of the heart contain florid blood; it therefore follows that the
directions of the Humane Society, to inflate the lungs in such cases,
are founded in error.

                                CASE II.

 _Wherein the function of respiration ceases, while the heart continues
                       to circulate black blood._

It has been stated that in cases of suffocation the heart continues to
contract for a short period, after the cessation of breathing; that this
interval is extremely short, but liable to vary from several causes; and
that it is uniformly shorter in cases of death by drowning, than in
those by strangulation. To the physician this is an interval of anxiety
and importance; let him beware how he trifles with the fleeting moments,
in which alone the resources of his art can be of any avail. If
artificial respiration be established at this period, the blood will
become once more oxygenised, the action of the heart will be continued,
the scarlet blood will be transmitted to the brain, and sensibility will
therefore return; the nervous energy will be once more transmitted to
the respiratory organs, and the animal will at length make a voluntary
effort to inspire air. Here then is the interval of time, during which
artificial breathing may be employed so as to effect a restoration to
life, where death must otherwise have been inevitable. Mr. _Brodie_ has
made a great variety of interesting experiments upon this subject, from
which may be deduced the following important corollaries.

  1. If the lungs be inflated, the action of the heart will continue.

  2. If the action of the heart has become feeble, but the circulation
    is nevertheless not entirely suspended, the inflation of the lungs
    will cause the feeble actions to become again frequent and vigorous.

  3. If the action of the heart has entirely ceased, it is impossible to
    restore it by the inflation of the lungs.

  4. If the action of the heart has not entirely ceased, but is so
    feeble as no longer to maintain the circulation, the artificial
    respiration will prove as useless, as if the heart were perfectly
    motionless.

There is still, however, another period at which artificial respiration
may be employed with the greatest advantage; we have stated that after
the natural respiration has been re-established, and the animal would
appear to be advancing towards recovery, it not unfrequently relapses
into a state of insensibility, becomes convulsed, and dies. As this
depends upon the black blood which is circulating through the brain, so
paralysing that organ as to prevent a necessary transmission of its
influence to the muscles of respiration, life may be preserved if
artificial respiration be established until the brain is again supplied
with duly oxygenized blood; after which the animal will be enabled to
perform its own functions without any assistance from art.

The same treatment will, of course, apply in every case where the
natural respiration ceases in consequence of being deprived of a due
supply of nervous energy, from the insensibility of the brain; as from a
blow on the head—the action of a narcotic poison—from lightning?

It has been proposed, in cases of suffocation, to take away blood from
some of the larger veins; as far as relates to the asphyxia, no
advantage can accrue from such a practice, but incidental benefit may
arise where congestion has taken place in the brain, as happens in
hanging: in such cases the jugular veins are those from which the blood
can be taken with the greatest chance of success.

Advantage is also said to accrue from the application of volatile
alkali, or other pungent bodies to the inside of the nostrils; whatever
promotes sneezing or coughing is supposed to give a succussion to the
diaphragm and its antagonist muscles, and thereby to promote the
re-establishment of respiration.

Cordials, moderate warmth, and quiet, are the resources upon which we
are to rely for the ultimate recovery of the vital powers, after the
complete establishment of the function of respiration.

For a long period, injections of tobacco enjoyed a high, but unmerited
reputation amongst the medicinal agents that were supposed capable of
rousing the latent energies of life, in cases of suspended animation;
and strange as it may appear, this most powerful narcotic poison, until
within a few years, was annually recommended for such purposes by those
who professed to instruct the profession and the public upon these
important topics; this may be considered as one of the most stupendous
errors that ever occurred in the exercise of the medical art.

Where the asphyxia has arisen from the inhalation of noxious vapours, as
those emitted by burning charcoal, the exposure of the body to cold has
been strongly recommended. In Russia, where from the mode of heating the
dwellings, accidents of this kind very frequently occur, the general
practice is to rub the body with snow, and it is said with the happiest
effect; this plan, says Dr. _Babington_, is probably of use, from the
strong impression which is made upon the skin as a sentient organ. It is
also a well known fact, that the recovery of the dogs which are made the
subjects of experiment in the _Grotto del Cane_, is much favoured by
their being plunged into a neighbouring lake.

Is it necessary to repeat, that the idea respecting the presence of any
considerable portion of water in the lungs of a drowned person, has no
foundation in truth? we should have scarcely deemed the notice of such a
fallacy, and that of the practice founded upon it, of hanging by the
heels, called for in this place, had not an opinion been lately
delivered, by a medical witness, that _a person drowned in the Thames
might possibly have been recovered, but for the impurity of the water,
arising from the gas-works_. We have only to observe upon this occasion,
that had the individual in question recovered in the hands of a
practitioner who could have delivered so absurd an opinion, he would
have been more indebted to good fortune than to skilful attention.

A drowned animal will, in general, be recovered more slowly and with
greater difficulty than one which has fallen into a state of asphyxia
from strangulation. It is probable that, in the former case, the sudden
reduction of temperature will contribute to the more rapid extinction of
vitality.

Having thus examined the pretensions to which the several modes of
restoring animation are entitled, we may conveniently introduce in this
place some observations upon the different methods which have been
adopted to secure condemned criminals against the fatal effects of their
execution. There can be no doubt but that by making an opening in the
trachea, below the ligature, death might in some cases be prevented,
provided the neck were not dislocated, nor the weight of the body very
considerable. _Richerand_ says, that a surgeon of the imperial armies,
whose veracity cannot be questioned, assured him that he had saved the
life of a soldier by performing the operation of laryngotomy some hours
before he was executed.

Dr. _Male_[71] states that it was tried on one _Gordon_, a butcher, who
was executed at the Old Bailey in the early part of the last century;
the body having hung the usual time, was removed to a neighbouring
house, where a surgeon waited to receive it, and enforce every means
calculated to restore animation: he opened his eyes, and sighed, but
soon expired: the want of success was attributed to his great weight,
but we apprehend that, if the statement be correct as to his opening his
eyes and sighing, the failure must have depended upon want of skill in
the operators. We have yet to notice those cases of spontaneous recovery
which have taken place after execution, and which are too well
authenticated to admit of doubt; upon this point we would observe, that
such results by no means militate against the accuracy of the
physiological views which have been already presented to our readers.
Whenever such a recovery occurs, the strangulation has never been
complete, and feeble motions of the heart have been preserved by
imperfect and occasional respirations, during the interval of
suspension; this may depend, in a great measure, upon the situation of
the noose; if placed at the side of the neck, it would be pulled tight
by the weight of the body; but if at the back of the neck, it would be
far otherwise. _John Smith_, who was executed at Tyburn on the 24th of
December 1705, was cut down in consequence of the arrival of a reprieve,
nearly fifteen minutes after he had been turned off, but is said to have
been recovered by venesection and other means[72]; Governor _Wall_ was a
long time in the act of dying, and it was subsequently discovered that
this was owing to an ossified portion of the trachea resisting the
pressure of the rope; but the most extraordinary instance of this kind,
and one well authenticated, is that of _Margaret Dickson_, of
Musselburgh, who was tried and convicted in Edinburgh in the year 1728,
for the murder of her child; her conviction was accomplished by the
evidence of a medical person, who deposed that _the lungs of the child
swam in water_; there were, however, strong reasons to suspect the
justness of the verdict, and the sequel of the story was well calculated
to cherish a superstitious belief on the occasion. After execution, her
body was cut down, and delivered to her friends for the rites of
interment; it was accordingly placed in a coffin, and sent in a cart to
be buried at her native place, but the weather being sultry, the persons
who had the body in charge stopped to drink, at a village called
Peppermill, about two miles from Edinburgh; while they were refreshing
themselves, one of them perceived the lid of the coffin move, and
uncovering it, the woman immediately sat up, and most of the spectators
ran away with every sign of trepidation; a person, however, who was in
the public house immediately bled her, and in about an hour she was put
to bed, and by the following morning, was so far recovered as to be able
to walk to her own house[73], after which she lived twenty-five years
and had several children.[74]

                       OF THE CORONER’s INQUEST.

The office of Coroner (_Coronator_, from his duty in Pleas of the Crown,
2d Inst. 31. 4. Inst. 271) which is of great antiquity, was also of
considerable dignity;[75] for the Coroner, together with the Sheriff,
was to keep the peace of the county. He is to be elected by the full
county, and for life (except in cases of misconduct, when he may be
removed). The writ _De Coronatore eligendo_, F.N.B. 163, commands the
Sheriff “_quod talem eligi faciat, qui melius et sciat et velit et
possit officio illi intendere_”, and the 3 _Edw._ 1 _c._ 10. enacts,
that none but lawful and discreet knights should be chosen. But now it
is held sufficient if he have enough to be made a knight (1 _Bl. Com._
347), which is but lands to the amount of £20 per annum, (I _Edw._ 1.
_Stat. de milit_). But as the office is attended with many unpleasant
duties, gentlemen, in these nicer times, have shrunk from its
performance, and it has consequently fallen into disrepute; and too
frequently into low and indigent hands. For though in great counties,
and some populous places, it is held by very worthy and experienced men,
yet in remoter parts it is to be feared that it is ill exercised; and at
least, that the persons holding it have not the learning and practice
necessary for its due execution. And this in all probability is an
increasing evil; for an office once fallen into disrepute, and only
propped by the addition of emoluments to be derived from fees (per job),
generally becomes venal; and there is now too much reason to fear, that
decency may be outraged by the ill-timed activity of some[76], as much
as justice is defeated by the corruption and supineness of others, who
have of late been chosen to this ancient and once honorable office. It
is therefore to be wished that some legislative measure may correct or
prevent this evil, by restricting the elections to persons duly
qualified; and by appointing medical assessors or inspectors, who might
usefully assist the Coroner in the discharge of his duties in cases of
inquisition of death.

