your leave, having given directions about the prescription, which you took for granted would be administered afterwards?—Yes, Sir.
Did you see Mrs. Downing afterwards?—No, Sir.
She died at eight o’clock that same morning?—Yes.
How soon did you go again after you had heard of her decease?—I went on the Thursday afternoon to examine the body.
When you went there, was it to examine the body as to the cause of the death?—Yes; I was requested by the Coroner to examine the body.
You had heard of the letter that was sent, on suspicion being awakened?—Yes.
Whom did you meet there?—Mr. Donnall.
Was there any other person there?—Soon afterwards Mr. John Street, a surgeon, came there.
There is another person of the name of Street, a surgeon?—Yes, Sir; but this was Mr. John Street.
Shortly afterwards did you go into the room where the body lay?—Yes, Sir.
Did any thing pass before?—Nothing particular.
Who went with you?—Mr. John Street and Mr. Donnall; there was no other medical person present.
What did you do?—We took the body from the shell, and placed it on the table.
Who proceeded to operate on the body?—When the things were prepared, such as water, &c. I perceived Mr. Donnall was preparing to operate, with the instruments in his hands, and turning up the cuffs of his coat.
Did he proceed?—No; I told him that he was to have nothing to do with the operation, and I turned to Mr. John Street and asked him to do it.
(By Mr. Justice Abbott.) Did you say any thing more to Donnall than that he was to have nothing to do with the operation?—No, my Lord.
(By Mr. Sergt. Lens.) Did he (Mr. Street) prepare to do it?—He objected to it, as not having been in the habit of operating for a long time.
And in the end you were under the necessity of doing it yourself?—Yes, Sir, with Mr. Street’s occasional assistance.
When you opened the body, your particular object was the examination of the stomach?—Yes, it was the chief object of our examination, and we proceeded to do so immediately; we opened it, and examined it, and poured the contents into a basin.
Did you take out all the contents, or only a part?—The whole of the contents.
What was done with them after they were put into the basin?—We examined that which was put into the basin with our fingers, in order to ascertain whether any heavy or gritty substance had subsided to the bottom.
(By Mr. Justice Abbott.) When you say “we,” whom do you mean besides yourself?—Mr. John Street, my Lord.
(By Mr. Sergt. Lens.) Donnall did not interfere?—No, Sir.
In a few minutes you examined the bottom?—Yes.
Did you find any deposit?—No deposit of any heavy substance.
When you had done that, what did you do next?—Before we particularly examined the contents of the stomach, we examined the state of the stomach, and found it inflamed.
Was it a general or partial inflammation?—It was rather partial; or what we call stellated, or in stars, in different parts of the stomach.
Were there many? were there several or only one, or were there two or three?—There were many, in different parts of the stomach.
Was there any thing else you discovered?—On examining the villous, or internal coat of the stomach, we found it softened, and in some parts nearly destroyed by the action of some corrosive substance. The stellated inflammation was on the nervous coat, but was very visible through the villous coat.
Are we to understand that the villous coat is, in general, not so soft? what should its natural state be?—It should have been much more firm than we found it.
In what way did you examine the villous coat?—With the nail of my finger, and it easily came off.
And in its proper state would it come off easily with the nail of a finger?—No, Sir. We examined particularly the under part where the fluid was.
Was it generally in that soft state?—The greatest part of it was so.
(By Mr. Justice Abbott.) The under part is where any thing in the stomach would rest and would touch?—Yes, my Lord.
(By Mr. Sergt. Lens.) Did you observe any particularity in the appearance?—The blood-vessels of the stomach were rather in a more turgid state than they should be naturally. We also examined the liver and lungs, and both appeared in a sound state.
Did you examine the heart?—I do not recollect; I am not quite certain.
Do you think that any thing affected it?—I did not examine it, that I recollect.
Did you give any directions as to what was put into the basin?—After examining the contents of the stomach, which were put into the basin, we poured them into an earthen jug.
And your attention was particularly drawn to that in the basin?—I placed the jug upon a chair, on which there was a cushion; and I took particular care that, as the seat was elastic, it should rest against the back, so as not to fall; and I said at the time that it must be taken particular care of, as it was necessary for me to examine it.
Was that said to any one in particular, or was it said generally?—Particularly to Mr. Donnall; we were very near each other.
Was there any other person present but you three?—Not at that time.
(By Mr. Justice Abbott.) The prisoner, Donnall, was in the room at that time?—Yes, my Lord.
(By Mr. Sergt. Lens.) What did you proceed to do then?—We proceeded to examine the intestines, and found them also inflamed in different parts, particularly that part which was next the stomach, and some others that were lower down.
Could a patient be sensible of the existence of such an inflammation, or might it remain for any time, and the patient be perfectly well?—That is impossible; a patient could not be well with such an inflammation existing.
Could you judge at all of the length of time in which, in the common course of nature, such an inflammation could be produced by any natural cause? could it be produced by any natural cause?—Not in the time.
Such an inflammation could be produced by a natural cause, but not within the time?—Not within the time.
What sort of substances will produce that sort of inflammation in so short a time, not being natural causes?—Any active poison.
Could it be produced by any thing short of an active poison in any time, or within so short a time?—I think not.
Did you proceed then to see whether there was any thing to be discovered of an active nature?—I then turned to the contents of the stomach which I had placed in a jug.
(By Mr. Justice Abbott.) Then your back had been to the jug?—It was behind, or rather on my left side.
(By Mr. Sergt. Lens.) When you had turned round, did you find it in the same situation?—Yes, I found it in the same situation, but I was surprised to see it empty.
Did you express that surprise to any body?—I expressed it to Mr. Donnall, and asked him what had become of it, and he told me he had thrown it into the chamber utensil; I observed to him that he ought not to have done so, as I had before said that it must be carefully preserved; and I observed to him also, that it would give me a great deal more trouble, as I must evaporate a larger quantity of water than I should otherwise have had to do, to get at the object of my search.
Can you tell us what the quantity was in the basin, and what the quantity was afterwards?—It was a little more than half a pint originally.
And what was the quantity when mixed with the other water?—Nearly two quarts. The chamber vessel was clean when I came into the room.
What had occasioned any used water in it?—I threw some of the water into it, in which we had washed some part of the intestines.
What was then done with it?—As soon as we had finished the examination, I left it to Mr. Street’s charge, who told me he would take care of the contents of the stomach.
You did not see them again till they were at your own house?—No, not till they were brought there in two bottles. I recollect putting this chamber utensil further under the bed, in order that it might not be disturbed, and desired that no one should touch it or go into the room, during our absence, Mr. Donnall still remaining. Mr. Donnall had been out of the room once or twice.
But was he there when that direction was given?——Yes, Sir.
Did you afterwards, and when, proceed to examine the contents of the two bottles?—It was two days before I had finished that examination.
How soon afterwards did you see it in the two bottles in your house?—On the same day that we examined the body.
Did you upon examination trace any thing of the sort that you looked for?—I examined it in different ways by chemical tests, and they all shewed the presence of arsenic; if necessary I will state the method I followed.
In consequence of the experiment, you detected it to be arsenic?—Arsenic in solution but not in substance.
How did you detect it?—I tried it by chemical re-agents that would produce a certain colour when arsenic was present.
In general, upon that part of the subject, what is your opinion of the cause of the death of this lady, from your observation on what you took away and examined afterwards?—From the appearance of the stomach and the examination of its contents, I have not the least doubt that it was produced by poison.
Independently of that appearance to be arsenic, what is your opinion of the general appearance, so as to judge of the cause of the death?—I have no doubt that the death was produced by the effects of arsenic.
Could you have formed any judgment independently of the analysis, or is this latter part necessary to your judgment?—I should have believed, from the examination of the stomach and intestines only, that the death had been produced by some corrosive substance.
Should you have been of opinion, without any analysis, but from the general appearance of the stomach, that she had died of poison?—I should certainly have been of that opinion.
But not arsenic in particular?—No; but some corrosive substance.
Could that corrosive substance have been produced in the body itself, or must it have been administered from without?—It is not possible that it should have been produced internally; it must have been introduced from without.
(Cross-examined by Mr. Sergt. Pell.)
I think you said, that you found this lady’s pulse frequent and fluttering?—Yes, Sir.
The medicine you prescribed for her was of a purgative nature?—Yes.
How often would she have had to take that medicine, between the time you gave that prescription and the time when she died?—I gave her the prescription for every four hours, but I left instructions to give it every three hours.
Is that the prescription? (_shewing it_)—Yes, Sir.
Be so good as to mention what are the materials—or first, what is the nature of that complaint, called Cholera Morbus?—It is generally produced in hot seasons, by bile getting into the stomach, and causing irritation in the stomach and bowels.
Is not cramp sometimes a symptom of a violent bilious attack?—Cramp often comes on in violent irritations of the stomach and bowels, whatever may be the cause of that irritation.
Is not cramp a certain symptom of a violent bilious attack?—It very often accompanies it.
(By Mr. Justice Abbott.) Cramp of the legs generally arises from those causes?—Yes, my Lord; most frequently from a violent action of the stomach.
(By Mr. Sergt. Pell.) Might it not arise from a bilious disorganization of the stomach?—Yes.
This complaint of Cholera Morbus may proceed to a very painful degree?—It may kill.
Is it a very painful complaint?—It is a very distressing complaint.
As far as you have had an opportunity of visiting patients, do you know it to be a painful complaint?—It produces cramp, which is painful, and it certainly produces pain in the stomach and bowels by its violent action.
Do you apprehend that a purgative medicine would be a proper medicine for a person in that situation, supposing it to have been Cholera Morbus?—There were no symptoms of Cholera Morbus when I saw Mrs. Downing; but from what I heard of her complaint, I imagined that there was something offensive either in the stomach or bowels, which ought to be evacuated.
Were ten drops of laudanum a proper thing to give her?—It is sometimes given to allay the irritation of those parts.
Might not a powerful administration of laudanum be of use in Cholera Morbus?—Seldom, I think, in large quantities, but is given in small doses frequently, if the case be urgent.
