Part 12

[94] Since our last article, the report of the Committee appointed in 1858 to investigate the Health Department of the City of New York has appeared, and we find that our statements regarding the frequency of the crime in the metropolis are fully corroborated. Not merely are additional official statistics on this point given (pp. 182, 183), but valuable testimony from Drs. Griscom (pp. 25, 30), McNulty (p. 55), Francis (p. 64), and Bulkley (p. 133). Dr. Reese’s paper on Infant Mortality, republished by the Committee (pp. 90-100), from the Transactions of the American Medical Association for 1857, also contains incidental reference to the frequency of abortion, and for its direct and earnest dealing with the subject deserves unqualified commendation.

In this connection we would call attention to the evidence of the extent of the crime in Boston, afforded since our own remarks upon that point were in type, by Dr. Walter Channing. (Boston Med. and Surg. Journal, March 17, 1859.)

[95] Annales d’Hygiène Publique, 1856, p. 122.

[96] Les Consummations, etc.

[97] Comptes Rendus Annuels, etc.

[98] MAYER, Des Rapports Conjugaux, considérés sous le triple point de vue de la population, de la santé et de la morale publique. Paris, 1857.

[99] CANGIAMILA, Embryologia Sacra, p. 15.

[100] In verification of this statement I am enabled to quote from the last authorized edition of the Canon Laws of the Church of Rome. “Omnes, qui abortûs seu fœtûs immaturi, tam animati quam inanimati, formati vel informis, ejectionem procuraverint, pœnas propositas et inflictas tam divino quam humano jure, ac tam per canonicas sanctiones et apostolicas constitutiones quam civilia jura adversus veros homicidas incurrere, hâc nostrâ perpetuo valiturâ constitutione statuimus et ordinamus.” REIFFENSTUELL, Jus Canonicum Universum, tome iii. Paris, 1854.

[101] Decreta Synodi plenariæ Episcoporum Hiberniæ, apud Thurles habitæ anno 1850. Art. de Baptismo, p. 20.

[102] Dublin Review, April, 1858, p. 100.

[103] DEVENTER, 1734, p. 366; STERNE, Tristram Shandy, p. 54; Med. Times and Gazette, Aug., 1858, p. 196. Though the fact of this decision has been doubted, it is nevertheless strictly true. Through the kindness of Bishop Fitzpatrick I have been favored with a copy of BARRY’s Medico-Christian Embryology, as presenting upon this point the authorized and generally received doctrine of the Catholic Church. I quote the following from the chapter “On Baptism in Impracticable and Difficult Labors:”

“In case of impacted head and at all times that one is obliged to apply the forceps, whether at one of the straits or in the pelvic excavation, it becomes necessary to baptize the child on the part which presents at the uterine orifice after the rupture of the bag containing the waters.

“In order to baptize the child, a syringe charged with natural water may be used. If this be not at hand, a person may use a sponge, or a linen or cotton rag, wetted with water, which is to be carried to the child by the fingers, a pair of forceps, or any other suitable contrivance, and then squeezed or pressed on the surface of the part presenting.” (Loc. cit., p. 45.)

“Any person, whether man, woman or child, may baptize an infant when in danger of death.” (Ibid., p. 76.)

If the facts now stated should be generally known and acted upon by the profession, hundreds of lives, infant and maternal, would annually be saved.

[104] MS. Letter, dated Nov. 14th, 1858.

[105] It is not of course intended to imply that Protestantism, as such, in any way encourages, or indeed permits, the practice of inducing abortion; its tenets are uncompromisingly hostile to all crime. So great, however, is the popular ignorance regarding this offence, that an abstract morality is here comparatively powerless; and there can be no doubt that the Romish ordinance, flanked on the one hand by the confessional, and by denouncement and excommunication on the other, has saved to the world thousands of infant lives.

[106] PASSOT, Des dangers de l’avortement provoqué dans un but criminel; Gazette Méd. de Lyon, 1853.

[107] Ann. d’Hygiène, 1856, p. 147.

[108] DUBOIS and DEVERGIE, ibid., tome xix. p. 425; tome xxxix. p. 157.

[109] Ibid.

[110] Review of MONTGOMERY’s Signs of Pregnancy; The North American Medico-Chirurgical Review, March, 1857, p. 249.

[111] Principles of Midwifery, p. 547.