The statute _De Officio Coronatoris_, 4 _Edw._ 1 _c._ 2. directs the
mode in which Inquisitions of Death shall be held. “The Coroner, when
commanded by the King’s bailiffs, or by honest men of the county, shall
go to the places where any be slain, or suddenly dead or wounded, and
shall forthwith command four of the next towns[77], or five or six to
appear before him, in such a place; and when they are come thither, the
coroner upon the oath of them shall enquire if they know where the
person was slain; whether it were in any house, field, bed, town,
tavern, or company, and who were there. Likewise it is to be enquired
who were culpable either of the act or of the force; and who were
present, either men or women, of what age, if they can speak or have any
discretion. And such as are found culpable by inquisition shall be taken
and delivered to the sheriff, and committed to gaol; and such as be
found, and be not culpable (i.e. the witnesses, and these the coroner
shall bind over by recognizance to the next assizes,) shall be attached
until the coming of the justices[78] and their names written in the
coroner’s roll. If any be slain and the body found in the fields or
woods; first, it is to be enquired whether he was slain in the same
place or not;[79] and if it were brought and laid there, endeavour shall
be made to follow their steps who brought the body thither; whether
brought upon a horse or in a cart. Also it shall be inquired, whether
the dead person were known or a stranger, and where he lay the night
before. And if any be found culpable of the murder, the coroner shall
immediately go into his house, and inquire what goods he has, &c. how
much land, and the yearly value, and what corn on the ground, which
shall be valued and delivered to the township, which shall be answerable
before the justices for all; and the land shall remain in the king’s
hands until the lords of the fee have made fine for it, &c.

“Also it is to be enquired of those who were drowned or suddenly dead;
and after it is to be seen of such bodies whether they were so drowned
or slain, or strangled by the sign of a cord tied straight about their
necks, or about any of their members, or upon any other hurt found upon
their bodies: whereupon they shall proceed in the form above said. And
if they were slain, then ought the coroners to attach the finders and
all others in company.

“Upon appeal of wounds and such like, especially if the wounds be
mortal, the parties appealed shall be taken immediately, and kept until
it be known perfectly whether he that is hurt shall recover or not; and
if he die, the offenders shall be kept: and if the party recover, the
offenders shall be attached by four or six pledges after, as the wound
is great or small: if it be for a maim, he shall find more than four
pledges: and two pledges if it be for a small wound without mayhem. Also
all wounds ought to be viewed; the length, breadth, and depth, and with
what weapons, and in what part of the body the wound or hurt is, and how
many wounds there be, and who gave them: all which must be enrolled by
the coroner.

“Moreover if any be appealed, the party appealing of the fact shall be
taken, and the party appealed of the force shall be attached also, and
kept in ward, until the parties appealed of the fact be attainted or
delivered.

“Also horses, boats, carts, &c. whereby any are slain, shall be valued,
and delivered unto the towns as beforesaid.

“If any be suspected of the death of any man, being in danger of life,
he shall be taken and imprisoned as before is said.”

This statute is but in confirmation of the common law, and therefore
does not restrain the powers of the coroner which he before possessed,
even though they be not mentioned in it. 1 _East. P. C._ 381, where see
observations on each part of this duty.

He is to inroll the verdict of his jury, written on parchment, and
return the Inquisition, either to the Justices of the next gaol delivery
of the county, or certify it into the King’s Bench, 2 _Roll. Abr._ 32.

He must take notes of the evidence,[80] and bind the witnesses to
appear, for neglect of which he may be fined, 1 & 2 _Ph. & Mary_, _c._
13. 1 _Lil. Abr._ 327. And if he hath not enough to answer, his fine
(for this or any other offence in execution of his office), shall be
levied on the county, as a punishment for electing an insufficient
officer. _Mirror_, _c._ 1. _s._ 3. 2 _Inst._ 175.

When it happens that any person comes to an unnatural death, the
township shall give notice thereof to the coroner. Otherwise if the body
be interred before he come, the township shall be amerced. _Hale P.C._
170. And _Holt_, C. J. says, It is a matter indictable to bury a man
that dies a violent death, before the Coroner’ Inquest have sat upon
him. 2 _Hawk. P.C._ _n._ 8. 1 _Burn’s Just._ 562.

Though it is not necessary that the inquisition be taken in the place
where the body was viewed, 2 _Hawk. P.C._ _c._ 9. _s._ 25. yet he has no
authority to take an Inquisition of Death, without a view of the body,
and if an inquest be taken by him without such view, it is void. 2
_Lev._ 140[81]. But after the view, which must be by the jury and
coroner together, the inquest may adjourn to a more convenient
place.[82]

He may in convenient time take up a dead body that hath been buried, in
order to view it: but if it be buried so long that he can discover
nothing, or if there be danger of infection, the inquest ought not to be
taken by the coroner, but by Justices of Peace, by the testimony of
witnesses; for none can take it on view, but the coroner. _Bro. Coron._
167. 173. If the body is improperly buried, or suffered to lie till it
stinks, the town shall be amerced. 2 _Danv. Ab._ 209. _Hale, P.C._ 270.
2 _Hawk._ 48.

A Coroner’s Inquisition being final, the coroner ought to hear
counsel[83] and evidence on both sides.[84] 2 _Sid._ 90. 101. He must
admit evidence as well against the king’s interest as for it; and for
omitting to do so, his inquisition may be quashed. 2 _Hale, P. C._
60.[85] 1 _East’s P.C._ 383.

The coroner among other things must enquire of the deodand, which on the
violent death of any one, even though purely accidental, has accrued to
the king or his grantee.

This mulct was, in ancient times, applied to the purpose of purchasing
masses, for the repose of the soul of the deceased; it is now converted
into an ill apportioned, arbitrary, or, in a few cases, inadequate
fine[86] on the individual, whose property has been, whether innocently
or culpably, the cause of death. It is as absurd that a ship under sail,
from which a man has fallen and been drowned, should be forfeited to the
king; as it is lamentable that the ignorant, and too frequently the
criminally negligent vender of oxalic acid for Epsom salts, should
escape all punishment.

Where a thing is not in motion, that part of it which actually caused
the death is alone forfeited, “as if a man be climbing on the wheel of a
cart, and is killed by falling from it, the wheel alone is a deodand. 1
_Bl. Com._ 300. But whenever the thing is in motion, not only that part
which immediately gives the wound, (as the wheel which runs over his
body) but all the things which move with it, and help to make the wound
more dangerous (as the cart and loading, which increase the pressure of
the wheel) are forfeited.” _ibid._ The utmost penalty of this law might
often be inflicted on the proprietors of stage coaches, where the wilful
negligence, drunkenness, or brutality of the driver had occasioned the
loss of life. “It matters not whether the owner were concerned in the
killing or not; for, if a man kill another with my sword, the sword is
forfeited.” _ibid._ The learned Commentator thus concludes, “But juries
have of late very frequently taken upon themselves to mitigate these
forfeitures, by finding only some trifling thing, or part of an entire
thing, to have been the occasion of the death. And in such cases,
although the finding of the jury be hardly warrantable by law, the Court
of King’s Bench hath generally refused to interfere on behalf of the
lord of the franchise, to assist so unequitable a claim.” 1 _Com._ 301.
Thus is the justice of the country injured, in order to restrain the
rapacity of individuals, improperly invested with the prerogatives of
the crown. See also 1 _East. P. C._ 386.

A coroner may be punished for misconduct by fine, imprisonment, or
removal; as if he be remiss in coming to do his office when he is sent
for, he shall be removed by virtue of the statute _De Coronatoribus_ 4
_Ed._ l. _c._ 2: _Salk._ 37. _Hale P. C._ 170. or if he do not properly
execute his office. 1 _Lill. Abr._ 327.

If his Inquisition be quashed, and a _melius Inquirendum_ is granted,
that Inquisition must be taken by the Sheriffs or Commissioners, upon
affidavits.[87] 1 _Danv. Abr._ 210. _Salk._ 190.

The filing of a coroner’s inquest may also be stopped for mismanagement.
1 _Mod._ 82. If he conceal felonies he shall be fined, and suffer one
year’s imprisonment. 3 _Ed._ 1 _c._ 9. In Lord _Buckhurst’s_ case a
coroner not returning his inquisition of murder to the next gaol
delivery, but suppressing it, was discharged from his office, and fined
£100. 1 _Kebl._ 280.

If a coroner be convicted of extortion, wilful neglect of duty, or
misdemeanor in his office, the Court before whom he shall be convicted,
may adjudge that he shall be removed from his office. 25 _Geo._ 2. _c._
29.