I think you have stated, that the result of your chemical experiment was not the production of any gross arsenic, or arsenic in substance?—Not arsenic in substance.
And you judged from the application of chemical tests?—Yes, Sir.
Be so good as to state what the chemical tests were which you used?—The first was with the sulphate of copper, which is the common blue vitriol. If you put a little carbonate of potash into water containing a solution of arsenic, and then add the sulphate of copper in solution, a _green_ precipitate will be produced; whereas, if no arsenic be present, a _blue_ precipitate would be formed: that was the first test which I used.
What was the second test?—The second test was with the nitrate of silver, or common lunar caustic, (these are the same in substance, but the lunar caustic is the more common term). Put a little carbonate of potash into water containing arsenic in solution, and dip the end of a cylindrical piece of lunar caustic into the water, a _yellow_ precipitate will be produced; whereas if no arsenic be present, a _white_ precipitate would be formed. Those were the chief tests which I used; but in order to ascertain whether any thing which had been taken into the stomach, or was naturally contained in it, would alter the appearances produced by the tests, so as to make the result uncertain, I tried other experiments. I concluded that bile formed part of the contents of the stomach; I therefore procured some and mixed it with water, and subjected it to the same tests in the same manner, and I found that the appearance of the precipitate was not the same as if arsenic were present; I therefore inferred that bile, in the quantity in which it may occasionally be found in the stomach, would not alter the conclusion I had drawn from the result of my first experiments.—I was informed that Mrs. Downing had eaten onions; I boiled some in water in the usual way, and after pouring off the water in which they were boiled, I poured some boiling water on them, and let them stand for some hours; I then ascertained what effect this water would produce on the tests, and was satisfied that it would not, when the experiment was carefully made, produce the appearance of arsenic.—I also understood that some tartarized antimony had been given; I tried the tests with a solution of that substance, and the precipitate had not the appearance which arsenic, if present, would put on.
Do you happen to know who was the first person who discovered these tests?—I believe Mr. Hume discovered that with nitrate of silver.
Do you know Dr. Marcett?—Yes, I know him from his writings, to be a clever man.
You don’t happen to know whether he first discovered this mode?—No.
Do you know of any mode of managing any fluid substance, in which arsenic has been mixed, so as to produce arsenic in substance?—By evaporating the solution containing arsenic, and by exposing it to heat in a close vessel, you will produce it in a white solid state; and by mixing the residuum of a solution of arsenic with an inflammable substance, arsenic will be sublimed in its metallic state by the same process.
The result of that experiment would not have deceived any one in the world?—It would not certainly; but there was such a small quantity left, after my other experiments, that it was not tried.
It would have produced it, so that any person would know the thing to be arsenic?—Certainly.
You mix the fluid, in which the arsenic is, with an alkali, when you seek to re-produce the mineral in substance? you mix the solution with an alkali, don’t you?—No; there is no occasion for an alkali.
You put it in solution and expose it to heat?—If the arsenic be in solution, it must be evaporated; and by doing that which I have before stated with the residuum, it will be produced in its metallic state.
With respect to the other tests, do you consider those as conclusive and infallible?—Yes, in the way I used them.
This business, of course, must have made a great bustle in Falmouth, when people first talked about it?—Yes, Sir.
When were you examined before the Coroner?—Upon the same day of the funeral, and on the Thursday preceding. I begged the inquest might be put off for two days, till I had examined the contents of the stomach; and it was put off for two days.
You were examined, I believe, before you made the analyses?—I remember that I was examined on the Thursday as to the appearances I found on the stomach.
Can you recollect whether you did or did not state, before the Gentlemen of the Jury, that the appearances of the stomach were such as proceeded from a natural cause?—No, certainly not.
You did however desire that it might be postponed two days, that you might make some experiments on the contents of the stomach?—Yes, Sir.
Are persons, particularly women, of an elderly time of life, more subject to the attack of Cholera Morbus, than people who are young?—There is very little difference.
The age of the person does not predispose him or her more to that complaint, than a youthful person?—No, I don’t think it does; it is rather the contrary.
You say there was nothing in the chamber vessel but water that had been poured in, with which you had washed some parts of the stomach?—I poured the water in myself, at a time when I believe it was empty.
Mr. Sergt. Pell—So that the effect of it would be only to give more trouble in evaporating a greater quantity of fluid, it having been made before.
(Re-examined by Mr. Sergt. Lens.)
You have been asked several questions about the nature of Cholera Morbus; do you change your opinion, in any respect, as to this not being Cholera Morbus that occasioned the death?—I do not.
You have been asked particularly about a third test that you did not make use of; I wish to ask you how it happened that you did not resort to that test as well as to the others?—There was not sufficient left so as to ascertain it accurately.
So that that last test would not be so proper as the others?—The tests I used would detect a more minute portion of arsenic, and therefore were more proper for that occasion, as I found that there could not be much arsenic in the fluid, from the appearances produced by these tests.
And that was the reason that you resorted to those tests instead of this last test, which you did not use?—Yes, that was the reason, when I found by the other tests that the arsenic was not in a large quantity.
Had the quantity been larger, how would you have proceeded?—I should have resorted also to the last if there had been a larger quantity.
(By Mr. Justice Abbott.) The portion detected was very small?—Yes, my Lord.
Do I understand you to say that it was so small that you did not think it fit to try the other test, or that of evaporation?—That was my reason. I accounted for the smallness of the quantity of poison in this way—from the frequent throwing up, and the purging, which would carry off large portions.
Suppose the contents of the stomach had been suffered to remain in the jug as you had put them, unmixed with any quantity of fluid, would it have been more easy to perform the experiment, and securing its effect?—There would be the same result, but a difference in regard to the length of time that it would take to evaporate.
After having tried and made use of these tests, would it have been practicable still to have tried the test by evaporation and sublimation?—I did not do it as the quantity of fluid was so small, and I did not conceive that a small quantity would do. If I had evaporated the whole of it in the first place, I might perhaps have detected arsenic in substance; but I had made use of a great quantity in trying the other tests, which I threw away.
That would not have been proper to have tried again, that which had been tried before?—It would not have been so easily done.
The application of the lunar caustic in the one instance, and the sulphate of copper in the other, would not have prevented the other operation?—It would not have been so correct.
Do you happen to know that the prisoner, Mr. Donnall, ever desired that any other test should be applied?—I don’t recollect that he did; but some one came to my house, and requested me to give him a part of the contents of the stomach to try it, but I had none.
If any application was made, it was too late?—Yes, my Lord.
Was any person with you when you tried these tests?—Mr. Street, a brother of the gentleman I have spoken of, was with me.
That is Mr. Samuel Spyvee Street?—Yes, my Lord.
Any other person, at the other time of the experiments?—Mr. John Street was present at the other.
(_Witness withdrew._)
_Mr. John Street_ (examined by Mr. Gazelee).
You were a surgeon?—Yes, Sir.
How long have you been retired from that profession?—About five years.
Was any application made to you to attend the opening of the body of Mrs. Downing?—Yes, Sir, there was.
Who applied to you?—Mr. Donnall.
Upon what day did he apply to you?—Upon the Thursday.
To assist him in opening the body?—Yes, Sir.
What time did you go to the house?—Mr. Donnall called upon me about half-past one o’clock upon the Thursday, and I went to the house about two o’clock, or half-past two.
Whom did you find there?—Mr. Donnall and Dr. Edwards.
The operation was performed by Dr. Edwards?—Yes, and I assisted him.
Do you remember the circumstance of the contents of the stomach being taken out and put into a jug?—Yes, I do.
What became of the jug, or was any thing said about it?—Dr. Edwards poured the contents of the stomach into a jug, and requested it should be taken particular care of, addressing himself particularly to Mr. Donnall, who was very near him.
After that, did you proceed to examine the stomach itself?—We did.
Describe the appearances upon the stomach?—After opening the stomach, I perceived it to be very much inflamed, and remarked it to Dr. Edwards, and also to Mr. Donnall, who was upon my right hand, that the inflammation was very extensive, and the blood-vessels very turgid; there were stars, and the villous coat very highly inflamed; that was the appearance of the stomach; we then examined the Duodenum, we found that very much inflamed; the Jejunium and Illium we found but slightly inflamed; the Cæcum was the next part that we opened, that was inflamed but slightly.
(By Mr. Justice Abbott.) Those are the parts of the body connected with the stomach?—Yes; after that we opened the chest to examine the heart, liver, and lungs, and we found them in a perfect state.
(By Mr. Gazelee.) From those appearances, could you form any judgment as to what was the occasion of the death of the deceased?—From the appearances I should attribute the death to some corrosive matter taken into the stomach.
You found that the contents of the jug had been removed into a chamber utensil, did you not?—Yes.
That chamber vessel was afterwards removed further in under the bed?—Yes, Sir, by Dr. Edwards.
Did you and Dr. Edwards go out of the room together?—We did, and Dr. Edwards remarked that he wished nobody to go into the room when we were out of the way; he said this to Mr. Donnall, “You’ll observe that nobody is to go into the room while we are away.”
(By Mr. Justice Abbott.) Did you leave the prisoner in the room!—No, my Lord; we all went down together.
(By Mr. Gazelee.) Dr. Edwards and you went over to the town-hall together?—Yes, Sir.
How long did you remain there, till you returned?—About three or four minutes.
Did the Jury come back with you?—Yes, Sir.
Did you again go to the Town-hall?—Yes.
How long might you be absent the second time?—About ten minutes.
At the expiration of those ten minutes, did you return to the room for any, and what purpose?—I returned to the room to do what was necessary to Mrs. Downing, and to put her into the shell.
Did you do any thing then?—I did; after putting Mrs. Downing into the coffin, I told the servant to get me some bottles, which she procured, and I then poured the contents of the chamber utensil into a jug, and then into two bottles; they filled both bottles; they were two quart bottles.
Did you find any person in the room when you came back?—No person.
What became of the bottles?—I told the servant to deliver them to Dr. Edwards.
What is her name?—Susan Weeks.
Mr. Gazelee—Her name is now O’Brien, having been since married.
Did you see her go with them?—I saw her within a hundred yards of Dr. Edwards’s house with the bottles.