[112] BAUDELOCQUE, tome i. p. 115; FODERE, ii. p. 17; MARC, Dict. de Méd., i. p. 228; MONTGOMERY, Signs of Pregnancy, p. 578; DEVERGIE, Méd. Légale, i. p. 244.

[113] RYAN, p. 267; TARDIEU, loc. cit.

[114] CLARKE, Trans. of Soc. for Impr. of Med.-Chir. Knowledge, iii. p. 290; BAUDELOCQUE, i. p. 123, note; LEROUX, Traité des Pertes, Obs. xiii. p. 25; MONTGOMERY, loc. cit., p. 618.

[115] GARDNER, of New York, note to TYLER SMITH’s Lectures on Obstetrics, p. 203.

[116] Am. Journ. of the Med. Sciences, April, 1859. In the instance referred to, the cervix had been deeply and extensively lacerated, forceps having been used in four previous labors; while depressions existing between the old cicatrices and half filled and ragged with clots, were decidedly suggestive of punctured wounds. The true nature of the case was rendered evident by its past history, and corroborated by the fact that the patient was a Catholic; the latter being a point to which I am inclined to attach much importance, for reasons already given.

[117] Practical Treatise, p. 275.

[118] RYAN, Med. Jurisprudence, p. 282.

[119] ROSCOE, Law of Evidence, 242.

[120] ARCHBOLD, Crim. Pleading, 491; 1 HALE, 455.

[121] DAVIS, Crim. Justice, 482.

[122] DAVIS, Crim. Justice, 483.

[123] Reg. _v._ Haynes; Reg. _v._ Goodall; Rex _v._ Phillips.

[124] Med. Times and Gazette, Jan., 1856, p. 611.

[125] “This operation must not on any account be undertaken without the sanction, and in the presence, of another practitioner.”—CLAY, Hand-book of Obstetric Surgery, p. 13.

[126] 1 GABBETT, Cr. Law, 523.

[127] Loc. cit.

[128] CHEVALIER and DEVERGIE, Ann. d’Hyg., 1856, p. 157.

[129] Med. Jurisp.; Griffith’s ed., p. 472, Hartshorne’s ed., p. 378.

[130] TARDIEU, loc. cit., 1856, p. 124.

[131] A Woman’s Thoughts about Women. By the author of “John Halifax, Gentleman.” 1858, p. 14.

[132] Loc. cit.

[133] Ibid.

[134] Mass. Laws of 1847, chap. 83.

[135] “By imprisonment in the State prison, house of correction, or common jail, not more than three years, or by fine not exceeding one thousand dollars.”

[136] Opera omnia. Ed. 1655, i., p. 643.

[137] JÖRG of Leipsic, who speaks of the human fœtus as “only a higher species of intestinal worm, not endowed with a human soul, nor entitled to human attributes.”

[138] SIMPSON, Obst. Works, i. pp. 352, 404.

[139] Boston Med. and Surg. Journal, January, 1857, p. 462.

[140] The immorality of craniotomy, where delivery can be effected by any other method, is gradually becoming acknowledged in Great Britain. A late discussion on this subject, at the Obstetric Society of London, is reported in the Medical Times and Gazette for February, 1859.

[141] CLAY, Obstetric Surgery, p. 68.

[142] SINCLAIR and JOHNSTON, Practical Midwifery, 1858. 130 cases of craniotomy in 13,748 labors.

[143] CLAY, Loc. cit., p. 69.

[144] The subject of justifiable craniotomy has of late been ably though controversially discussed by an anonymous writer (Dublin Review, April and October, 1858,) and Dr. Churchill (Dublin Quarterly Journal of Medical Science, August and November, of the same year). Care must be taken, lest in assenting to the decided and imperative necessity of the operation in certain cases, and by a natural professional sympathy, too great frequency is not allowed to this most horrible and appalling of all the operations to which as physicians we can ever be called.

[145] Review of CLAY’s Obstetric Surgery; Boston Med. and Surg. Journal, November, 1856, p. 283.

[146] Theory and Practice of Midwifery, p. 348.

[147] De jure vitæ et necis quod competit medico in partu. Heidelberg, 1826.

[148] “Where one only can by any possibility be preserved, the female herself may use her right of self-preservation and choose whether her own life or that of her child shall fall a sacrifice.” GUY, Principles of Forensic Medicine, p. 145.

[149] Guy’s Hospital Reports, 1856, p. 12.