And lastly, by the writ _De Coronatore exonerando_, _F.N.B._ 163. 164:
he may be discharged for negligence, or insufficiency, in the discharge
of his duty, and when coroners are so far engaged in any other public
business that they cannot attend the office; or if they be disabled by
old age or disease, or have not sufficient lands, or live in an
inconvenient part of the county. 2 _Inst._ 32. 2 _Hawk. P.C._ _c._ 9.
_s._ 12. But if any such writ be obtained on an untrue suggestion, the
coroner may procure a commission out of Chancery to enquire thereof; and
the king may grant a supercedeas of the writ. _Reg. Orig._ 177. 178.
_F.N.B._ 164. As the coroner’s is an office of freehold, the Court of
Chancery will not suffer the writ to issue, unless on affidavit that the
defendant has been served with notice of the petition for it. 3 _Atk._
184. On the election of a new coroner the office of the old one is _ipso
facto_ extinguished.

We have entered more fully into this description of the office and
duties of coroner in general, as we deem the due execution of them to be
of the utmost importance to the public welfare; not indeed intending it
as a guide to coroners themselves, for to that purpose it would be
insufficient; but to give some insight into the nature and character of
the office, to those who may, from time to time, be called upon to aid
its administration. It is however necessary for us to add that there are
some exceptions to the above mentioned rules, arising out of local
customs and peculiar jurisdictions; thus the Lord Mayor of London is by
virtue of his office, coroner within the City, and the Court is holden
before him or his deputy. 4 _Inst._ 250. And other places, as some of
the Royal residences, &c. have their separate coroners; but all,
whatever the mode of election or appointment, are in cases of misconduct
subject to the jurisdiction of the Court of King’s Bench.

                                SUICIDE.

Self-murder is ranked among the higher crimes, being a peculiar species
of felony, as implied in the technical term _felo de se_. To constitute
this offence, the party must be in his senses, else it is no crime; but
this excuse ought not to be strained to that length to which our
coroner’s juries are too apt to carry it,[88] viz. that the very act of
suicide is an evidence of insanity; as if every man who acts contrary to
reason, had no reason at all; for the same argument would prove every
other criminal _non compos_, as well as the self-murderer. The law very
rationally judges, that every melancholy or hypochondriac fit does not
deprive a man of the capacity of discerning right from wrong; and,
therefore, if a real lunatic kills himself in a lucid interval, he is
_felo de se_ as much as another man. 1 _Hales, P. C._ 412. 1 _Hawk. P.
C._ _c._ 27, _s._ 3.

As to the punishment which human laws inflict on this crime, they can
only act upon what the criminal has left behind him,—his reputation and
fortune; on the former, by an ignominious burial in the highway, with a
stake driven through his body; on the latter, by the forfeiture of all
his goods and chattels to the king.

In this as well as all other felonies, the offender must be of the age
of discretion, and _compos mentis_; and therefore an infant killing
himself, under the age of discretion, (of which some extraordinary
instances have lately been related in the public journals) or a lunatic
during his lunacy, cannot be a _felo de se_. 1 _Hawk. P. C._ _c._ 27,
_s._ 1. _Crom._ 30, _a_ 6, 31; _Hales P. C._ 28; _Dalt._ _c._ 92; 3
_Inst._ 54.

He who kills another, though at his own desire or command, is a
murderer;[89] and the person killed is not looked upon as a _felo de
se_, in as much as his assent was merely void, being against the law of
God and man; 1 _Hawk. P. C._ _c._ 27, _s._ 6; _Keilw._ 136; _Moor_ 754.
But query, as he is the guilty cause of his own death, is he not a
felon? for if the question had been of the death of another, his consent
to it would have been equally against the laws of God and man; yet if
poison were given by his direction or command, even though he were not
present, and might have repented, it would be murder, much more then,
when he actually assists at the perpetration.

Further, as to what a _felo de se_ shall forfeit, it seems clear that he
shall forfeit all chattels, real or personal, which he hath in his own
right; and also all chattels real, whereof he is possessed jointly with
his wife, or in her right; and also all bonds and other personal things
in action, belonging solely to himself; and also all personal things in
action, and as some say, entire chattels in possession, to which he was
entitled jointly with another, on any account, except that of
merchandize. But it is said, that he shall forfeit a moiety only of such
joint chattels as may be severed, and nothing at all of what he was
possessed of as executor or administrator; 1 _Hawk. P. C._ _c._ 27, _s._
7, and authorities there. However the blood of a _felo de se_ is not
corrupted, nor his lands of inheritance forfeited, nor his wife barred
of her dower. 1 _Hawk. P. C._ _c._ 27, _s._ 1; _Plowd. Com._ 261 b, 262
a; 1 _Hales, P. C._ 413. The will of a _felo de se_ becomes void as to
his personal property, but not as to his real estate. _Plowd._ 261.

Not any part of the personal estate is vested in the king, before the
self-murder is found by some inquisition; and consequently the
forfeiture thereof is saved by a pardon of the offence before such
finding; 5 _Co. R._ 110 b; 3 _Inst._ 54; 1 _Saund._ 362; 1 _Sid._ 150,
162. But if there be no such pardon, the whole is forfeited immediately
after such inquisition, from the time of the act done, by which the
death was caused; and all intermediate alienations and titles are
avoided. _Plowd. Comm._ 260; _Hales P. C._ 29; 5 _Co. R._ 110; _Finch._
216. All such inquisitions ought to be by the coroner _super visum
corporis_, if the body can be found; and an inquisition so taken cannot,
as some say, be traversed. _Hale, P. C._ 29; 3 _Inst._ 55; 1 _Hawk. P.
C._ _c._ 27, _s._ 9, 10, 11. But see also 3 _Mod._ 238, 1 _Burr._ 17.

But if the body cannot be found, so that the coroner, who has authority
only _super visum corporis_, (vide ante. p. 93), cannot proceed, the
inquiry may be by Justices of the Peace, (who by their commissions have
a general power to inquire of all felonies,) or in the King’s Bench, if
the felony were committed in the county where the court sits; and such
inquisitions are traversable by the executor, &c. 1 _Hawk. P. C._ _c._
27, _s._ 12; 3 _Inst._ 55; _Hales P. C._ 29; 2 _Lev._ 141.

Also all inquisitions of this offence being in the nature of
indictments, ought particularly and certainly to set forth the
circumstances of the fact; and in conclusion add, that the party in such
manner murdered himself. 1 _Hawk. P. C._ _c._ 27, _s._ 13; 3 _Lev._ 140;
3 _Mod._ 100; 2 _Lev._ 152. Yet if it be full in substance, the coroner
may be served with a rule to amend a defect in form. 1 _Sid._ 225, 259;
3 _Mod._ 101; 1 _Keb._ 907; 1 _Hawk. P. C._ _c._ 27, _s._ 15.

If a person is unduly found _felo de se_; or on the other hand found to
be a lunatic, when in fact he was not so, and therefore ought to have
been found _felo de se_; although a writ of _melius inquirendum_ will
not be granted, yet the inquisition is traversable in the King’s Bench.
3 _Mod._ 238.

By the rubrick in the Common Prayer, before the burial office,
(confirmed by _Statute_ 13 and 14, _Car._ 2, _c._ 4) persons who have
laid violent hands on themselves shall not have that office used at
their interment. Yet the priest has no power of enquiry, or even as it
would appear of delay, in order to enquiry, when a body (though it be of
a notorious suicide) is brought to his church for interment. “The proper
judges, whether persons who died by their own hands were out of their
senses” (and a fortiori whether they did or not die by their own hands)
“are doubtless the coroner’s jury. The minister of the parish hath no
authority to be present at viewing the body, or to summon or examine
witnesses, and therefore he is neither entitled nor able to judge in the
affair; but may well acquiesce in the public determination, without
making any private enquiry. Indeed, were he to make one, the opinion
which he might form from thence could usually be grounded only on common
discourse, and bare assertion. And it cannot be justifiable to act upon
these in contradiction to the decision of a jury, after hearing
witnesses upon oath. And though there may be reason to suppose that the
coroner’s jury are frequently favourable in their judgment in
consideration of the circumstances of the deceased’s family with respect
to the forfeiture, and their verdict is[90] in its own nature
traversable, yet the burial may not be delayed,[91] until that matter on
trial shall finally be determined. But on acquittal of the crime of
self-murder by the coroner’s jury, the body in that case not being
demanded by the law, it seemeth that a clergyman may and ought” (we can
safely add is compellable) “to admit that body to christian burial.” 1
_Burn’s Ecc. Law_, _tit. Burial_.

                          OF MURDER GENERALLY.

There are so many various modes by which this infamous and horrid crime
may be perpetrated, that it would be an almost endless task to enumerate
them. In a legal point of view it is scarcely necessary; for wherever
death ensues from illegal violence[92], with malice _prepense_, it is
felony; yet for the better aid of medical investigation it is expedient
to class them under several heads.

Sir _Matthew Hale_, in his pleas of the Crown, vol. 2, p. 431,
enumerates several ways of killing.

1. By exposing a sick or weak person or infant unto the cold, to the
intent to destroy him, 2 _Ed._ 3, 189, whereof he dieth.

2. By laying an impotent person abroad, so that he may be exposed to and
receive mortal harm, as laying an infant in an orchard, and covering it
with leaves, whereby a kite strikes it and kills it. 6 _Eliz. Compt. de
Pace_; 24 _Dalton_, _cap._ 93, (new edit. 145.)[93]

3. By imprisoning a man so strictly that he dies, and therefore where
any dies in gaol, the coroner ought to be sent for to enquire of the
manner of his death.

