Part 5

“In these cases there is no difference between a licensed physician or surgeon, and a person acting as physician or surgeon without license. In either case, if a party having a competent degree of skill and knowledge, makes an accidental mistake in the treatment of a patient, through which mistake death ensues, he is not thereby guilty of manslaughter.”

“But if where proper medical assistance can be had, a person totally ignorant of the science of medicine—takes on himself a violent and dangerous remedy to one labouring under disease, and death ensues in consequence of that dangerous remedy having been so administered, then he is guilty of manslaughter; or a man may be guilty of manslaughter if, notwithstanding _he has a competent knowledge of medicine_, _he be guilty of gross rashness in the application of a remedy or gross negligence in attending his patient afterwards_. Also, where a man doing a lawful act, which is at the same time dangerous, he neglects to use _proper caution_, death ensues, if it takes place within a _twelve month_ and a day; but if his life exceeds that period, the law will presume that his death proceeded from some other cause than the wound.”—1 Hawk, P. C. 23 s. 90.

“If a man be sick of a disease which in all likelihoods would terminate his life, and another give him a _wound or hurt which hastens_ his _death_, this is such a killing as would constitute murder.”—See 1 Lord Hale, 428.—_Vide_ Sewell, on the Law of Coroners.

{39} A term given to a fluid attending suppuration, one of the consequences of inflammatory action.

{46} In the course of the enquiry, the coroner remarked he did not know who might have got up that inquest, and that had he been apprised of it, he should have _appointed some person unacquainted with the deceased and the circumstances_, to have made the post mortem examination. Mr. Webber observed, “Sir, you cannot be in doubt upon that score, as you must admit, on the 15th of May, I enclosed you a note from Mr. Pilgrim, your brother coroner, to whom, supposing him to have been the coroner for the district, I mentioned all the circumstances connected with the deceased, and he conceived it was a proper case, in justice to all parties, that an inquiry should take place; and sir, I apprehend I have done your friend, on your left, no injustice, by getting his own friend Mr. Coleby to examine the body, for you cannot suppose, that the very cordial manner in which you saw Mr. Coleby shake Dr. Bell by the hand, he could have had any unfair or ill feeling towards him.”

{49} This was a new instrument, admirably adapted for the detection of stone, lately invented by Mr. Webber, and manufactured by Ferguson, of Smithfield.

{52} Nux. _Nux Vomica Strichnia_. This is a well-known remedy as a theraputic agent in cases of paralysis. If this, or other medicines used by Dr. Bell, aggravated the misery of the sufferer, possibly that gentleman, who it appears was educated in the Allopathic School, might have used them in larger doses than is prescribed by a real disciple of the German Hahnemann. Be this as it may, it furnishes a precious example to those who follow such vague practise in grave disease, where the life of the afflicted verges on eternity. Yet, surely, none but vain and ignorant people, assumed or real, can believe in the shadow of a shade, though introduced with all the seductive novelty which specious artifice and subtle ingenuity can devise, as promulgated in the doctrines of a visionary enthusiast and his followers.

{55} Metastasis or translation of disease frequently takes place at a remote distance from the original seat of mischief, involving tissues belonging to vital organs, and the afflicted sink through inanition or loss of vital power.

{56} A verdict is altogether a matter of substance. All the facts and circumstances must be stated with certainty and precision, without any repugnancy or inconsistency; and where it contains a charge, the charge must be direct and positive.—Vide Sewell on the Law of Coroners.

{57a} So stated in the Medical Directory.

{57b} This forms the nucleus for other observations, at a convenient opportunity.

{58} The jury are to inquire into and judge of all matters of fact connected with the death of a party, and in certain cases of flight, forfeiture, deodands, &c. and for that purpose to receive such evidence as may appear necessary. But they may give a verdict without testimony, where they themselves have cognizance of the fact; but if they give a verdict on their own knowledge, they ought to inform the court so. They may however be sworn as witnesses, and the fair way is to tell the court before they are sworn, that they have evidence to give.

{59a} According to Lyttleton, in which opinion Lord Coke concurs, if the jury will take upon themselves the knowledge of the law, the coroner is bound to accept the presentment which the jury make.

{59b} But it appears (and very judiciously so) that the immediate and direct right of deciding upon questions of law is entrusted to the court, while in the jury, it is at most only incidental; that in the exercise of this incidental right, the latter are not only placed under the superintendence of the former, but in some degree controllable by them; and therefore, that in all points of law during an investigation, the jury ought to show the most respectful deference to the advice and recommendation of the court.—_Vide_ Sewell on the law of coroners.

{60} Each Art and Science has its technicalities, which must be used to designate the component parts severally connected with a whole. Therefore, if hearers, particularly judges, do not understand evidence minutely given by medical gentlemen: the latter become confused, owing to using language perfectly comprehensible to themselves, but provokingly incomprehensible to others.