Were you present when any of the tests spoken of by Dr. Edwards were tried by that gentleman?—Yes, I saw him try some of them.
(By Mr. Justice Abbott.) Which of them did you see?—I am not chemist enough to say; but I saw him try some, and he told me before what would be the effect.
(Cross-examined by Mr. Gifford.)
When you poured the contents of the chamber vessel into a jug, did you find the chamber vessel in the same state as when you left?—I think it was.
(_Witness withdrew._)
_Dr. Edwards_ re-called, (re-examined by Mr. Justice Abbott.)
I wish to ask you this question, whether arsenic may be administered in a fluid state?—Yes, my Lord, it may.
The usual way is in grains or in powder, but it may be administered in a fluid state?—Yes, my Lord; it may be dissolved in water and administered.
May such a solution be made very strong?—If it be dissolved in hot water it will contain a large portion; but if in cold water it will not hold more than in the proportion of one-eightieth part of the water.
When you obtain a solution of arsenic, what quantity will be contained in the hot water, or what quantity of that water would be sufficient to occasion death?—I cannot say exactly.
Two or three tea-spoonsful?—Very little more than that, I should suppose.
Two dessert-spoonsful?—I dare say it would.
A table-spoonful?—Yes, my Lord. If an alkali be dissolved in the water first, it will hold a larger proportion in solution; but if dissolved in the common way, I should think a table-spoonful would be sufficient to produce death.
(_Witness withdrew._)
_Dr. Edwards_ again recalled, (re-examined by Mr. Justice Abbott.)
Did the body of the deceased swell at all before it was opened?—No, my Lord, it did not.
Was there any discharge from the nostrils, or any symptoms of putrefaction?—None at that time: and as to the discharge from the nostrils, I did not observe any.
In your judgment, could there be any thing in the appearance of the body which could lead a medical man to say that it was necessary to procure a shell immediately?—I should think not.
In case of death by Cholera Morbus, does putrefaction take place early?—I never observed it.
Mr. Justice Abbott.—Then you don’t know it, either one way or other, to say how that is.
(_Witness withdrew._)
-------
EVIDENCE FOR THE DEFENCE.
_Dr. Adam Neale_ (examined by Mr. Sergt. Pell).
I believe you are a physician at Exeter?—Yes, Sir.
Have you, in the course of your medical experience, been called upon to attend cases of Cholera Morbus?—Yes, frequently.
From what cause, in general, does Cholera Morbus arise?—It generally arises from putrid bile collected in the intestines, which is thrown off by vomiting, and diarrhœa, or purging.
Is it a disorder which is in its nature fatal?—It is the most acute disease known in Great Britain.
What do you mean by the term ‘acute’?—I mean by the term acute, a disease which runs its course in the most rapid manner.
What should be the usual course of attack of Cholera Morbus as to duration, supposing the patient ultimately died of it?—It very frequently kills the patient within twenty-four hours, and if neglected or improperly treated, it kills the patient in a much shorter period.
What should you esteem a reasonable symptom of a person of the age of 64 or 65 having this complaint? what should you expect to find in a person with this complaint?—Constant vomiting and purging, attended with pain in the stomach and cramp in the legs.
In that state of the disorder, what should you prescribe?—I should prescribe that the patient drink plentifully of any warm fluid, such as mutton-broth or tea, and then I should give a large dose of opium.
Supposing you were called in to attend a woman with the symptoms you have mentioned, whose pulse was frequent and fluttering, what would you prescribe?—I should then give her a large dose of opium, and I should repeat it at intervals, until the retching, vomiting, and diarrhœa ceased, or till she felt better.
I shall not trouble you, nor my Lord, by going through the particular circumstances which Dr. Edwards has spoken to, but merely ask you, had you the pleasure of hearing his evidence?—I had.
Did you hear distinctly the description he gave of the appearance of the stomach, after it was opened?—I did.
To what cause should you, independently of other circumstances, have attributed those appearances?—To no cause but the disease.
(By Mr. Justice Abbott.) What disease?—To the disease of Cholera Morbus.
Do you mean to say that they are indications of nothing else?—No, my Lord.
They are indications of that disease as well as others?—Yes, my Lord.
(By Mr. Sergt. Pell.) Would Cholera Morbus have that appearance?—I think so.
(By Mr. Justice Abbott.) Did you ever see the body of a person opened, who had died of Cholera Morbus?—I have not, my Lord.
(By Mr. Sergt. Pell.) Have you had, in the course of your practice, occasion to make experiments in chemistry?—Yes, Sir.
Did you hear the first experiment, or test, which Dr. Edwards stated he had made, namely, that by the sulphate of copper?—Yes, Sir.
In your judgment, is that test an infallible test of arsenic being present in solution?—By no means.
Have you heard of the other test which he tried, namely, that by means of the nitrate of silver, or the lunar caustic?—I have.
What is your judgment of that species of test as to arsenic?—That it is equally fallible.
Now as to the test with bile?—No [meaning, that test is not infallible]: from the presence of phosphoric acid, the same yellow-coloured precipitate will be thrown down, if some lunar caustic be put into a solution of phosphate of soda.
What do you esteem to be a complete test of arsenic being held in solution in any complicated body?—I don’t conceive that there is any complete test, but the evaporating of the solution, and reproducing the arsenic in its metallic state.
Have you made any experiment upon any mixture, through the medium of nitrate of silver, or the lunar caustic, in which onions have been infused?—Yes, with a decoction of onions.
Be so good as to state particularly what that experiment was which you made?—I made it within the last five days; I made a decoction of onions, and added the carbonate of potash together with the lunar caustic, and a pale yellow cloud was produced; the liquor became opaque, and a cloud, of a colour between white and yellow, or opal, or precious stone colour, was produced.
(By Mr. Justice Abbott.) Through the whole body?—Yes, my Lord; I then varied the experiment and added to it the phosphate of soda.
(By Mr. Sergt. Pell.) After this opaline cloud had been produced, what other effect had it?—It precipitated gradually; there was a precipitation.
(By Mr. Justice Abbott.) This dark shade, or yellowish white cloud, precipitated to the bottom?—Yes, my Lord.
Was that of the nature of what you call precipitation?—Yes, my Lord.
(By Mr. Sergt. Pell.) Well, Sir?—I added some solution of phosphate of soda, and a solution of lunar caustic, and I then obtained a yellow precipitate.
(Cross-examined by Mr. Sergt. Lens.)
I understood you to say that you never did, in point of fact, examine the body of a person that died of Cholera Morbus?—I never did; I only conclude, as a matter of science, that such would be the appearance; but I never did, in point of fact, open the body: I only conclude that that would be the sort of inflammation.
Now, as to this decoction of onions, would one taking rabbits smothered in onions be said to be taking a decoction?—The juice of the onions would be conveyed into the stomach: perhaps it would be as well to explain to the Court what is my motive.
(By Mr. Justice Abbott.) We don’t want that: we only want to know whether a decoction be the same as that which would be conveyed by eating boiled onions?—The same fluid would be conveyed into the stomach.
(By Mr. Sergt. Lens.) That is, a decoction of onions?—Yes, Sir.
But the greatest part is drawn off by the preparation?—Some must infallibly remain. The experiment I made was, by cutting an onion into various pieces, and putting it into two wine-glassesful of water, and upon that decoction my experiment proceeded—or by pouring boiling water over it, or boiling it for two minutes, and then I tried the experiment both with the liquid and with the boiled onion, and the effects were the same.
So that the small quantity that remained in the one case, had the same effect as the extract in the other?—Yes, Sir.
That which is used at table must be considerably weaker than that sort of preparation?—A considerable part, but not the whole, otherwise the flavour would be all gone.
(By Mr. Justice Abbott.) In proportion as the strength and flavour is diminished, so is the strength of the juice diminished?—Yes, my Lord.
(By Mr. Sergt. Lens.) Do you mean to say that that mode [the test by evaporation] is absolutely an infallible mode of detecting arsenic?—I speak by the practice of all physicians, both at home and abroad, that it will be positively detected by that mode to be present; but I don’t mean to say that Dr. Edwards’s experiment won’t do it also; but the phosphate of soda will produce the same thing.
Of course, if necessary to inquire as to the fact of its presence, whether it be pursued by one or the other of these modes, you would inquire into collateral circumstances?—Certainly; but if you speak chemically, I should conceive none decisive, without the reproduction of the metal.
In your judgment, this is the best test that can be resorted to?—I don’t speak from my own judgment merely, but from acknowledged experiments.
Is there any considerable portion of the phosphate of soda in the bile?—Phosphoric acid exists in all the fluids of the human body, in the blood and other fluids; I cannot say to what degree it may exist, but it certainly does exist in these, and in the bodies of all animals.
Does it exist to such a degree in the human bile, as to produce this effect?—I have not made the experiment.
You have not made any experiment, either in one way or another?—It is necessary that I should mention that a French chemist, named Denard, has published on this subject.
Mr. Justice Abbott.—We cannot take the fact from any publication; we cannot take the fact as related by any stranger.
(By Mr. Sergt. Pell, through Mr. Justice Abbott.) I wish to know whether Dr. Neale, in the course of his practice, has opened many bodies, the stomachs of which were in a state of inflammation?—I have, a great many.
Were those appearances the same as described by Dr. Edwards?—They were; I have seen many instances where they were the same as described by Dr. Edwards.
And that in cases in which there was no reason to suppose that there was poison administered?—No reason whatever, my Lord.
Were you ever present at the opening of the body of a person who was supposed to have died by poison?—I was many years ago, when I was in Scotland, and when I was a young man; but the appearances were not such as to satisfy the medical men that there was arsenic.
Is there any other substance, except this phosphate of soda, that will throw down this yellow precipitate?—Not that I am aware of.
Sulphate of copper was not an infallible test, you say; explain that?—If sulphate of copper be contaminated with iron, or be not pure; if it be mixed with the carbonate of potash in solution, a yellow precipitate would be produced, and the two colours will produce green. I should also state that in mixing the solution, if the sulphate of copper should be added to a decoction or an infusion of onions, with a small quantity of the carbonate of potash, a green precipitate is also produced; I have tried it repeatedly.