4. By starving or famine.

5. By wounding or blows.

6. By poisoning.

7. By laying noisome and poisonous filth at a man’s door, to the intent
by a poisonous air to poison him. _Mr. Dalton_, _cap._ 93, out of _Mr.
Cook’s_ reading.[94]

8. By strangulation or suffocation.

                       “_Moriendi mille figuræ._”

The two first of these modes frequently occur in cases of infanticide,
and to that head, which requires separate consideration on account of
its intricacy, we shall therefore refer it. Adults can seldom, if ever,
be exposed to destruction in this manner; though, as in —— _Brownrigg’s_
case, and others of the same class, it may constitute a part of the
crime of murdering children, even of an advanced age, by duress and
starvation; where it is by a combination of cruel injuries, and not by
one specific blow or wound, that death is produced. These cases we shall
include under a general head, having first disposed of those which
require more specific notice.

“_By imprisoning a man so strictly that he dies, and therefore where any
  dies in gaol[95] the coroner ought to be sent for to enquire of the
                       manner of his death._”[96]

Death by duress of imprisonment was in all probability a very frequent
occurrence in the earlier periods of our history, we know that it has
often been inflicted by the individual tyranny of the nobles on their
vassals; and we have every reason to suppose, that even the keepers of
our public prisons were not free from the imputation of cruelty to their
unfortunate inmates; many have died by violence, more by neglect; it was
therefore a wise and humane precaution that the circumstances of every
death of a prisoner should be made the subject of minute enquiry; it is
also desirable that such enquiry should be carried on by persons of
competent skill, and with every possible and proper publicity. Our own
times we will hope are entirely free from the crime of premeditated
murder on the body of a prisoner; but we must not allow our confidence
in the modern improvements of prison discipline to lull us into a false
security as to the conduct of gaolers and their underlings many of these
may be men of mild and humane disposition, but as their daily occupation
must tend to blunt the finer feelings of humanity, it is well that every
charge of misconduct should be met by immediate and rigorous enquiry. On
this subject see _Rex_ v. _Huggins_, warden of the Fleet, 2 _Lord Raym._
1578; 2 _Str._ 882; 9 _Harg. St. Tri._ 107; _Bambridge’s_ case, 9 _Harg.
St. Tri._ 146, 151; _Acton’s_ case, 9 _Harg. St. Tri._ 182, 210, 218;
see also the several Parliamentary Reports on Coldbath-fields,
Ilchester, &c.

“A gaoler, knowing a prisoner to be infected with an epidemic[97]
distemper, confines another prisoner against his will, in the same room
with him, by which he catches the infection, of which the gaoler had
notice, and the prisoner dies; this is a felonious killing. _Stra._ 856;
9 _St. Tri._ 146. So, to confine a prisoner in a low damp unwholesome
room, not allowing him the common conveniences which the decencies of
nature require, by which the habits of his constitution are so affected
as to produce a distemper of which he dies; this also is felonious
homicide. _Stra._ 884; _Lord Raym._ 1578. For although the law invests
gaolers with all necessary powers for the interest of the commonwealth,
they are not to behave with the least degree of wanton cruelty to their
prisoners. _O. B._ 1784, p. 1177; and these were deliberate acts of
cruelty, and enormous violations of the trust the law reposeth in its
ministers of justice. _Forster_, 322.” See I _Hawk._ P. C. by _Leach_,
p. 119.

Previous to the researches of the celebrated _John Howard_, (see his
treatise on Prisons and Lazarettos) our prisons appear to have been in a
most disgraceful state; they are now greatly improved, but something may
yet be done for their amelioration, more particularly as affecting the
health of the prisoners; and this principally, by allowing the most
unrestrained medical inspection by disinterested practitioners, who
should be as much as possible unconnected with local prejudices, or
partialities; some of the parliamentary regulations of madhouses might
in this respect be usefully extended to all places of confinement; those
who are not _sui juris_ are ever entitled to additional protection.[98]

The best practical proof of improvement, in the construction of our
prisons, and in our prison discipline, is to be found in the
disappearance of that fatal pest, which was commonly called the gaol
fever, a disorder which, with something of retributive justice,
frequently extended its ravages to those, whose proper vigilance might
have prevented its generation. At the assizes held at Oxford in
1577,[99] called the black assize, we learn from _Baker’s_ Chronicle (p.
353) that all who were present died within forty hours: the Lord Chief
Baron, the Sheriff, and about three hundred more. _Lord Bacon_ ascribed
the fatality to a disease brought into court by the prisoners, and _Dr.
Mead_ entertained the same opinion; nor was similar infection, though to
a less extent, an uncommon occurrence[100], see vol. 1, p. 125. The
ancient practice of strewing the court with aromatic herbs and flowers,
and presenting bouquets to the Judges, is said to have derived its
origin from the idea of preventing infection: fresh air, still wanting
in our courts, would have proved a more powerful, and not less agreeable
prophylaitic.

                         BY WOUNDING, OR BLOWS.

In investigating the subject of Wounds, it will be convenient to adopt,
on the present occasion, the usual classification of local injuries,
viz. 1. _Incised wounds_, or cuts; 2. _Punctures_, or such as are
inflicted by pointed instruments; 3. _Bruises_, injuries occasioned by
blunt instruments; 4. _Lacerations_, where the integuments are torn, and
5. _Gun-shot wounds_; upon each of which we shall offer a few
observations, and, in the first place, it may be remarked generally,
that no graduated scale of wounds, expressive of the degree in which
they are curable or dangerous, can ever be constructed; in appreciating
the probable degree of danger that attends a wound other data will be
required for the solution of the problem than those deduced from
situation and extent, such as the constitution and temperament, age,
habits of life, especially as they regard temperance and sobriety,
previous state of health, unnatural structure and disposition of parts,
and existing diseases of the wounded individual; together with the
temperature of the season, and other extrinsic circumstances. As a
general rule for our guidance a division of wounds into four classes has
been suggested, viz. 1. _Absolutely mortal._ 2. _Dangerous._ 3.
_Accidentally mortal._ 4. _Not mortal._ Every practitioner, however,
must be aware that death will occasionally supervene on the slightest
injury, and at other times that the patient recovers in spite of the
most serious and extensive mischief; in proof of the former assertion,
the author may state that he has seen a case in which the extraction of
a tooth was followed by death in less than forty-eight hours; and every
experienced surgeon must in the course of his practice have observed the
slightest wound[101] productive of alarming and even fatal consequences;
in illustration of the occasional occurrence of a contrary result we may
recal to the recollection of the reader the extraordinary case[102] of
Mr. _Thomas Tipple_, who recovered after an accident, by which the shaft
of a chaise had been forced through the thorax! There have also been
instances of the recovery of persons whose brain has been wounded to a
considerable depth, of others shot through the head; Dr. _Male_ states
that a pauper in Paris, some years ago, used to receive charity in a
piece of his skull. In the second volume of the _Medico-chirurgical
Transactions_, we have a well attested case of a bayonet wound in the
heart not causing immediate death. _Littre_ has given us a report of a
man who inflicted upon himself no less than eighteen stabs in the
abdomen with a knife; and although some of them did not penetrate beyond
the parieties, yet others wounded the contents; the symptoms which
followed are stated to have been very severe, but by judicious treatment
the patient recovered; seventeen months afterwards, however, he threw
himself into the street from a three pair of stairs window, and was
instantly killed. On examining the body all the wounds were found
healed, and, with the exception of one, all the cicatrices were firm and
level; they were traced into the intestines, where corresponding
adhesions were observed.[103]

The surgical practitioner will, after such cases, be cautious in his
prognosis, and profit by the experience of Hoffman, who says, “_In
judicio de vulnerum lethalitate ferendo multorum Medicorum fama et
fortuna periclitantur_.”[104] Fortunately for the administration of
justice, that act of the Legislature, called “_the Ellenborough act_,”
relieves us from many of those embarrassments under which the
professional witness[105] must otherwise have laboured, and the surgeon
will appreciate the high importance and utility of the law, by which
wounding with an intent to kill is deemed equally criminal, whether
death be the result or not. Still, however, the testimony of the medical
practitioner will always be important; indeed the evil intent is often
to be inferred, or disproved, by the nature of the injury inflicted; as
is so well illustrated in the case of a man, who fractured the skull of
a boy with a stick, upon finding him in the act of plundering his
orchard; when it was clearly made out in evidence, that a mere
chastisement was only intended, for the size of the stick was not such
as to have occasioned any fatal effect, had not the skull of the
unfortunate boy been unusually thin.

If the surgeon is called upon to inspect a wound, with a view to
ascertain whether it produced death, he should in the first instance,
endeavour to examine its nature and direction, so as to disturb as
little as possible the position in which the body was found; the knife
of the anatomist must afterwards explore its more particular condition
and relations, by a dissection, for the performance of which we shall
give ample directions in a future chapter.

The importance of examining the wound, so as not to alter the position
of the parts must be obvious when we consider how necessary it may
afterwards become to compare as strictly as possible the internal
appearances with the external lesions. The direction of a wound is
frequently a circumstance of much greater importance than may at first
appear, we ought not therefore to probe it without extreme caution, lest
we should give to it a direction which it did not originally possess.
This precaution becomes the more necessary as the putrefactive process
advances.