[150] Dublin Quarterly Journ. of Med. Science, August, 1858, p. 10.

[151] RADFORD, British Record of Obst. Medicine, 1848, p. 84.

[152] The rules of the Catholic Church upon this point have been already referred to. Suffice it to say, further, that while they enjoin the Cæsarean and vaginal sections, in preference to craniotomy and in cases of extra-uterine fœtation, yet turning, the use of forceps, and the induction of premature labor, where such are indicated, are distinctly allowed by them. BARRY, Medico-Christian Embryology, pp. 41, 44, 45, 60.

[153] Guy’s Hosp. Reports, 1856, p. 4.

[154] For a full discussion of the respective merits of the several methods instanced above, see SIMPSON, loc. cit., i. p. 738.

I have lately contrived an instrument very similar to one not long since proposed by Spencer Wells for dilatation of the female urethra, which by a simple combination of the three principles involved, will probably prove of material service in the induction of premature labor. It may be called the uterine dilator, as it possesses many advantages over expansible tents for all cases of uterine disease where dilatation is necessary, either for diagnosis or treatment. A description of the instrument, and of its first application to obstetric practice, is published in the current number of the American Journal of the Medical Sciences.

[155] Bulletin de l’Académie, xvii. p. 364.

[156] British Record, etc., p. 82.

[157] I have elsewhere discussed this subject; American Journal of the Medical Sciences, January, 1859.

[158] Enchiridion Medicum, p. 510.

[159] Question d’Embryologie Médicale, etc.; Revue de l’Amérique et de l’Ouest, 1846.

[160] JOAN. RIOLAN., Anthropographia, lib. vi. cap. vii. p. 589.

[161] CHURCHILL, Dublin Quarterly Journ. of Med. Science, August, 1858, p. 22.

[162] A case in point has been reported by the writer; Amer. Journ. of the Med. Sciences, April, 1859.

[163] Reports to the Suffolk Dist. Med. Society of Massachusetts, 1857, and to the American Medical Association, 1859.

[164] “It would in my opinion,” says Ramsbotham, referring to the nature of fœtal existence, “be much better not to endeavor to explain the secrets of nature, so deeply hidden.”—(Obst. Medicine and Surgery, p. 309.) This belief seems still, in practice, very widely entertained.

[165] CLAY, Obstetric Retrospect, March, 1848, p. 44.

[166] Medical Communications of the Mass. Med. Soc., 1858, p. 77.

The writer having been a member of this committee, here enters, as he has already done by letter to the councillors of the Society, his earnest protest against the plainly erroneous opinion avowed in that report, which was presented and accepted during his absence from the State.

By the laws of Massachusetts, the offence is considered as mainly against the person of the mother. In case of her death, already sufficiently provided for at common law, convictions can be effected, with great difficulty, under the statute,—as has twice occurred the present year, in the cases of Jackson and Brown; but hardly otherwise.

[167] In this connection honorable mention is due Drs. TATUM and JOYNES, of Virginia, for their papers on “The Attributes of the Impregnated Germ,” and “Some of the Legal Relations of the Fœtus in Utero” (Virginia Medical Journal, 1856.) Through the agency of the latter of these gentlemen, an important modification has been made in the law of the State; as has also been effected in Wisconsin, by Dr. BRISBANE.

[168] For valuable information in this connection, I am indebted to many friends, more particularly to Drs. THAYER, of New Hampshire, PHELPS, of Vermont, CHAS. HOOKER, of Connecticut, BLATCHFORD, of New York, WOOD, of Pennsylvania, THOMPSON, of Delaware, WROTH, of Maryland, BRAINARD, of Illinois, CAMERON, of Indiana, LELAND, of Michigan, LE BOUTILLIER, of Minnesota, BRISBANE, of Wisconsin, POPE, of Missouri, HOYT, of Tennessee, HAXALL and JOYNES, of Virginia, SEMMES, of District of Columbia, DICKSON, of North Carolina, LOPEZ, of Alabama, BARTON, of Louisiana, (now of South Carolina,) and to my relatives, WOODBURY and BELLAMY STORER, Esqrs., of Maine and Ohio, and JAMES M. KEITH, Esq., of Boston, late District-Attorney for Norfolk and Plymouth Counties. In every instance, however, verification of the statutes has been made from copies in the State Library of Massachusetts.