Supposing a person to have been eating boiled onions for dinner, and in the course of the night to have been vomiting or purging to a violent degree, would any particular portion of the juice of the onion be left in the stomach?—Not in the stomach in a great proportion; but I think that enough may remain to affect the chemical test.
Notwithstanding the mixture of the onions with other food, there is sufficient to effect that in some degree?—Yes, my Lord.
(By Mr. Sergt. Lens, through Mr. Justice Abbott.) You have stated that you have seen many bodies opened, in which the stomach was in a state of inflammation, and in the state described by Dr. Edwards, and yet no actual poison present in those cases; what has been the state of the villous coat of the stomach in such cases; have you attended to that?—No, I have not.
Then you have only observed as to the inflammation and so on, but not to the villous coat of the stomach?—Exactly so, my Lord, and not to the villous coat of the stomach.
_Witness withdrew._
_Dr. Daniel_ (examined by Mr. Gifford)
You have been for many years a physician at Exeter?—Yes, Sir.
And of considerable practice there?—Yes, Sir.
Have you in your course of practice attended many persons attacked with Cholera Morbus?—I have.
What are the symptoms attendant upon that disorder?—Usually considerable vomiting, affections of the bowels, purging, pains of the stomach, great thirst, and cramps or spasms of the legs.
Where you find a patient violently attacked by those symptoms, what would be the medicines you would administer—I should undoubtedly direct full doses of opium, to remove the irritation, and to check the discharge.
If you found a patient with a frequent and fluttering pulse, should you so administer?—Most undoubtedly.
Have you heard the symptoms which Mrs. Downing is described to have had the evening before her death?—Yes, Sir.
May I ask you whether those be the symptoms of Cholera Morbus?—They certainly are the symptoms of Cholera Morbus.
(Cross-examined by Mr. Gazelee).
Are these the symptoms of Cholera Morbus exclusively—No, Sir; they are symptoms of arsenic, or any poison.
(By Mr. Justice Abbott.) Within what period of time does Cholera Morbus usually produce death?—Within my experience, I have seen it nearly fatal within fourteen hours.
Within what time have you known it fatal?—I have never known it fatal: I have known a patient in imminent danger within fourteen hours, but he recovered.
In what way does that disease usually shew itself? does it begin all at once, when the person is in good health, or gradually?—I have known it rather sudden, after an illness of an hour or two.
Have you ever known an instance of a person in good health, eating a hearty dinner, and then sitting down to tea, taken instantly with vomiting and purging in that way described?—I have seen a case very similar to that.
When you say very similar, will you be good enough to explain that a little more?—It occurred in my practice eight years ago, to see a gentleman who was seized with sickness and nausea about five or six o’clock in the afternoon; the sickness and nausea continued increasing till one or two in the morning, and I was desired to see him; and from two to four o’clock I considered him in such danger that I had no hopes.
That does not apply to my difficulty; I want to know what the state of health of that patient would be—that is, whether he would be troubled with a languor or illness, which a person does not very well understand; or whether that person would be, just before his being so seized with it, in perfect good health?—That gentleman whom I mentioned had been delicate in his health, but had had no positive complaints.
Cholera Morbus proceeds from bile?—From bile and corrupt humours.
Will they collect all at once?—They will shew themselves collectively within a very short period of time.
(By Mr. Gifford.) I believe you knew the prisoner at the bar, when attending the Hospital at Exeter?—Yes, Sir.
Had you an opportunity of seeing him frequently?—Occasionally.
Did you know his character for humanity and tenderness?—He always appeared to me to have rather an unusual share of humanity and tenderness; and such was the character which he held in the Institution.
(_Witness withdrew._)
_Mr. John Tucker_ (examined by Mr. Sergt. Pell.)
You are a surgeon living at Exeter.—I am.
And a member of the Royal College of Surgeons?—Yes, I am.
You have heard the symptoms and circumstances first described by Dr. Edwards and Mr. Street?—Yes.
From the different facts which both those gentlemen have spoken to, as to the state of the stomach of the deceased when opened, what disorder should you have supposed that person to have died of?—From some inflammation in the stomach.
What disorder of the human frame, in your judgment, would be likely to produce such appearances?—Hernia, Cholera Morbus, and idiopathic inflammations, or inflammations from unknown causes; that is, when we find those appearances of the stomach where we can assign no causes.
Now supposing a person to have had violent retchings and purgings, accompanied with a pain in the stomach, and accompanied with such appearances as these in the stomach, if the body had been opened to what causes would you attribute it?—To Cholera Morbus, if I had not detected Hernia.
(By Mr. Justice Abbott.) You mean to say that if you had found the stomach in the state described by Dr. Edwards, you would ascribe that to Cholera Morbus?—Yes, my Lord.
(By Mr. Sergt. Pell.) You have heard it stated in evidence what the plan was that Mr. Donnall pursued, when he administered medicine to Mrs. Downing that night?—I have, Sir.
Was that the right or the wrong one?—It was partly right, and partly wrong.
In what respect was it right?—In the exhibition of opium.
In what respect was it wrong?—In giving any thing that would increase the irritation that already existed.
Have you seen the prescription which Dr. Edwards wrote that night?—No, I have not; but I would wish to see it—(_here the prescription alluded to was shewn to the witness_).
Now supposing a person to have retchings and purgings for several hours, and that you found these attended with frequent and fluttering pulse, in that state of the illness what should you have prescribed?—I should have prescribed diametrically opposite to the prescription of Dr. Edwards; I should consider that prescribed by Dr. Edwards as adding weight to a porter’s back.
Mr. Justice Abbott (_to the witness_)—Don’t speak metaphorically; you are speaking just now of a gentleman of experience and respectability: I don’t wish you to conceal your opinion, but only to speak it in different language.
(By Mr. Sergt. Pell.) You should have pursued a method diametrically opposite you say; now what is the course pursued by that prescription?—There was irritation already existing in the bowels, and that prescription, I conceive, would tend to increase that irritation.
Besides tending to increase the irritation, in your judgment what other effect would be produced by it, in that state of the person?—There was considerable debility or exhaustion, and I should think _that_ would increase that debility and exhaustion.
What should you have given?—I should have supported the patient, and given opium in large doses.
Have you had an opportunity of examining many bodies after death?—A great many.
I will ask you, did it ever in the course of your practice happen to you to examine a body that had died of Cholera Morbus?—I attended a patient, but I can state the reasons why I did not do so.
Don’t state the reasons why you did not. Then you never did open any body that had died of Cholera Morbus?—Never.
You have opened bodies after death?—Yes, Sir, a great many.
In cases of mere accident, where death has been produced by violent injury arising from accident, have you ever had occasion to ascertain the state of such a body as that?—I have.
How long ago?—Eight or nine years ago.
What was the accident that occasioned the death?—A fractured skull.
How long after the death was the body opened?—It was either upon the second or the third day.
What was the state of the stomach of that person?—Highly vascular, which would lead any one unaccustomed to the complaint, to mistake it as arising from inflammation.
Now explain what you mean by the terms ‘highly vascular’?—The congestion of numerous blood-vessels.
Is there any thing as to the state of the hardness or softness of the coats of the stomach, upon which any judgment can rest?—I should suspect that as it is inflamed, the coats of the stomach would be thickened and soft; for as the inflammation takes place, the parts increase in size.
Have you examined the bodies of soldiers, or of any description of persons, who have died of that complaint?—Yes, I have.
What would be the state, with respect to inflammatory appearances in the stomach, of those subjects?—We generally find the coats of the stomach red and thick; we very often, but not always, find it where there is no reason whatever to suspect inflammation.
Have you applied yourself to the study of chemistry very much?—Not very much; but I have attended chemical lectures.
Do you happen to know whether the chemical test through the medium of nitrate of silver, or lunar caustic, is an infallible one or not, as to shewing the presence of arsenic in solution?—I conceive it not to be so.
Do you recollect who it was that first proved this test?—I don’t know who it was that proved it first; but the first time I ever saw it described was in a medical publication by Dr. Marcet, lecturer in Guy’s Hospital.
Do you happen to know whether there be any thing else, besides arsenic, which, if submitted to the lunar caustic, would produce the same result as it would with arsenic?—I do.
What else?—If there be any alkaline phosphate, it would put on the same appearance, and throw down the same yellow precipitate.
Do you know whether phosphoric acid and salts be contained, or abound in the human frame?—I have been led to believe so.
Did you hear Dr. Edwards give his evidence as to the test also of the sulphate of copper?—I did.
Have you made any experiments as to the sulphate of copper?—I have.
We have been told that the sulphate of copper, when added to any liquid or fluid containing arsenic, will throw down a green precipitate?—Yes, it will have that effect; and I have made that experiment.
Have you made any experiment in order to ascertain whether any green precipitate would be thrown down by sulphate of copper, when applied to any other solution than that of arsenic?—I have tried it with an infusion of onions and animal matter.
(By Mr. Justice Abbott.) What was the result?—A green precipitate resembling that which would have been thrown down, if arsenic had been present.
(Cross-examined by Mr. Sergt. Lens.)
Did you happen to attend when Dr. Edwards was the chemical lecturer at St. Bartholomew’s Hospital, in London?—I was a student in the Borough, at St. Thomas’s and Guy’s.
Then you did not attend yourself, when Dr. Edwards was the chemical lecturer at St. Bartholomew’s?—No, I did not.
Do we understand that you made those experiments previous, or since this circumstance happened?—Both previous to, and since this melancholy circumstance; and particularly that with the nitrate of silver; and I thought it one of the most delicate at the time I made it.
(By Mr. Justice Abbott.) That is the lunar caustic?—Yes, my Lord. When I first made the experiment, about three years ago, I found it the most delicate test of arsenic.
What do you mean by the most delicate test of arsenic?—That is, the smallest portion would be detected by it.
(By Mr. Sergt. Lens.) You found that at first?—Yes, but I have since discovered its fallacy; and it was pointed out by the same means which discovered its delicacy as a test, because it is now ascertained that something else will produce the same appearances.