_Of incised wounds, or cuts._ The prognosis of wounds made with a
cutting instrument varies, _cæteris paribus_, according to the extent
and depth of the division, the nature of the injured parts, and the
circumstances which attend the operation; where the instrument has been
so sharp as not to occasion any contusion or laceration, the fibres and
texture of the wounded part will have suffered no other injury but their
mere division; and there is consequently less tendency to inflammation,
suppuration, gangrene, and other bad consequences; if the wound be large
and deep it will be more dangerous, as well as more difficult to heal,
than one which only affects the skin. Wounds, accompanied with injury of
considerable vessels or nerves, are more or less hazardous, according to
the magnitude or number of those vessels or nerves; generally speaking,
the most dangerous examples of incised wounds are those which are made
about the throat; here there are so many large blood-vessels, nerves and
other parts of great importance, that deep incised wounds often prove
fatal, either immediately, or in a few days; in some cases of suicide
the carotid artery is opened, and the person perishes from hemorrhage on
the spot, before any assistance can be afforded; in other instances he
divides some of the principal branches of the external carotid, and
after losing a great deal of blood, he faints, and the hemorrhage being
thus checked, the life of the patient is preserved, until surgical
assistance can be procured. Cut wounds of the extremities, when such
arteries as the femoral and brachial are injured, may also suddenly
destroy the patient, by hemorrhage.

_Punctures_, or such as are made by the thrust of pointed weapons, as by
swords, daggers, lances, and bayonets, or by the accidental and forcible
introduction of considerable thorns, large nails, skewers, &c. into the
flesh,[106] comprise a class of wounds of great importance and danger,
as they generally penetrate to a great depth, so as to injure large
blood-vessels, nerves, viscera, and other organs of importance; and
being inflicted with considerable violence the parts always suffer more
injury than what would be produced by their simple division. It must
also be considered, that a great number of the weapons by which such
wounds are occasioned, increase materially in diameter from the point
towards their other extremity; and hence, when they penetrate far, they
must force the fibres asunder like a wedge, and cause a serious degree
of stretching and contusion. It is this circumstance which gives so
dangerous a character to bayonet wounds in the soft parts. The opening
which the point of such a weapon produces is quite insufficient for the
passage of the thicker part of it, which can therefore only enter by
forcibly dilating, stretching, and otherwise injuring the fibres of the
wounded flesh. But mortal injury may be inflicted by an extremely
slender instrument, so as to occasion an apparently trivial puncture;
and in some cases, the external injury is healed before the death, which
it occasions, takes place. Such cases can only receive satisfactory
elucidation from the lights of an anatomical dissection, under which
head we have furnished several instructive examples.

_Bruises_, or _Contusions_, strictly comprehend those injuries which are
occasioned by the violent application of blunt or obtuse instruments to
the soft parts. They are not unfrequently complicated with severe
internal injury resulting from the violence which the parts have
sustained, such as inflammation, suppuration, or even the rupture of
some of the viscera, of which we shall hereafter present several
illustrative cases.

A blow on the region of the stomach sometimes occasions instant death;
an effect which would appear to arise from an injury inflicted upon the
eighth pair, and great sympathetic nerves, by which the heart is
instantly paralysed. In these cases the heart has been found empty, and
the stomach has appeared red and inflamed; this latter appearance is the
obvious effect of the sudden cessation of the heart, producing the
settling of the blood in the extreme arterial branches.

Wounds of this description are, of course, more or less important,
according to their locality; unless complicated with laceration, they
are never attended with any considerable hemorrhage, although the minute
vessels are necessarily ruptured, and the effusion of their contents
produces the discoloration so characteristic of this kind of injury.

As in the case of wounds, so also in respect of blows, injuries
apparently inadequate have produced death; it then becomes difficult to
fix the degree of guilt which should be attached to the aggressor; for
though according to the strict letter of the law, every man is
responsible for the ultimate effect of an illegal act committed by him;
yet in moral justice there is much difference between the atrocity of
him who strikes a grievous wound with a deadly weapon, from which by
chance his victim may recover; and the fault of him who transported by
sudden passion gives an ordinary blow, which by accident, by reason of
some inward and unknown disease of his adversary, or by injudicious
treatment, becomes fatal. Numerous cases might be cited in support of
this position: that of _Brain_ for the murder of _Watts_, _Cro. Eliz._
778: _H. P. C._ 455. is one of the most remarkable, not only from the
circumstances attending the trial, where the jury were fined and
imprisoned for a corrupt verdict, but also for the physiological
circumstance, that the deceased died instantly from a blow on the calf
of his leg. The parties had previously quarrelled and fought; and
_Brain_, the prisoner, was hurt; the next day _Watts_ passing his shop
made mouths at him, on which new provocation _Brain_ hit him the blow
which instantly proved fatal. The Court held that the new provocation
was insufficient, and that the death must be referred to precedent
malice—might they not also have considered that a blow on the calf of
the leg was more insufficient to produce death under ordinary
circumstances, than a wry face to induce or inflame a quarrel? The
prisoner was found guilty, but not without considerable and as it
appears to us proper resistance on the part of the jury; the case being
on Appeal, the Crown could not pardon, though the appellant might
compromise his suit:—we are not informed whether the prisoner was
executed.

A case, nearly parallel to the above, is that of _Lydia Alder_, who was
tried in 1744 for the murder of her husband, whom she kicked on the
groin; in consequence of which, having at the time an inguinal rupture,
mortification came on, and he died. Verdict, _Manslaughter_. The
circumstances attending the case of _Bartholomew Quain_ were, in some
respects, different; he was tried and convicted for the murder of his
wife, at the Assizes for the Isle of Ely, in 1790. It appeared in
evidence, that a rupture of the spleen was produced by the violent
kicks, of which the indictment stated that she had died. The jury, under
the direction of the Chief Judge of Ely, found a special verdict, in
order to take the opinion of the Court of King’s Bench upon the
following question, whether the facts found by the jury amounted to
murder, or only to manslaughter, when the Court was clearly of opinion
that it was murder, because there did not appear to have been any
provocation on the part of the deceased; and no man had a right, even to
inflict chastisement, without a just provocation.

_Lacerations_, where the integuments are torn.—These differ from incised
wounds not only in the circumstance of their being less disposed to heal
by the first intention, but in the singular fact of their not bleeding
to any extent; there are perhaps no facts, in the history of surgery,
more extraordinary than those which have been recorded on the subject of
whole limbs being torn away, without hemorrhage. The most remarkable of
these is related by _Cheselden_, in his work on Anatomy, being the case
of a miller, “whose arm, with the scapula, was torn off from his body,
by a rope winding round it, the other end being fastened to the coggs of
a mill; there was no hemorrhage, nor did any severe symptoms supervene,
so that the wound was cured by superficial dressings only, the natural
skin being left almost sufficient to cover it.” Analogous cases are
recorded by _La Motte_, in his _Traité des Accouchemens_; by Mr.
_Carmichael_, in the fifth volume of the _Edinburgh Medical
Commentaries_; and by others, in the second volume of the _Mem. de
l’Acad. de Chirurgie_. In appreciating the degree of danger attendant
upon wounds of this description, the practitioner must not overlook the
possible occurence of Tetanus.