[169] DAVIS, Criminal Justice, p. 482.

[170] 1 Commentaries, 129.

[171] Ibid.

[172] 43 George III., c. 58.

[173] 9 Geo. IV., c. 31; 10 Geo. IV., c. 34.

[174] 7 William IV.; 1 Vict., c. 85.

[175] To this list may also be added the Territory of Washington.

[176] The Territory of Kansas belongs to the above group.

[177] Compiled Statutes of Connecticut, 1854, p. 307.

[178] Revised Code of Mississippi, 1857, chap. 64, p. 601.

[179] Digest of Statutes of Arkansas, 1848, chap. 51, p. 325.

[180] Revised Statutes of Minnesota, 1851, chap. 100, p. 493.

[181] Statutes of Oregon, 1855, chap. 3, p. 310.

[182] Revised Statutes of Maine, 1857, chap. 124, p. 685.

[183] The above should evidently read “the first two sections,” to be possible.

[184] Compiled Statutes of New Hampshire, 1853, chap. 227, p. 544.

[185] Revised Statutes of New York, 1852, ii. pp. 847, 876. The last section of this statute does not require proof of pregnancy.

[186] Revised Statutes of Ohio, 1854, chap. 162, p. 296.

[187] Compiled Laws of Michigan, 1857, vol. ii. chap. 180, p. 1509. The statute of the Territory of WASHINGTON is very similar to those above.

“Every person who shall administer to any woman pregnant with a quick child, any medicine, drug, or substance whatever, or shall use or employ any instrument, or other means, with intent thereby to destroy such child, unless the same shall have been necessary to preserve the life of such mother, shall, in case the death of such child or of such mother be thereby produced, on conviction thereof, be imprisoned in the penitentiary not more than twenty years, nor less than one year.

“Every person who shall administer to any pregnant woman, or to any woman whom he supposes to be pregnant, any medicine, drug, or substance whatever, or shall use or employ any instrument, or other means, thereby to procure the miscarriage of such woman, unless the same is necessary to preserve her life, shall, on conviction thereof, be imprisoned in the penitentiary not more than five years, nor less than one year, or be imprisoned in the county jail not more than twelve months, nor less than one month, and be fined in any sum not exceeding one thousand dollars.” Statutes of the Territory of Washington, 1855, p. 81.

[188] Compiled Statutes of Vermont, 1850, chap. 108, p. 560.

[189] Supplement to the Revised Statutes of Massachusetts, 1849, p. 322.

[190] Statutes of Illinois, 1858, vol. i. p. 381.

[191] Revised Statutes of Wisconsin, 1858, chap. 169, sect. 58. It will be noticed that the second section of the above statute differs from the first, in not requiring the proof of pregnancy.

[192] Code of Virginia, 1849, chap. 191, p. 724.

[193] Revised Statutes of Missouri, 1856, i. chap. 50, p. 567.

[194] Code of Alabama, 1852, sect. 3230, p. 582.

[195] Revised Statutes of Louisiana, 1856, p. 138. By its wording, this statute might be forced into the next division.

[196] I insert this clause not merely for its relation to the points we are now considering, but for its important bearing on the broad question of infanticide during labor; concerning which it stands in bold and direct antagonism to all the rulings of the common law in this country and abroad. In other respects also, though not faultless, the Texas statute is rationally and admirably drawn.

[197] Penal Code of Texas, 1857, p. 103.

[198] Digest of Laws of California, 1857, art. 1905, p. 334. The statute of the Territory of KANSAS, similar to the above, is as follows:—

“Every physician or other person who shall willfully administer to any pregnant woman, any medicine, drug, or substance whatever, or shall use or employ any instrument or means whatsoever, with intent thereby to procure abortion, or the miscarriage of any such woman, unless the same shall have been necessary to preserve the life of such woman, or shall have been advised by a physician to be necessary for that purpose, shall, upon conviction, be adjudged guilty of a misdemeanor, and punished by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by fine not exceeding five hundred dollars, or by both such fine and imprisonment.” Statutes of Kansas, 1855, chap. 48, p. 243.

[199] We have already commented upon the phraseology of the Louisiana statute. The latitude of its first clause is shown by the context to have been unintentional, and therefore hardly justifies a change in its classification. The second section of the Statute of Washington Territory, however, is closely analogous to that now given; while the final sections of the statutes both of New York and Wisconsin, which make it penal for a woman voluntarily to effect or submit to the unjustifiable induction of abortion, are equally silent regarding proof of the existence of pregnancy.