You have mentioned what?—Yes, any alkaline phosphates.
(_Witness withdrew._)
_Mr. Joseph Collier Cookworthy_ (examined by Mr. Gifford.)
I believe you are a physician at Plymouth?—I am.
You have been present during the course of this trial, and have heard the examination of Dr. Edwards?—I have.
You have accordingly heard the tests that he applied to the contents of the stomach of Mrs. Downing?—I have, Sir.
Now I would ask you whether, in your judgment and experience, those tests be or be not conclusive?—I am satisfied that they are not.
When I ask you whether or not they be conclusive, I mean as to the existence of arsenic?—I am certain they are not, and that they do not unequivocally shew the existence of arsenic.
Do the same results follow from experiments from other compounds?—They do.
What, in your judgment, is the proper test by which the presence of arsenic would be discovered?—I am borne out by all philosophical chemists in this country, in stating that the only test that can bear a man out in swearing to its presence is, the reproduction of the metal; I mean the arsenic in its metallic state.
In the other tests is the colour of the precipitate the only thing by which to judge that arsenic is present?—In what tests?
The sulphate of copper for instance?—Unless it were mixed with some carbonaceous matter, and submitted to the action of heat: where that has not been done, it is the colour only that has been relied on.
Have you heard the appearances of the stomach as described by Dr. Edwards?—I have.
Do those appearances, in your judgment, indicate the presence of arsenic in the stomach?—Although I should not have drawn the conclusion that that body had therein received poison, I certainly should have allowed such a reflection to enter into my mind, and have acted upon it; yet I by no means think (and I speak from the experience of others), that the appearances stated to have existed were such as _only_ to denote the presence of arsenic.
Have you known the prisoner at the bar long?—Yes, Sir.
How long?—I only knew him at school; we were educated together at the Exeter Free Grammar-school.
At that time, what was his character for humanity?—It would be difficult to say what attaches one school-boy to another; but I can say conscientiously——
That is not the question. What was his character as a school-boy?—That is a question which is difficult to answer—not that I mean to imply that there was any thing to the contrary of a good character, for I mean to say that he stood high—he was respected by his school-fellows. We slept together in the same dormitary; and I remember now with pleasure, notwithstanding the time that has transpired, the intimacy that then existed.
(Cross-examined by Mr. Gazelee.)
You said that nothing but the reproduction of the arsenic would satisfy your mind as to the presence of it?—It would not; and I am borne out in that belief by the best authorities in the country; nothing short of that would satisfy my mind in swearing to its presence.
(By Mr. Justice Abbott.) You said that the same results would follow from other compounds?—Yes, my Lord.
What other compounds would give the same result with the lunar caustic?—Phosphoric acid.
And what with the sulphate of copper?—Understanding that the deceased had died after eating a hearty dinner of rabbits and onions, I cut a large onion into slices, and took a slice of raw meat, and put them into the same vessel, and poured rather more than a pint of warm water upon the mixture, with the view of making an infusion; I allowed it to infuse for some hours; I then took a quantity of the liquid or infusion so prepared, and I applied to it the same tests:—first, the sub-carbonate of potash in solution, I then added the sulphate of copper in solution, the two tests which I understood Dr. Edwards had used.
And what was the effect produced?—A green precipitate was instantly formed.
Was that experiment then complete?—It was, my Lord.
Any thing else?—Yes, my Lord; with another portion of the liquor I tried this other experiment;—I put in some sub-carbonate of potash in solution, I then added the sub-nitrate of silver, or lunar caustic, and a yellow precipitate was produced.
Is there any thing farther you would wish to say as to those experiments?—Yes, my Lord; I used the same tests as I understood Dr. Edwards had used.
(_Witness withdrew._)
_Mr. Samuel Luscombe_ (examined by Mr. Sergt. Pell.)
You are the Surgeon of the Exeter Hospital?—Yes, Sir.
How long have you been in that situation?—For fifteen or sixteen years.
During the course of that time, you have had an opportunity of examining many bodies?—I have.
Have you heard Dr. Edwards give his evidence to-day?—I have.
From the account which he has given, what would be your judgment as to the cause of that death, it being added that the person who died had violent retchings and purgings?—I should consider that those violent retchings and purgings had exhausted her, and had caused the death.
Putting out of your view those violent affections of the stomach, could you account for the cause of the inflammation?—I could not, unless from discovering some poison in the coats of the stomach at the time.
Have you known, in the course of your practice, many instances of Cholera Morbus?—I have known a great many.
What do you consider to be the immediate cause of Cholera Morbus?—A redundancy of bile and humours upon the stomach.
If inflammation be found upon the stomach after it is opened, what appearance would it put on?—The internal coats of the stomach would be very red in various parts, and the colour very florid; but in the course of two or three days it would become more dark.
That is, it would have a stellated appearance?—I never opened the body of a person who had died of Cholera Morbus.
The Defence of _Eugene Aram_, for the murder of _Daniel Clarke_.
As this trial has excited very extraordinary interest, and presents illustrations of several points connected with Medico-legal investigations, we shall offer to our readers a brief outline of the case, and introduce the ingenious defence which the prisoner composed and read at his trial. In the year 1745, Clarke, a shoemaker, at Knaresborough, in Yorkshire, was induced by Eugene Aram and Richard Houseman, to purchase a variety of valuable articles of plate and jewellery, in consequence of having married a woman who had many rich relations, and who, by an ostentatious display of this kind, might conclude that Clarke was rich, and in consequence of such belief make him their heir. No sooner had Clarke yielded to the persuasion of these men, and became in consequence possessed of many valuable goods, than Eugene Aram and Houseman murdered him, in February 1745, and buried his body in a field near the town, and having shared Clarke’s treasure, they decamped.—Clarke being at the time very much in debt, was supposed to have gone abroad, and every inquiry ceased until the year 1758, when a person, as he was digging for lime-stone near St. Robert’s cave, found the bones of a human body, upon which a conjecture arose that they were the remains of Daniel Clarke, who it was presumed might have been murdered; and as Houseman was seen in the company of Clarke a short time before his disappearance, he was immediately apprehended on suspicion, when having lost his self-possession he imprudently exclaimed that _those_ were not the bones of Clarke, for they were buried in a different place! and subsequently he stated the exact place where they were deposited, and which were found accordingly. Soon after Houseman was committed to the castle of York, it was discovered that Aram resided in the character of a respectable school-master at Lynn, in Norfolk, on which he was taken into custody, and conveyed to York castle, where at the following summer assizes they were tried; after Houseman had given his evidence, and all such collateral testimony had been received as could be adduced on such an occasion, Aram delivered the following ingenious defence.
“_My Lord_,
“I know not whether it is of right, or through some indulgence of your Lordship, that I am allowed the liberty at this bar, and at this time to attempt a defence, incapable and uninstructed as I am to speak. Since, while I see so many eyes upon me, so numerous and awful a concourse, fixed with attention, and filled with, I know not what expectations, I labour not with guilt, my Lord, but with perplexity. For having never seen a court but this, being wholly unacquainted with law, the customs of the bar, and all judicial proceedings, I fear I shall be so little capable of speaking with propriety in this place, that it exceeds my hope if I shall be able to speak at all.
“I have heard, my Lord, the indictment read; wherein I find myself charged with the highest crime, with an enormity I am altogether incapable of, a fact, on the commission of which there goes far more insensibility of heart, more profligacy of morals, than ever fell to my lot. And nothing possibly could have admitted a presumption of this nature, but a depravity not inferior to that imputed to me. However, as I stand indicted at your Lordship’s bar, and have heard what is called evidence adduced in support of such a charge, I very humbly solicit your Lordship’s patience, and beg the hearing of this respectable audience, while I, single and unskilful, destitute of friends, and unassisted by counsel, say something perhaps like argument in my defence. I shall consume but little of your Lordship’s time, what I have to say will be short, and this brevity probably will be the best part of it; however, it is offered with all possible regard, and the greatest submission to your Lordship’s consideration, and that of this honourable court. First, my Lord, the whole tenor of my conduct in life contradicts every particular of this indictment. Yet had I never said this, did not my present circumstances extort it from me, and seem to make it necessary. Permit me here, my Lord, to call upon malignity itself, so long and so cruelly busied in this prosecution, to charge upon me any immorality, of which prejudice was not the author. No, my Lord, I concerted no schemes of fraud; projected no violence; injured no man’s person or property; my days were honestly laborious; my nights intensely studious. And I humbly conceive my notice of this, especially at this time, will not be thought impertinent or unseasonable, but at least deserving some attention, because, my Lord, that any person, after a temperate use of life, a sense of thinking and acting regularly, and without one single deviation from sobriety, should plunge into the very depth of profligacy, precipitately and at once, is altogether improbable and unprecedented, and absolutely inconsistent with the course of things. Mankind is never corrupted at once, villany is always progressive, and declines from right, step after step, till every regard of probity is lost, and every sense of moral obligation totally perishes.
“Again, my Lord, a suspicion of this kind, which nothing but malevolence could entertain, and ignorance propagate, is violently opposed by my very situation at that time with respect to health: for but a little space before I had been confined to my bed, and suffered under a very long and severe disorder, and was not able for half a year together so much as to walk. The distemper left me indeed, yet slowly and in part, but so macerated, so enfeebled that I was reduced to crutches; and so far from being well about the time I am charged with this fact, that I never to this day perfectly recovered. Could then a person in this condition take any thing into his head so unlikely, so extravagant? I, past the vigour of my age, feeble and valetudinary, with no inducement to engage, no ability to accomplish, no weapon wherewith to perpetrate such a fact, without interest, without power, without motive, without means.