_Gun-shot wounds._ Long after the invention of gunpowder, Surgeons
continued to entertain very vague opinions respecting the nature of
wounds produced by it; some considered that the injured parts were
either dreadfully burnt by the heat of the projected body, or were
irritated by the presence of poison, communicated to them by the powder.
_Thomas Gale_, who served as a Surgeon in the army of _Henry_ 8th, at
Montreuil in 1554, was the first to refute the absurd opinions of “the
poisoning, burning, and conquassation of gun-shot wounds.” A gun-shot
wound is now defined “a violent contusion, with, or without a solution
of continuity, suddenly and rapidly effected by a solid body projected
from fire-arms.” If a musket or pistol ball has struck a fleshy part,
without injuring any material blood-vessel, we see a hole about the size
of, or smaller than the bullet itself; with a more or less discoloured
lip forced inwards, and if it has passed through the parts, we find an
everted edge, and a more ragged, and larger orifice at the point of its
exit; the pain in this case is so inconsiderable that the wounded person
is frequently not aware of his having received any injury. The course of
balls is frequently most extraordinary, and it behoves the judicial
surgeon to keep in mind a fact which may often throw considerable light
upon the subject of his investigation. A ball will often strike the
thorax or abdomen, and, to an inexperienced eye, appear to have passed
directly across, or to be lodged in one of the cavities. If great
difficulty of breathing or hemorrhage from the mouth, with sudden
paleness and laborious pulse, in the one case, or deadly faintness,
coldness of the extremities, and the discharge of stercoraceous matter
from the wound, in the second, are not present, we shall perhaps find
that the ball has coursed along under the integuments, and is marked in
its progress either by a redness, which Mr. _Hunter_ compared to a
blush, or by a wheal, or dusky line, terminated by a tumour, on the
opening which it will be easily extracted. In some of these long and
circuitous routes of balls, where we have not this mark, a certain
emphysematous crackling discovers their course, and leads to their
detection. The ball is in many instances found very close to its point
of entrance, having nearly completed the circuit of the body. In a case
related by Dr. _Hennen_, as one that occurred to a friend of his in the
Mediterranean, the ball, which struck about the _Pomum Adami_, was found
lying in the very orifice at which it had entered, having gone
completely round the neck, and being prevented from passing out by the
elasticity and toughness of the skin which had confined it to this
circular course. This circuitous route is a very frequent occurrence,
particularly when balls strike the ribs, or abdominal muscles, for they
are turned from the direct line by a very slight resistance indeed,
although they will at times run along a continued surface, as the length
of a bone, along a muscle, or a fascia, to a very extraordinary
distance. If there is nothing to check its course, and if its momentum
be very great, it is surprising what a variety of parts may be injured
by a musket ball. Dr. _Hennen_ states that in one instance, which
occurred in a soldier, who having his arm extended in the act of
endeavouring to climb up a scaling ladder, had the centre of his humerus
pierced by a ball, which immediately passed along the limb, and over the
posterior part of the thorax, coursed among the abdominal muscles,
dipped deep through the glutæi, and presented on the fore part of the
opposite thigh, about midway down. In another case, a ball which struck
the breast of a man standing erect in the ranks lodged in the scrotum.
The propensity of balls to take a curved direction is often seen in
their course on a concave surface; in short, they take very unusual and
deep-seated routes, not at all to be accounted for by any preconceived
theories drawn from the doctrine of projectiles, nor to be explained by
diagrams founded upon mathematical rules. These considerations ought to
render the Surgeon very cautious how he delivers his opinion, as to the
direction in which the shot was fired, and yet instances frequently
occur where no difficulty can arise upon this point, such was the case
of _Richard Annesley_, tried for the murder of _Thomas Eglestone_ (9
_Harg. Sta. Tri._ 327). The deceased was a poacher. _Annesley_ who was
in company with the game-keeper, stated in his defence, that his gun had
accidentally gone off in his attempt to secure the deceased. The
instructions given by the Court on this occasion was that if the jury
were of opinion that the gun had so gone off accidentally, they should
bring in a verdict of _Chance-medley_, which was returned accordingly,
in consequence of the evidence of the Surgeon who had examined the
wound, and stated that its direction being upwards, very satisfactorily
proved that the fowling-piece had not been levelled from the shoulder,
which would have implied design; but must have been discharged at the
trail, which must have been accidental.[107] An idea long existed that a
ball might produce injury without striking any part of the body; this
was supposed by some to arise from the violent commotion produced in the
air by the rapid motion of the ball; and by others, to depend upon an
electrical shock on the parts, in consequence of the ball being rendered
electrical by friction in the calibre of the gun, and giving off the
electrical matter as it passes by. This, however, is contrary to all our
received notions respecting electricity; metals can never acquire such a
property by friction.

In avowing our total disbelief in the existence of such
_wind-contusions_, as they have been called, we are well aware that we
shall oppose many very respectable authorities. “_Amicus Plato, sed
magis amica Veritas._”

An important question, connected with the present subject, still remains
for elucidation; where a body has been found dead with wounds and
contusions, by what signs we are to determine whether they were
inflicted during life, or after death. As the solution of this
interesting problem requires various data, its consideration will be
reserved for that part of our work, where all the Objects of Inquiry, in
cases of sudden and mysterious death, are considered in their various
relations to each other, with a view to appreciate their individual and
joint importance.

                             BY POISONING.

No species of murder is so base and cowardly, or so cool and deliberate
in its perpetration as murder by poison, which because of its secresy
prevents all precaution, whereas most open murder gives the party killed
some opportunity of defence;[108] it is generally committed in violation
of domestic duty and confidence, and too frequently evinces that
unrelenting and barbarous depravity, which can witness the sufferings of
its victim for days nay months unmoved; therefore our ancient laws
adjudged those convicted of poisoning to a severer punishment than other
offenders. 3 _Nels. Abr._ 363. _Jac. Law Dict. tit. Poison._ By the 22
_Hen._ 8. it was _ex post facto_ enacted that _Richard Roose_, (or
_Cooke_), for putting poison into a pot of pottage in the Bishop of
Rochester’s kitchen, by which two persons were killed, should be boiled
to death; and that the offence in future should be adjudged High
Treason; but this among other new treasons (with which the reign of
_Henry_ the 8th had abounded) was abolished by the statute of _Edward_
6, and now to poison any one wilfully is murder if the party die in a
year. 1 _Edw._ 6. _c._ 12.

By the 43 _Geo._ 3. _c._ 58. (commonly called Lord _Ellenborough’s_ Act)
any person administering poison with _intent_ to murder another, (though
no death ensue) or to procure the miscarriage of a woman quick with
child, is declared guilty of felony without benefit of clergy: and
persons administering medicines to procure miscarriage, though the woman
is not quick with child, are declared guilty of felony, punishable by
imprisonment or transportation (_vide post_). If a man persuade another
to drink a poisonous liquor, under the notion of a medicine, who
afterwards drinks it in his absence, or if _A_, intending to poison _B_,
put poison into a thing, and deliver it to _D_ who knows nothing of the
matter, to be by him delivered to _B_, and _D_ innocently delivers it
accordingly in the absence of _A_;[109] in this case the procurer of the
felony is as much a principal as if he had been present when it was done
(2 _Hawk. P. C._ 443: _Vin. Ab. tit. Accessory_) or if one mix poison
with any eatable with intent to kill another, and a stranger casually
eat it and die,[110] it is murder; _Dalton_, 93. _Agnes Gore’s_ case for
poisoning by ratsbane (9 _Co. Rep._ 81: _Palm. R._ 547.), not so if it
be to kill vermin; but query if it be manslaughter where there is not
proper precaution, as where the poison is laid in ordinary places for
keeping meat, and mixed with ordinary food, so that a child may take it.
1 _East. P. C._ He that counsels another to give poison, if that other
doth it, the counsellor, if absent, is accessory _before_. _Coke, P. C._
49. Case of the murder of Sir _Thomas Overbury_, _Harg. St. Trials_. But
he that absolutely gives or lays the poison, to the intent to poison,
though he be absent when it is taken by the party, yet he is principal,
and this was _Weston’s_ case. _Harg. St. Trials_: _Co. P. C._ _p._ 49.
_Vaux’s_ case, _ubi supra_, and _Donellan’s_ case for the murder of Sir
_Theodosius Boughton_, _Warwick Assizes_, 1784. See _Appendix_, 243.

It is not our intention to detail every mode by which murder by poison
may be committed; too many are already known to the world in general; on
those which are known, we may safely comment; nor would there be as much
mischief as is commonly supposed in hinting at some others; for if any
should study this subject with evil intention, he may be assured that
the progress of modern science, though it may have discovered some new
modes of destruction, has been yet more fertile in antidotes for the
injured, and in means of detecting the guilty.

                              OF POISONS,

      CHEMICALLY, PHYSIOLOGICALLY, AND PATHOLOGICALLY CONSIDERED.

Toxicology, or the history of Poisons, forms one of the most important
and elaborate branches of Forensic Medicine, and in tracing the subject
through all its numerous and interesting relations to Jurisprudence, we
shall experience no small degree of gratification by observing, how
greatly and progressively this obscure department of science has, within
the last few years, been enlightened by the discoveries of Chemistry and
Physiology.

The labours of the modern Chemist, indeed, have enabled us to recognise
and identify each particular substance by its properties and habitudes,
with an infallible delicacy, which the Physicians of a former age could
scarcely have anticipated, and much less practised.

The Physiologist, by an invaluable series of observations and
experiments, has demonstrated the particular organ, or texture, upon
which each individual poison exerts its energies; and the Pathologist
has been thus enabled to establish the mode in which it depraves the
health, or extinguishes the life of an animal. Nor has the Anatomist
withheld his contributions upon this interesting occasion, for he has
demonstrated the situation, extent, and intensity of the organic lesions
which result from the operation of these terrible agents upon the living
body; and has pointed out several appearances which occur from natural
causes, but which might be mistaken by the unskilful or superficial
observer, for the ravages of poison. It remains for the Forensic
Physician to converge into one focus the scattered rays which have thus
emanated from so many points, and thereby to elucidate and determine the
line of conduct which the medical attendant is called upon to pursue,
for the relief of the patient suffering under the torments of poison,
and for the establishment of the guilt or innocence of the party charged
with the perpetration of a crime, which may be said to rob courage of
its just security, while it transfers to cowardice the triumphs of
valour. That engines so powerful and secret in their work of
destruction, should have universally excited the terror of mankind is a
fact which cannot surprise us, and, when we consider how intimate are
the relations between fear and credulity, we need not seek farther for
the solution of the many problems to which the exaggerated statements of
ancient Toxicologists[111] have given origin; the most extraordinary of
those relate to the alleged subtlety of certain poisons, which was
believed to be so extreme as to defeat the most skilful caution, and at
the same time so manageable, as to be capable of the most accurate
graduation; so that, in short, the accomplished assassin was not only
thus enabled to ensure the death of his victim through the most secret,
and least suspicious agents, but to measure his allotted moments with
the nicest precision, and to occasion his death at any period that might
best answer the objects of the assassination. The writings of
_Plutarch_, _Tacitus_, _Theophrastus_, _Quintillian_, and _Livy_, abound
with such instances of _occult_ and _slow_ poisoning; most of which,
however, notwithstanding the weight they may acquire from their
testimony, bear internal evidence of their fallacious character.
_Plutarch_ informs us that a slow poison which occasioned heat, cough,
spitting of blood, a lingering consumption of the body, and a weakness
of intellect, was administered to _Aratus_ of Sicyon. This same poison
is also alluded to by _Quintillian_ in his declamations. _Tacitus_[112]
informs us that _Sejanus_ caused a _secret_ poison to be administered by
an eunuch to _Drusus_, who in consequence gradually declined, as if by a
consumptive disorder, and at length died. _Theophrastus_[113] speaks of
a poison, prepared from Aconite, that could be so modified as to
occasion death within a certain period, such as two, three, or six
months, a year, and even sometimes two years.