[200] Revised Statutes of Indiana, 1852, p. 437.

[201] Rex _vs._ Phillips, 3 CAMPBELL, 77; RUSSELL, Crim. Law, 553-4; 1 GABBETT, Crim. Law, 522; 1 BISHOP, Crim. Law, 386.

[202] State _vs._ Cooper, 2 ZABRISKIE, 52, 57; Rex _vs._ Russell, 1 MOODY, 356, 360.

[203] Regina _vs._ Wycherley, 8 CARRINGTON and PAYNE, 265.

[204] The People _vs._ Jackson, 3 HILL, N. Y. Reports, 92; WHARTON, Criminal Law, 98.

[205] DAVIS, Crim. Justice, 484.

[206] WHARTON, Amer. Crim. Law, 424.

[207] WHARTON, Amer. Crim. Law, 75.

[208] The State _vs._ Vawter, 7 BLACKFORD, 592.

[209] 1 GABBETT, Crim. Law, 523; ARCHBOLD, P. A., lxx, 2.

[210] ROSCOE, L. E., 242; Eng. Com. L. Rep., xxv. 453; Rex _vs._ Coe, 6 CAR. & P., 403; Vaughan, 13.

[211] 1 BISHOP, Crim. Law, 527.

[212] In Massachusetts, though the statute is silent on these points, it is asserted that whenever a potion is given, or other means are used, by “a surgeon,” for the purpose of saving the life of the woman, the case is free of malice, and has a lawful justification. DAVIS, Crim. Justice, 282; Report of the Criminal Law Commissioners, 1844, Causing Abortion, I., note _a_.

[213] After a little reflection, it will be seen that this word is not so open to objection as might at first be supposed.

[214] 1 RUSSELL, Crimes, 671; 1 VESEY, 86; 3 COKE, Inst., 50; 1 HAWKINS, C. B., s. 16; 1 HALE, 434; 1 EAST, P. C., 90; 3 CHITTY, Crim. Law, 798; WHARTON, Crim. Law, 537.

[215] DAVIS, Crim. Justice, 486.

[216] ARCHBOLD, Crim. Pleading, 490.

[217] Regina _vs._ Trilloe, 2 MOODY, C. C., 260, 413.

[218] The State _vs._ Cooper, 2 ZABRISKIE, 52; HANES, U. S. Digest, 5.

[219] The Commonwealth _vs._ Parker, 9 METCALF, 263; The Commonwealth _vs._ Bangs, 9 Mass., 387; The State _vs._ Cooper, 2 ZABRISKIE, 57; HANES, U. S. Digest, 5; Smith _vs._ State, 33 MAINE, (3 RED.) 48.

[220] BISHOP, Crim. Law, 386; Mills _vs._ The Commonw., 1 HARRIS, Pa., 631, 633.

[221] WHARTON, Crim. Law of the U. S., 537.

[222] 1 RUSSELL, Crimes, 661; 1 VESEY, 86; 3 COKE, Inst., 50; 1 HAWKINS, c. 13, s. 16; BRACTON, 1. 3, c. 21.

[223] BAC. Ab., tit. Infants.

[224] 2 VERNON, 710.

[225] Doe _vs._ Clark, 2 H. Bl., 399; 2 VESEY, jr., 673; Thellusson _vs._ Woodford, 4 VESEY, 340; Swift _vs._ Duffield, 6 SERG. & RAWLE, 38.

[226] FEARNE, 429.

[227] 2 VERNON, 710; The Commonwealth _vs._ Demain, 6 Penn. Law Journ., 29; BRIGHTLY, 441.

[228] 1 HALE, 90; The Commonw. _vs._ Chauncey, 1 ASHMEAD, 227; Smith _vs._ State, 33 MAINE, (3 RED.) 48.

[229] Ibid.; HANES, U. S. Digest, 5.

[230] WHARTON, Law of Homicide, 44.

[231] The Commonw. _vs._ Parker, 9 METCALF, 263, 265; DAVIS, Crim. Justice, 281.

[232] 1 BLACKSTONE, 129; Rex _vs._ Senior, 1 MOODY, C. C., 346; 3 Inst., 50; WHARTON, C. L., 537; Ibid., Law of Homicide, 93.