“Besides, it must needs occur to every one, that an action of this atrocious nature is never heard of, but, when its springs are laid open, it appears that it was to support some indolence, or supply some luxury; to satisfy some avarice, or oblige some malice; to prevent some real, or some imaginary want; yet I lay not under the influence of any one of these. Surely, my Lord, I may consistent with both truth and modesty affirm thus much; and none who have any veracity and knew me, will ever question this. In the second place, the disappearance of Clarke is suggested as an argument of his being dead; but the uncertainty of such an inference from that, and the fallibility of all conclusions of such a sort, from such a circumstance, are too obvious and too notorious to require instances; yet superseding many, permit me to procure a very recent one, and that afforded by this castle. In June 1757, William Thompson, for all the vigilance of this place in open daylight and double ironed, made his escape; and notwithstanding an immediate enquiry set on foot, the strictest search and all advertisement, was never heard of since. If then Thompson got off unseen through all these difficulties, how very easy was it for Clarke, when none of them opposed him? But what would be thought of a prosecution commenced against any one seen last with Thompson. Permit me next, my Lord, to observe a little upon the bones which have been discovered. It is said, which perhaps is saying very far, that these are the skeleton of a man. It is possible indeed it may: but is there any certain known criterion, which incontestably distinguishes the sex in human bones? Let it be considered, my Lord, whether the ascertaining of this point, ought not to precede any attempt to identify them. The place of their depositum too claims much more attention than is commonly bestowed upon it; for, of all places in the world, none could have mentioned any one, wherein there was greater certainty of finding human bones than a hermitage, except he should point out a church-yard; hermitages, in times past, being not only places of religious retirement, but of burial too. And it has scarce or never been heard of, but that every cell now known contains or contained the relicts of humanity, some mutilated and some entire. I do not inform, but give me leave to remind your Lordship, that here sat solitary sanctity, and here the hermit or the anchoress, hoped that repose for their bones, when dead, they here enjoyed when living. All the while, my Lord, I am sensible this is known to your Lordship, and many in this court, better than to me. But it seems necessary to my case that others, who have not at all perhaps adverted to things of this nature, and may have concern in my trial, should be made acquainted with it. Suffer me then, my Lord, to produce a few of many evidences, that these cells were used as repositories of the dead, and to enumerate a few in which human bones have been found as it happened in this question; lest to some, that accident might seem extraordinary, and consequently occasion prejudice.
1st. The bones, as was supposed, of the Saxon St. Dubritius were discovered buried in his cell at Guy’s Cliff near Warwick, as appears from the authority of Sir. W. Dugdale.
2d. The bones, thought to be those of the anchoress Rosia, were but lately discovered in a cell at Royston, entire, fair, and undecayed, though they must have lain interred for several centuries, as is proved by Dr. Stukely.
3d. But my own country, nay almost this neighbourhood, supplies another instance, for in Jan. 1747 were found by Mr. Stovin, accompanied by a rev. gentleman, the bones, in part, of some recluse, in the cell at Lindholm near Hatfield. They were believed to be those of William of Lindholm, a hermit, who had long made this cave his habitation.
4th. In Feb. 1744 part of Hoburn Abbey being pulled down, a large portion of a corpse appeared, even with the flesh on, which bore cutting with a knife; though it is certain this had lain above 200 years, and how much longer is doubtful, for this Abbey was founded in 1145, and dissolved in 1538 or 9.
“What would have been said, what believed, if this had been an accident to the bones in question? Farther, my Lord, it is not yet out of living memory, that a little distance from Knaresborough in a field, part of the manor of the worthy and patriot baronet, who does that borough the honor to represent it in Parliament, were found in digging for gravel, not one human skeleton only, but five or six, deposited side by side, with each an urn placed at its head, as your Lordship knows was usual in ancient interments. About the same time, in another field, almost close to this borough, was discovered also, in searching for gravel, another human skeleton; but the piety of the same worthy gentleman ordered both pits to be filled up again, commendably, unwilling to disturb the dead. Is the invention of these bones forgotten, then, or industriously concealed, that the discovery of those in question may appear the more singular and extraordinary? whereas, in fact, there is nothing extraordinary in it. My Lord, almost every place conceals such remains. In fields, in hills, in highway sides, in commons, lie frequent and unsuspected bones. And our present allotments for rest for the departed is but of some centuries.
“Another particular seems not to claim a little of your Lordship’s notice, and that of the gentlemen of the jury, which is that perhaps no example occurs of more than one skeleton being found in one cell; and in the cell in question was found but one, agreeable in this to the peculiarity of every other known cell in Britain. Not the invention of one skeleton, but of two, would have appeared suspicious and uncommon. But it seems another skeleton has been discovered by some labourer, which was full as confidently asserted to be Clarke’s as this. My Lord, must some of the living, if it promotes some interest, be made answerable for all the bones which earth has concealed and chance exposed? and might not a place where bones lay, be mentioned by a person by chance, as well as found by a labourer by chance? or is it more criminal accidentally to name where bones lie, than accidentally to find where they lie? Here too is a human skull produced, which is fractured; but was this the cause, or was it the consequence of death? was it owing to violence, or was it the effect of natural decay? if it was violence, was that violence before or after death? My Lord, in May 1732 the remains of William Lord Archbishop of this province, were taken up by permission, in this cathedral, and the bones of the skull were broken, yet certainly he died by no violence offered to him alive, that could occasion that fracture there. Let it be considered, my Lord, that upon the dissolution of religious houses, and the commencement of the reformation, the ravages of those times affected both the living and the dead. In search after imaginary treasures, coffins were broken up, graves and vaults dug open, monuments ransacked, and shrines demolished; and it ceased about the beginning of the reign of Queen Elizabeth. I entreat your Lordship, suffer not the violence, the depredations, and the iniquities of those times to be imputed to this. Moreover, what gentleman here is ignorant that Knaresborough had a castle, which though now a ruin, was once considerable both for its strength and garrison? All know it was vigorously besieged by the arms of Parliament, at which siege in sallies, conflicts, flights, pursuits, many fell in the places round it, and where they fell were buried, for every place, my Lord, is burial earth in war; and many questionless of these, rest yet unknown, whose bones futurity shall discover. I hope, with all imaginable submission, that what has been said will not be thought impertinent to this indictment; and that it will be farther from the wisdom, the learning, and the integrity of this place, to impute to the living, what fury in its zeal may have done; what nature may have taken off and piety interred; or what war alone may have destroyed, alone deposited. As to the circumstances that have been raked together I have nothing to observe, but that all circumstances whatever are precarious, and have been but too frequently found lamentably fallible; even the strongest have failed. They may rise to the utmost degree of probability, yet they are but probability still. Why need I name to your Lordship the two Harrisons recorded by Dr. Howel, who both suffered upon circumstances, because of the sudden disappearance of their lodger, who was in credit, had contracted debts, borrowed money, and went off unseen, and returned a great many years after their execution? Why name the intricate affair of Jaques du Moulin under King Charles 2d, related by a gentleman who was counsel for the crown? and why the unhappy Coleman who suffered innocent, though convicted upon positive evidence, and whose children perished for want, because the world uncharitably believed the father guilty? Why mention the perjury of Smith, incautiously admitted king’s evidence, who to screen himself equally accused Faircloth and Loveday of the murder of Dun, the first of whom in 1749 was executed at Winchester, and Loveday was about to suffer at Reading, had not Smith been proved perjured to the satisfaction of the court, by the Surgeon of Gosport hospital. Now, my Lord, having endeavoured to shew that the whole of this process is altogether repugnant to every part of my life, that it is inconsistent with my condition of health about that time, that no rational inference can be drawn, that a person is dead who suddenly disappears, that hermitages were the constant repositories of the bones of the recluse, that the revolutions in religion or the fortune of war, has mangled or buried the dead; the conclusion remains perhaps no less reasonably than impatiently wished for. I at last, after a year’s confinement equal to either fortune, put myself upon the candour, the justice, and the humanity of your Lordship, and upon yours, my countrymen, gentlemen of the jury.”
FINIS.
---------------------------------------------------------
LONDON: Printed by W. Phillips, George Yard, Lombard St.
PUBLICATIONS
BY WILLIAM PHILLIPS,
_George Yard, Lombard Street, London_.
PHARMACOLOGIA; comprehending the Art of Prescribing upon fixed and scientific principles; together with the History of Medicinal Substances. By J. A. Paris, M.D. F.R.S. F.L.S. Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians of London; Honorary Member of the Board of Agriculture; Fellow of the Philosophical Society of Cambridge; and of the Royal Medical Society of Edinburgh; and late Senior Physician to the Westminster Hospital, &c. &c. &c. Fifth edit. enlarged, Price 1l. 5s. 2 vols. 8vo.
RESEARCHES into the LAWS and PHENOMENA of PESTILENCE; including a Medical Sketch of the Plague of London in 1665, and Remarks on Quarantine, with an Appendix; containing Extracts and Observations relative to the Plagues of Malta, Morocco, Noya, and Corfu; being the subject of the Anniversary Oration delivered before the Medical Society of London, in the Spring of 1820, and published at their request.—By T. Hancock, M.D. Licentiate of the Royal College of Physicians, and Physician to the City and Finsbury Dispensaries. 8s. boards.
The PARENT’S MEDICAL and SURGICAL ASSISTANT; intended for the Use of the Heads of Families, Parochial Clergymen, and others, affording familiar and popular Directions for the Management of the SUDDEN ILLNESSES and various ACCIDENTS that require a prompt and judicious Treatment, and will not admit of the delay necessary for procuring regular Advice.—By Thomas Ayre Bromhead, M.B. Christ’s College, Cambridge. Price 4s. in boards.
A PRACTICAL TREATISE on the Nature, Symptoms, and Treatment of GUTTA SERENA. Illustrated by Cases.—By John Stevenson, Esq. _Surgeon-Oculist and Aurist to His Royal Highness the Duke of York, their Royal Highnesses the late Princess Charlotte, and the Prince Leopold of Saxe Cobourg; Member of the Royal College of Surgeons; Lecturer on the Anatomy, Diseases, and Operations of the Eye and Ear; and Surgeon to the Institution for the Cure of Cataract, under the Patronage of His Majesty_. Price 7s. 6d. boards.
A TREATISE on the STRUCTURE, ECONOMY, and DISEASES of the LIVER, with an Enquiry into the Component Parts of Bile and Biliary Calculi; to which are added, an account of the Hepatitis of India, with Observations on the prevalent use of Mercury in the Diseases of this Country. By William Saunders, M.D. &c. &c. Physician Extraordinary to the Prince of Wales. Fourth edition. Price 9s. boards.