To such an extent does the crime of poisoning appear to have been
carried, about two hundred years before the Christian æra, that
according to _Livy_,[114] above one hundred and fifty ladies, of the
first families in Rome, were convicted and punished for preparing and
distributing poison. The most notorious and expert character of this
kind is handed down to us by the historians and poets under the name of
_Locusta_, who was condemned to die on account of her infamous actions,
but was saved in order that she might become a state engine, and be
numbered, as _Tacitus_ expresses it, “_Inter instrumenta regni_.” She
was accordingly employed to poison _Claudius_ by _Agrippina_, who was
desirous of destroying the Emperor, and yet feared to despatch him
suddenly, whence a slow poison was prepared by _Locusta_, and served to
him in a dish of mushrooms, of which he was particularly fond,
“_Boletorum appetentissimus_;” but it failed in its effects, as we learn
from _Tacitus_, until it was assisted by one of a more powerful nature.
“_Post quem nihil amplius edit._” This same _Locusta_ prepared also the
poison with which _Nero_ despatched _Britannicus_, the son of
_Agrippina_, whom his father _Claudius_ wished to succeed him on the
throne. This poison appears to have proved too slow in its operation,
and to have occasioned only a dysentery. The Emperor accordingly
compelled her by blows and threats, to prepare in his presence one of a
more powerful nature, and as the tale is related by _Suetonius_, it
appears that it was then tried on a kid, but as the animal did not die
until the lapse of five hours, she boiled it for a longer period, when
it became so strong as instantaneously to kill a pig to which it was
given. In this state of concentration it is said to have despatched
_Britannicus_ as soon as he tasted it.[115] Vide _Tac. An._ 13. _s._ 15.
16. Now it would clearly appear from these statements that _Locusta_,
avowedly the most accomplished poisoner of ancient Rome, was wholly
incapable of graduating the strength of her poisons to the different
purposes for which they were applied.

The records of modern times will furnish examples no less atrocious than
those we have just related. _Tophana_, a woman who resided first at
Palermo, and afterwards at Naples, may be considered as the _Locusta_ of
modern history; she invented and sold those drops so well known by the
names of _Aqua Toffania_; _Aqua della Toffana_; _Acquetta di Napoli_, or
simply _Acquetta_. This stygian liquor she distributed by way of charity
to such wives as wished for other husbands; from four to six drops were
sufficient to destroy a man, and it was asserted that the dose could be
so proportioned as to operate within any given period.[116] It appears
that in order to secure her poison from examination, she vended it in
small glass phials, inscribed, “_Manna of Saint Nicolas Bari_,” and
ornamented the vessel with the image of the Saint. Having been put to
the rack she confessed that she had destroyed upwards of six hundred
persons, for which she suffered death by strangulation in the year
1709[117]. In 1670 the art of secret poisoning excited very considerable
alarm in France; the _Marchioness de Brinvillier_, a young woman of rank
and great personal beauty, having intrigued with, and subsequently
married an adventurer named _Saint Croix_, acquired from him the secret
of this diabolical act, and practised it to an extent that had never
before been equalled. She poisoned her two brothers through the medium
of a dish at table. She also prepared poisoned biscuits, and to try
their strength she distributed them herself to the poor at the Hotel
Dieu. Her own maid was likewise the subject of her experiments. To her
father she gave poisoned broth, which brought on symptoms characteristic
of those induced by corrosive sublimate. Her brothers lingered during
several months under much suffering. The detection of this wretch is
said to have been brought about in the following manner. _Saint Croix_,
whenever engaged in the preparation of his poisons, was accustomed to
protect himself from their dangerous fumes by wearing a glass mask,
which happening to fall off by accident, he was found dead in his
laboratory.[118] A casket directed to the Marchioness, with a desire
that in case of her death it might be destroyed unopened, was found in
his chamber, a circumstance which in itself was sufficient to excite the
curiosity and suspicion of those into whose hands it fell. The casket
was accordingly examined, and the disclosure of its contents at once
developed the whole plot, and finally led to the conviction of this
French Medea, who after a number of adventures and escapes, was at
length arrested and sent to Paris, where she was beheaded, and then
burnt, on the 11th of July, 1676. The practice of poisoning, however,
did not cease with her execution, and it became necessary in 1679 to
establish a particular Court, for the detection and trial of such
offenders; which continued for some time to exert its jurisdiction under
the title of CHAMBRE DE POISON, or CHAMBRE ARDENTE.

With respect to the secret modes in which poisons have been supposed
capable of acting, mankind have ever betrayed the most extravagant
credulity, of which the numerous tales upon record afford ample proof;
such as that reported of _Parasapis_ by _Plutarch_, from _Ctesias_, in
his life of _Artaxerxes_, who, it is said, by anointing a knife on one
side by poison, and therewith dividing a bird, poisoned _Statira_ with
one half, and with the other regaled herself in perfect security. We are
also told of _Livia_ who poisoned the figs on a tree which her husband
was in the habit of gathering with his own hands. _Tissot_ informs us
that _John_, king of Castille, was poisoned by a pair of boots prepared
by a Turk; _Henry_ VI, by gloves[119]; Pope _Clement_ VII, by the fumes
of a taper[120]; and our king _John_, in a wassail bowl, contaminated by
matter extracted from a living toad. To these few instances of credulity
may be added the offer of the priest to destroy queen _Elizabeth_ by
poisoning her saddle[121], and the _Earl of Essex_, by anointing his
chair.

Incredible and absurd as these opinions now appear, they continued until
a late period to alarm mankind, and to perplex and baffle judicial
investigations; even _Lord Bacon_ in his charge against the _Earl of
Somerset_ for the murder of _Sir Thomas Overbury_, in the Tower, seemed
to give credit to the story of _Livia_, and he seriously stated, that
“_Weston_ chased the poor prisoner with poison after poison; poisoning
salts, poisoning meats, poisoning sweetmeats, poisoning medicines and
vomits, until at last his body was almost come, by the use of poisons,
to the state that _Mithridates’s_ body was by the use of treacle and
preservatives, that the force of poisons was blunted upon him;” _Weston_
confessing, when he was reproached for not despatching him, that he had
given enough to poison twenty men.[122] The power of so graduating the
force of a poison as to enable it to operate at any given period seems
to have been considered possible by the earlier members of the Royal
Society, for we learn from _Spratt’s_ history of that learned body, that
very shortly after its institution, a series of questions were drawn up
by the direction of the Fellows, for the purpose of being submitted to
the Chinese and Indians, viz. “_Whether the Indians can so prepare that
stupifying herb, Datura, that they make it lie several days, months,
years, according as they will have it, in a man’s body, without doing
him any hurt, and at the end kill him without missing half an hour’s
time?_”

That mankind were, in a very early stage of their existence, not only
acquainted with the deadly effects of certain natural substances when
applied in minute quantities, but that they availed themselves of such
knowledge for the accomplishment of the worst purposes, is very
satisfactorily shewn by the records of sacred as well as profane
authors. But such is the ambiguity of ancient writers upon this subject,
and so intimately blended are all their receipts with the practices of
superstition, that every research, however learned, into the exact
nature of the poisons which they employed, is necessarily vague and
unsatisfactory. Of this one fact, however, we may be perfectly
satisfied, that they were solely derived from the animal and vegetable
kingdoms, for the discovery of mineral poisons was an event of later
date; owing however to the defect of botanical nomenclature, it is even
doubtful whether the plants which are designated by the terms _Cicuta_,
_Aconitum_, &c. in ancient authors, were identical with those we
designate by the same names. (See _Pharmacologia_, edit. v. vol. 1, p.
66.) With respect to the poisons of _Locusta_, all cotemporary writers
speak of the venom of the toad as the fatal ingredient of her potions,
and in the Alexipharmaca of _Dioscorides_ we find the symptoms
described, which are said to be produced by it;[123] but what is very
extraordinary, the belief of the ancients on this matter was all but
universal. _Pliny_ is express on the subject; _Ætius_ describes two
kinds of this reptile,[124] the latter of which, as Dr. _Badham_ has
suggested, was probably the frog, as well from the epithet, as that he
ascribes deleterious powers only to the former. It is scarcely necessary
to observe that this ancient belief has descended into later times; we
find Sir _Thomas Browne_ treating such an opinion as one of the vulgar
errors; and we have before alluded to the legend of king _John_ having
been poisoned by a wassail bowl in which matter extracted from a living
toad was said to have been infused. In still later times, we have heard
of a barrel of beer poisoned by the same reptile having found its way
into it. _Borelli_ and _Valisnieri_ maintain that it is perfectly
harmless, and state that they had seen it eaten with impunity.
_Spielman_[125] expresses the same opinion, “_Minus recte itaque
effectus venenati a bufonibus metuuntur._” _Franck_,[126] on the
contrary, accuses _Gmelin_ of too much precipitancy in rejecting the
belief respecting toad-poison,[127] Modern naturalists recognise no
poisonous species of toad; even the most formidable of the species, to
appearance, that of Surinam, is said to be perfectly harmless.