[233] Rex _vs._ West, 2 CARR. & KIR., 784; 1 BISHOP, C. L., 255; WHARTON, Law of Homicide, 93.

[234] Rex _vs._ Scudder, 1 MOODY, 216, 3 CAR. & P., 605, overruling Rex _vs._ Phillips, 3 CAMPBELL, 73; RUSSELL, Cr., 763, note.

[235] If made without her consent?

[236] Regina _vs._ Goodchild, 2 CAR. & KIR., 293; Rex _vs._ Goodhall, 1 DEN. C. C., 187; 3 CAMPBELL, 76.

[237] 1 BISHOP, Crim. Law, 518.

[238] 1 BISHOP, Crim. Law, 385.

[239] WHARTON, Crim. Law, 541.

[240] 1 HARRIS, Pa., 631, 633.

[241] LEE, Note to Guy’s Principles of Forensic Medicine, p. 134.

[242] BECCARIA, Crimes and Punishments, 104.

[243] “An efficient, and practical remedy for the prevention of this crime would be a law requiring the causes of death to be certified by the physician in attendance, or where there has been no physician, by one called in for the purpose. In this way the cause of death, both in infants and mothers, could be traced to attempts to procure abortion. In three cases which occurred in Boston, in 1855, the death was reported by friends to be owing to natural causes, and in each it was subsequently ascertained that the patient died in consequence of injuries received in procuring abortion. It is probable that such cases are by no means rare; and if the cause of death were known, an immediate investigation might lead to the detection of the guilty party.” (Boston Med. and Surg. Journal, Dec., 1857, p. 365.)

[244] Register of the Morgue.

[245] From 1846 to 1850, 188 cases of criminal abortion were discovered in Paris, but for want of proof, only 22 of them were sent to trial. (Comptes Rendus Ann. de la Justice Criminelle.)

[246] Report on the Medico-legal duties of Coroner. 1857.

[247] RADFORD, British Record of Obstetric Medicine, vol. i. p. 55.

[248] WHARTON, Criminal Law, 540.

[249] Smith _vs._ The State, 33 MAINE, (3 RED.) 48.

[250] Rex _vs._ Phillips; Regina _vs._ Goodall; Reg. _vs._ Haynes, etc.

[251] TAYLOR, Med. Jurisprudence, p. 386.

[252] PERCIVAL, Medical Ethics, p. 84.

[253] Ibid., p. 85.

[254] Loc. cit., article 317.

[255] Report to Suffolk District Med. Society, May, 1857, p. 12.

[256] In this connection, I cannot too strongly deprecate a practice that has lately been proposed, the detection, namely, of the early existence of pregnancy by the administration of ergot. (Boston Med. and Surg. Journal, April, 1859, p. 197.) The use of ergot for this purpose, in however small a dose, would seem utterly unjustifiable.

[257] Fifteenth Massachusetts Registration Report, 1857, p. 199.

[258] QUETELET, Theory of Probabilities, p. 234.

[259] New York Med. Gazette, Editorial; London Medical Times and Gazette, 1850, p. 487.

[260] Boston Med. and Surg. Journal, Editorial, 1855, p. 411.

[261] DEAN, Medical Jurisprudence, p. 139.

[262] Boston Med. and Surg. Journal, Editorial, Dec. 13, 1855.

[263] American Medical Gazette, Editorial, July, 1857, p. 390.

[264] Ibid., April 1859, p. 289.

[265] Maine Med. and Surg. Reporter, Editorial, June, 1858, p. 39.

[266] DEVILLE, Researches on the proportion of still-born children compared with the mortality of the City of Paris during the thirteen years, 1846-58. Memoirs of the French Academy, 1859.

[267] New Hampshire Journal of Medicine, Editorial, July, 1857, p. 216.

[268] London Lancet, Editorial, July, 1858, p. 66.

[269] TATUM, Virginia Med. Journal, June, 1856, p. 457.

[270] Loc. cit., p. 19.

[271] The Councillors of the Massachusetts Medical Society. Proceedings of the Society, 1858, p. 77.

[272] PHILLIPS, On Evidence, i. p. 135; RYAN, Medical Jurisprudence, p. 193; STORER, Sen., Introductory Address, 1855, p. 10; SIMPSON, Physicians and Physic, p. 31.

[273] Proceedings of the Society, 1858.

[274] Man Transformed. Oxford, 1653.