A TREATISE on the CHEMICAL HISTORY and Medical Powers of some of the most celebrated MINERAL WATERS, with Practical Remarks on the Aqueous Regimen; to which is added, Observations on the use of Cold and Warm Bathing. By W. Saunders, M.D. &c. &c. Price 9s. 6d. boards.
MEDICAL DIRECTIONS for the Use of Navigators and Settlers in Hot Climates. By Thomas M. Winterbottom, M.D. Physician to the Colony at Sierra Leone. Price 2s. 6d. boards.
A POPULAR TREATISE on the Remedies to be employed in Cases of POISONING and APPARENT DEATH; including the means of detecting Poisons, of distinguishing real from apparent Death, and of ascertaining the Adulteration of Wines. By M. P. Orfila, Physician to the King, &c. &c. Translated by William Price, M.D. under the inspection of the Author. Price 6s. boards.
MEDICAL BOTANY; containing Systematic and General Descriptions, with Plates of all the Medicinal Plants, indigenous and exotic, comprehended in the catalogues of the Materia Medica of the Royal Colleges of Physicians of London and Edinburgh, accompanied with a circumstantial account of their medicinal effects, and of the diseases in which they have been most successfully employed.—By William Woodville, M.D. late Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians of London. In 4 vols. 4to. containing 274 Plates. Second edition. Price £4 9s. in bds. plain, and £8 11s. 6d. correctly coloured from Nature.
BRITISH CONFERVÆ; or Coloured Figures and Descriptions of the BRITISH PLANTS referred by Botanists to the Genus Conferva.—By Lewis Weston Dillwyn, E.R.S. & F.L.S. 4to. Price £5 11s.
An ESSAY on CHEMICAL ANALYSIS; chiefly translated from the Fourth Volume of the last Edition of the ‘Traité de Chimie Elémentaire, par M. Thenard,’ with additions, comprehending all the latest Discoveries and Improvements in this branch of the Science; with Plates. By John George Children, F.R.S. L.&E. F.A.S. &c. &c. In one vol. 8vo. Price 16s. boards.
A DICTIONARY of CHEMISTRY and MINERALOGY, with an account of the Processes employed in many of the most important CHEMICAL MANUFACTURES; together with a Description of Chemical Apparatus, and various Tables of Weights and Measures, Chemical Instruments, &c. &c.—To which is added an Appendix, illustrated with sixteen Engravings. By A. & C. R. Aikin. Price £4 10s. 2 vols. 4to. boards.
[Upside-down asterism] The Appendix may be had separate, 18s. boards.
A MAP of SCRIPTURAL and CLASSICAL GEOGRAPHY; accompanied by an Historical and Descriptive Volume, in Demy Octavo: wherein the ORIGIN of NATIONS is particularly examined and discussed; with reference to the numerous authorities. The whole intended to facilitate a Knowledge of the Progressive Colonization of the Earth, and to establish more clearly, the Foundation of Universal and Chorographical History.—Respectfully dedicated, by permission, to the Right Hon. Lord Grenville, Chancellor of the University of Oxford. By Thomas Heming, of Magdalen Hall. Price One Guinea.
REMARKS on the EDITIO ALTERA of the PHARMACOPŒIA LONDINENSIS, and on Dr. Powell’s Translation and Annotations. By Richard Phillips, F.R.S. F.L.S. &c. Price 3s. 6d. bds.
The BOTANIST’S GUIDE through ENGLAND and WALES.—By Dawson Turner, F.R.S. &c. &c. &c. and Lewis Weston Dillwyn, R.F.S. &c. &c. &c. 2 vols. bds. 14s.
Eight FAMILIAR LECTURES on ASTRONOMY, intended as an Introduction to the Science, for the Use of Young Persons and others not conversant with the Mathematics. Accompanied by Plates, numerous Diagrams, and a copious Index. By William Phillips, M.G.S. &c. Second edition. 7s. boards.
TRANSACTIONS of the GEOLOGICAL SOCIETY, Vol. II. III. IV. and V. illustrated by Plates and Maps. Many of them coloured. 4to. May be had separately. Price £3 16s. £3 13s 6d. £4 1s. and £7. Vol. I may also be had, price £2 12s 6d.
TRANSACTIONS of the ROYAL GEOLOGICAL SOCIETY of CORNWALL; instituted February 11th, 1814, with Plates; in demy 8vo. Vol. I, price 13s. boards; vol. II, 15s. boards.
The CLIMATE of LONDON, deduced from METEOROLOGICAL OBSERVATIONS, made at different Places in the Neighbourhood of the METROPOLIS.—By Luke Howard. In 2 vols. 8vo. boards, 25s.
The THIRD EDITION, with additions, of OUTLINES of MINERALOGY and GEOLOGY, intended for the use of those who may desire to become acquainted with the Elements of those Sciences; especially of Young Persons. Illustrated with four Plates.—By William Phillips, Member of the Geological Society, &c. Price 6s. boards.
TRAITÉ COMPLET de la CHAUX CARBONATÉE et de L’ARRAGONITE, &c. &c. Par M. le Comte de Bournon.—2 vols. 4to. and a Volume of Plates. Price £1 11s. 6d. boards.
On the MAMMOTH, or FOSSIL ELEPHANT, found in the Ice at the Mouth of the River Lena in Siberia; with a Lithographic Plate of the Skeleton. 4to. Price 2s. 6d. stitched.
OUTLINES of the GEOLOGY of ENGLAND and WALES, with an Introductory Compendium; containing the Elementary Principles of that Science, and comparative Views of the Structure of Foreign Countries, illustrated by coloured Maps, Sections, &c.—By the Rev. W. D. Conybeare, F.R.S. M.G.S. &c. and W. Phillips, F.L.S. M.G.S. &c., Price 16s. boards.
The FOSSILS of the SOUTH DOWNS; or, Observations of the Geology of Sussex.—By Gideon Mantell, F.L.S. &c. &c. &c. with Plates, price £3 3s.
A NATURAL HISTORY of the CRINOIDEA or LILY-SHAPED ANIMALS; with Observations on the Genera Asteria, Curyale, Cormatula, and Marsupites, illustrated with Fifty Coloured Plates.—By J. S. Miller, A.L.S. 4to. £2 12s 6d.
A TREATISE on a SECTION of the STRATA from NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE to the Mountain of CROSS FELL, in Cumberland, with remarks on Mineral Veins in general. Also Tables of the Strata in Yorkshire, Derbyshire, &c. To which is added a Treatise on the Discovery, the Opening, and the Working of Lead Mines, with the Dressing and Smelting of Lead Ores. Second Edition, greatly enlarged.—By Westgarth Forster. 18s. large Paper £1 6s.
GEOLOGY and MINING REPORT on the LEINSTER COAL DISTRICT.—By Richard Griffith, Jun. Esq. Inspector General of His Majesty’s Royal Mines in Ireland, Mining Engineer to the Dublin Society, F.R.S. Ed. &c. &c. &c. 8vo. 18s.
GEOLOGY and MINING SURVEY of the CONNAUGHT COAL DISTRICT in Ireland.—By Richard Griffith, Jun. Esq. Inspector General of His Majesty’s Royal Mines in Ireland, Mining Engineer to the Dublin Society, F.R.S. Ed. &c. &c. &c. 8vo. 12s.
An INTRODUCTION to the STUDY of FOSSIL ORGANIC REMAINS, especially of those found in the British Strata, intended to aid the Student in his Enquiries respecting the nature of Fossils, and their connection with the formation of the Earth.—By James Parkinson, Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons, M.G.S. &c. &c. &c. Price 12s. bds.
The GENERA of RECENT FOSSIL SHELLS, for the use of Students in Concholy and Geology, with original Plates.—By James Sowerby, F.L.S. &c. conducted by George Brettingham Sowerby, F.L.S, &c. in monthly numbers, 4s. plain, or 6s. coloured.
--------------
_Shortly will be published_,
The second edition, continued and corrected, of
An INTRODUCTION to MEDICAL LITERATURE, including a SYSTEM of PRACTICAL NOSOLOGY, intended as a Guide to Students, and an Assistant to Practitioners; together with detached Essays on the Study of Physic, on Classification, on Chemical Affinities, on Animal Chemistry, on the Blood, on the Medical effects of Climates, on the Circulation, and on Palpitation. By Thomas Young, M.D. F.R. & L.S. Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians, and Physician to St. George’s Hospital.
In one volume, small 8vo.
A FAMILIAR INTRODUCTION to CRYSTALLOGRAPHY, including an Explanation of the Principle and Use of the Common and Reflective GONIOMETERS. Followed by an Appendix, containing the methods of applying mathematical calculation to the determination of Crystalline forms; and Rules for drawing the figures of Crystals; with a list of the primary forms of Minerals, and some observations on mineralogical arrangement. Illustrated by nearly 400 wood cuts, or diagrams.—By Henry James Brooke, F.R S. F.L.S. &c.
The system of notation used by Mr. BROOKE, to designate the secondary planes of Crystals, will be adopted in the Third Edition of the following work.
In one volume, small 8vo.
An ELEMENTARY INTRODUCTION to the knowledge of Mineralogy, illustrated by about 380 wood cuts of the Crystalline forms of Minerals, to which are annexed the measurements of their angles, chiefly by means of the reflective goniometer.
Footnotes
Footnote 1:
In cases of attempted suicide we shall neither be surprised nor deceived by any extravagant statements.
Footnote 2:
Dict. des Sciences Med. Art. Folie.
Footnote 3:
See vol. 2. page 155 of the present work, where this subject is very fully considered.
Footnote 4:
See note at page 269 of vol. 2.
Footnote 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.
Footnote 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.
Footnote 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.
Footnote 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.
Footnote 9:
See our observations upon this phenomenon at page 13 of the present volume.
Footnote 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.
Footnote 11:
Elements of Juridical or Forensic Medicine. Edit. 2, p. 101.
Footnote 12:
See experiments by _Dr. Gibbs_, on Adipocire, in the Philosophical Transactions for 1794, part ii, and for 1795.
Footnote 13:
See “Genuine Memoirs of the life of _Sir John Dinely Goodere, Bt._” _&c._ by _Samuel Foote_. Also State Trials.
Footnote 14:
“Genuine trial of _Margery Beddingfield_ and _Richard Ringe_, for petty treason and murder. London 1762.”
Footnote 15:
See State Trials, vol. ii, p. 756; see also _Burnett’s_ Hist. of his own times, vol. 1, p. 445.
Footnote 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.
Footnote 17:
Vol. x, _Appendix_, p. 29.
Footnote 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.
Footnote 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.
Footnote 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.
Footnote 21:
Teichmeyer Inst. Med. Leg. p. 176.
Footnote 22:
De Morb. Vulg. lib. v, sect. vii, 27.
Footnote 23:
Recherches Anatomico-Pathologiques sur l’Encephale et Ses Dependances, par _F. Lallemand_. Paris 1820-21.
Footnote 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.
Footnote 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.
Footnote 26:
_Baillie’s_ Morbid Anatomy.
Footnote 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.
Footnote 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.
Footnote 29:
_Surgical Observat._
Footnote 30:
_Cobbett’s_ State Trials, vol. ii, p. 503.
Footnote 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.
Footnote 32:
Morbid Anatomy, p. 37.—Med. Observ. vol. iv, p. 380—Memoirs of Med. Soc. vol. i, p. 228.
Footnote 33:
Medico-Chirurg. Trans, vol. i; and the present work vol. ii, p. 30.
Footnote 34:
Feb. 1822, vol. xvii.
Footnote 35:
Vol. iii, p. 577.
Footnote 36:
See also “Cases of Ruptured Spleen and Liver from external injury,” by _Dr. Chisholm_. Edinb. Med. and Surg. Journ. for July, 1811.
Footnote 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.
Footnote 38:
_Lieutaud._ T. I, p. 319 and 333.
Footnote 39:
Principles of Midwifery, edit. 4, page 451.
Footnote 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_.”
Footnote 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.
Footnote 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.
Footnote 43:
Wilson on the Bones and Joints, p. 110.
Footnote 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.
Footnote 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.
Footnote 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.
Footnote 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.
Footnote 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.
Footnote 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._
Footnote 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.
Footnote 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.
Footnote 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.
Footnote 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.
Footnote 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.
Footnote 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.”
Footnote 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_.”
Footnote 57:
On this subject see “Physiological Illustrations of Utero-gestation”, vol. i, p. 239.
Footnote 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_.”
Footnote 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._
Footnote 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.
Footnote 61:
See our history of the Juniperus Sabina, vol. ii, p. 578.
Footnote 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.
Footnote 63:
Amor. l. 2, eleg. 14.
Footnote 64:
Tertull. de Anima, apud oper. p. 323, ed _Rigalt_.
Footnote 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.”
Footnote 66:
A dissertation on Infanticide, in its relations to Physiology and Jurisprudence, by _W. Hutchinson_, M.D. Edit. 2, London 1821.
Footnote 67:
See our chapter on the methods of treating Asphyxia, vol. ii, p. 75.
Footnote 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.
Footnote 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._
Footnote 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.
Footnote 71:
See _Dr. Merriman_ on difficult parturition, p. 51.
Footnote 72:
_Baglivi._ Op. Omnia, p. 299.
Footnote 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_.
Footnote 74:
De. Offic. Med. de Vulner. renunciat.
Footnote 75:
Op. Patholog. Pract. t.i.
Footnote 76:
De Fallaci Pulmon, Infant. Experiment.
Footnote 77:
On the uncertainty of the signs of murder in the case of bastard children.
Footnote 78:
Memoires de l’Academie Royale des Sciences, Année, 1769.
Footnote 79:
Anatom. Reform. p. 71.
Footnote 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.
Footnote 81:
Stockholm, Acad. Hand. t. xx, p. 40.
Footnote 82:
Dissert. de Docimas. Pulm. Ploucq.
Footnote 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.
Footnote 84:
Principles of forensic medicine, p. 336.
Footnote 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.
Footnote 86:
Principles of forensic medicine, p. 311.
Footnote 87:
See _vol._ i, _p._ 219, _tit. Supposititious Children_.
Footnote 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.
Footnote 89:
_Alice de Walborough_, æt. 13, was burnt for murdering her mistress.
Footnote 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.
Footnote 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.
Footnote 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.
Footnote 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.
Footnote 94:
See preceding _Note_.
Footnote 95:
Vide ante, vol. i, tit. Ideots and Lunatics.
Footnote 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.
Footnote 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.
Footnote 98:
For the case of _Bellingham_ executed for the murder of _Mr. Percival_, see Appendix to _Collinson_ on Lunacy.
Footnote 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.
Footnote 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.
Footnote 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.
Footnote 102:
_Sir Mathew Hale_ says this case did occur at Aylesbury.
Footnote 103:
For the Scotch law on this subject see _Burnett_’s Crim. Law, 595.
Footnote 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._
Footnote 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.
Footnote 106:
In this opinion we are further confirmed by the debate in the House of Commons, March 1823, on the case of Colonel _Allen_.
Footnote 107:
We have heard of Martinets of the old school who have reprimanded their surgeons for such interference; we hope the instances are rare.
Footnote 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.
Footnote 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.
Footnote 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.
Footnote 111:
Skinner 568. 4 Inst. 251. 2 Brownl. 255, 256, &c. 1 Ld. Raym. 454.
Footnote 112:
2 Brownl. 256, 260.
Footnote 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.
Footnote 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.
Footnote 115:
2 Brownl. 261, 262.
Footnote 116:
14 & 15 H. 8. cap. 5.
Footnote 117:
11 Co. 59. a. Co. Lit. 36. a. 2 Inst. 81. Hard. 305.
Footnote 118:
Rastal. Physician 1.
Footnote 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.
Footnote 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.
Footnote 121:
2 Brownl. 264.
Footnote 122:
2 Brownl. 264.
Footnote 123:
2 Brownl. 264.
Footnote 124:
2 Brownl. 264.
Footnote 125:
2 Brownl. 258.
Footnote 126:
2 Brownl. 264.
Footnote 127:
2 Brownl. 263.
Footnote 128:
2 Brownl. 258.
Footnote 129:
Gobd. 418. 2 Roll. Rep. 356. Wing. Max. 239.
Footnote 130:
2 Co. 55. a. 3 Co. 59. b. Gobd. 324. Co. Lit. 381. 5 Co. 99. a.
Footnote 131:
Wing. Max. 239.
Footnote 132:
Wing. Max. 239.
Footnote 133:
2 Brownl. 264. Cart. 115.
Footnote 134:
2 Brownl. 264.
Footnote 135:
Co. Lit. 141. a. Hob. 87. Bridg. 11. 2 Brownl. 266. Dyer 220. pl. 14.
Footnote 136:
Co. Lit. 141. a.
Footnote 137:
7 Co. 14. a. Calvin’s case. Hob. 87. 2 Brownl. 198, 265. Hard. 140.
Footnote 138:
8 E. 3. 30. b.
Footnote 139:
2 Inst. 401, 402.
Footnote 140:
2 Brownl. 265. 2 Inst. 402. F. N. B. 209. f.
Footnote 141:
2 Brownl. 265. Vet. N. B. 138. b. 2 Inst. 442.
Footnote 142:
2 Inst. 580, 581, 582, &c. Skinner 464.
Footnote 143:
2 Inst. 588. 2 Brownl. 198, 265.
Footnote 144:
2 Brownl. 265. 2 Inst. 587.
Footnote 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.
Footnote 146:
1 And. 45. 3 Leon. 58. 4 Leon, 40, 41.
Footnote 147:
4 Co. 43 a.
Footnote 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.
Footnote 149:
Postea 154. b. Raymond 330. Hawkes’s Max. 21. Styles 391.
Footnote 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.
Footnote 151:
Wing. Max. 67. Lit. Rep. 66.
Footnote 152:
Lit. Rep. 66. Wing. Max. 67. Styles 78.
Footnote 153:
Cart. 120, 121.
Footnote 154:
Postea 121. a.
Footnote 155:
2 Inst. 379, 380. W. 2. c. 11. Plowd. 17. b. Rast. Account 2.
Footnote 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.
Footnote 157:
2 Brownl. 266. 15 R. 2. c. 2. 8 H. 6. c. 9. 6 Mod. 125.
Footnote 158:
Antes 60. b. 41. a. 8 Co. 41. 11 Co. 43. b. F. N. B. 73. d.
Footnote 159:
Antes fo. 38. b. 41. a. 60. b. F. N. B. 73. d. 10 Co. 103. a. Rep. Q. A. 146.
Footnote 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.
Footnote 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.
Footnote 162:
Cro. Jac. 133. Doct. pl. 70, 325. Lit. Rep. 172. Moor 464. 1 Sid. 336. Dyer 39. pl. 62. Fitzgib. 250.
Footnote 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.
Footnote 164:
7 Co. 25. a. Dyer 15. pl. 78. Cr. Car. 209. Co. Lit. 303. b. 6 Mod. 119.
Footnote 165:
Hob. 199. Hard. 38.
Footnote 166:
Styles 354.
Footnote 167:
3 Co. 52. b.
Footnote 168:
3 Co. 52. b. Cro. El. 62. 1 Leon. 242.
Footnote 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.
Footnote 170:
2 Brownl. 266. Hardr. 482.
Footnote 171:
Antea 119. b.
Footnote 172:
13 El. cap. 7. 1 Jac. cap. 15.
Footnote 173:
4 Inst. 277 & 278.
Footnote 174:
15 R. 2. c. 2. 8 H. 6. c. 9.
Footnote 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.
Footnote 176:
_V._ 1 _Salk._ 193 S. C.
Footnote 177:
_N. B._ Mr. _Nourse_ was in fact a very good Scholar.
Footnote 178:
2 _Wils._ 359.
Footnote 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.
Footnote 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.
Footnote 181:
_27. Octobris. Anno 1634._
Footnote 182:
See the case of _Carrascola_, the Neapolitan Admiral.
Footnote 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