If we may venture to offer a conjecture upon this subject, we are
inclined to consider the origin of this opinion to have been derived
from the frequency with which the toad entered into the composition of
spells or charms, into philtres or love potions, and which, like the bat
and the owl, most probably derived its magical character from the gloom
and solitude of its habitation. _Shakspeare_ has accordingly introduced
this reptile into the witches’ enchanted cauldron, in _Macbeth_.

                  “Round about the cauldron go;
                  In the poison’d entrails throw.
                  Toad that under coldest stone
                  Days and nights hast thirty-one
                  Swelter’d venom sleeping got,
                  Boil thou first i’ the charmed pot!”

This opinion receives further strength when it is considered how
frequently poisons were administered under the insidious form of charms
or incantations.[128]

It has, however, been shewn by late experiments that the toad has, under
particular circumstances, the power of ejecting from the surface of the
body an acrid secretion which excoriates the hands of those that come in
contact with it; and this fact may perhaps have assisted in supporting
the general belief respecting the poisonous nature of this reptile.
_Pelletier_ has ascertained, that this corrosive matter, contained in
the vesicles which cover the skin of the common toad, (_Rana Bufo_) has
a yellow colour, and an oily consistence, and to consist of,—1st, an
acid partly united to a base, and constituting 1/20th part of the whole.
2d, very bitter fatty matter. 3d, an animal matter bearing some analogy
to gelatine.

It would also appear from the writings of _Dioscorides_, _Galen_,
_Nicander_, _Ætius_, _Ælian_, and _Pliny_, that the ancients derived a
very energetic poison from the Sea Hare, _Lepus Marinus_,—the _Aplysia
Depilans_ of _Linnæus_; and, if we may credit _Philostratus_, it was
with such a poison that _Titus_ was killed by _Domitian_.

There is, however, ample ground for supposing that the poisons of the
ancients were, for the most part, obtained from the vegetable kingdom,
and from the class of Narcotic plants;[129] that they were compounded of
a great variety of such ingredients, together with others that were
quite inert and useless, and which merely served to disguise their
composition.

Ancient writers also allude to the blood of the bullock as a poison;
_Themistocles_ is said by _Plutarch_ to have destroyed himself by this
fluid; and _Strabo_ states that _Midas_ died of drinking the hot blood
of this animal, which he did, as _Plutarch_ mentions, to free himself
from the numerous ill dreams which continually tormented him. Some
historians assign the death of _Hannibal_ to the same draught.

With respect to the poisons employed by _Tophana_, the Locusta of modern
days, and her infamous successors, there is less doubt; _Arsenic_,
_Corrosive Sublimate_, _Sugar of Lead_, and _Antimony_,[130] were
amongst the most powerful of their instruments of torture and death.
According to the declaration of the Emperor _Charles_ VII to his
physician _Garelli_, the _Aqua Toffania_ was a solution of arsenic in
_Aqua Cymbalariæ_.[131] Dr. _Hahneman_ considered its basis to have been
an arsenical salt. Others have, with little probability, regarded Opium
and Cantharides as the active ingredients. _Franck_,[132] speaking of
the _Aqua Toffania_, agrees with _Gmelin_,[133] that it is no other than
a solution of arsenic. The _Pulvis Successionis_, another instrument of
death, whose title announces the diabolical intention with which it was
administered, has been supposed to have been a preparation of lead;
while others have considered it to have consisted of diamond dust, and
to have acted mechanically.

Having thus noticed a few of the more remarkable and interesting
features in the literary history of Toxicology, we shall proceed to
consider the subject of Poisons, in relation to their operation.

A Poison, (_Toxicum_, _Venenum_, _Virus_), has been very correctly
defined by _Gmelin_ to be a substance which when administered
internally, or applied externally, in a small dose, impairs the health,
or destroys life. This definition is adopted by _Mead_, _Sproegel_,
_Plenck_, and _Tortosa_, and is to be preferred to every other,[134] not
only for its simplicity, but for its independence of any theory relative
to the _modus operandi_ of such agents. But it will be seen that, by
accepting this definition, we are necessarily led to admit the fact,
that poisoning may be acute, or chronic, that is to say, that it may at
once destroy life, or produce a disease which can be protracted to any
indefinite period. After the erroneous and vague notions which have been
entertained upon the subject of “_Slow poisons_,” it is highly essential
that the latitude of our belief should be accurately ascertained, and
the precise meaning of our terms defined.

         OF SLOW, CONSECUTIVE,[135] AND ACCUMULATIVE POISONING.

1. _Slow Poisons._ According to the popular acceptation of the term,
they may be defined, _Substances which can be administered
imperceptibly; and a single dose of which will operate so gradually, as
to shorten life like a lingering disease; their force, at the same time,
admitting of so nice an adjustment as to enable the artist to occasion
death at any required period._ We have now to inquire how far such
alleged powers are consistent with the known laws of physiology. It
cannot be denied that certain substances have been introduced into the
alimentary canal, where they have remained for an indefinite period,
without occasioning the slightest inconvenience, and at length excited a
disease that has terminated fatally; in the _London Medical and Physical
Journal_ for February 1816, a case is related in which death was
occasioned by a chocolate-nut having lodged in the entrance of the
_Appendix Vermiformis_; and in the _Edinburgh Medical and Surgical
Journal_ for July 1816, we have an analogous case, communicated by Dr.
_Briggs_ of Liverpool, where the _Appendix cæci_ sphacelated, owing to
the irritation of a human tooth which was found sticking in its cavity.
Mr. _Children_ has lately communicated to the Royal Society a case where
a concretion in the colon produced death; upon examination it was found
to contain a plum-stone, as a nucleus, and to consist of a fine fibrous
vegetable substance, from the inner coat enveloping the farina of the
oat, and which was derived from the oatmeal upon which the deceased had
fed. (_Phil. Trans._ 1822.) However disposed we may feel, by a forced
construction of the term, to consider such agents as _slow_ poisons, it
is very evident that they can rarely have been made subservient to the
purposes of secret poisoning; although a case occurred in the practice
of the author,[136] in which a girl swallowed six copper pence for the
avowed purpose of destroying herself; the coin produced a disease which
remained chronic for a very considerable period, when, after a lapse of
five years, they were voided, and the young woman recovered. A similar
attempt was also made by _Theodore Gardelle_, after his conviction for
the murder of Mrs. _King_ (_vide ante_), he swallowed a number of
halfpence, for the purpose of destroying himself, but without any ill
effect. Dr. _Baillie_, in his ‘_Morbid Anatomy_,’ relates an instance
where five halfpence had been lodged in a pouch in the stomach for a
considerable time, without occasioning any irritation; and Mr. _A.
Thomson_ has also furnished us with two analogous cases in children, in
one of which the copper coin remained six months in the intestines, and
in the other, two months. These facts furnish sufficient data to enable
the practitioner to appreciate the degree of danger attendant upon such
agents, and to determine how far they can ever become successful
instruments in the hands of the assassin.[137]

But it has been supposed that certain bodies, as glass, enamel,
diamonds,[138] agates, smalt, &c. when administered in the form of
powder, so lacerate the membranes of the stomach, by the sharpness of
their particles, as slowly to destroy life; and upon the same principle,
it has been asserted, that human hair, chopped fine,[139] constitutes
the active ingredient of a slow poison frequently employed in Turkey,
and that it induces, by irritation, a chronic disease resembling cancer.
With respect to the danger arising from the ingestion of diamond dust,
enamel powder, powdered glass, and the like, there still may be said to
exist some difference of opinion. _Caldani_, _Mandruzzato_,[140] and M.
_Le Sauvage_, have reported experiments made upon men and inferior
animals, in which no bad consequences followed the administration of
such bodies; whereas _Schurigius_[141] and _Cardanus_[142] cite
instances where persons have died of ulcerations of the stomach from
such causes; and this opinion receives the support of _Plouquet_,[143]
_Stoll_,[144] _Gmelin_,[145] _Foderé_,[146] _Mahon_,[147] _Franck_,[148]
and many others. The modern pathologist will not find much difficulty in
reconciling such conflicting testimony. The experimentalist may
administer mechanical substances a thousand times without producing any
ill effects, while, under certain circumstances, the most trivial body
may lodge in the intestines and produce death; but surely the occasional
occurrence of such accidents ought not to confer the general title of
_poison_ upon the substances which may happen to produce them.

Having thus disposed of a considerable number of bodies, which have been
classed as _slow_ poisons, we may proceed to observe that most of the
other substances which have found a place in the same division, appear
to us to deserve consideration under a very different head, and that we
shall get rid of much obscurity by adopting the following arrangement.

2. _Consecutive Poisoning._ Where the patient, having recovered from the
acute effects occasioned by the ingestion of a single dose of poison,
_subsequently suffers a series of symptoms from the injured structure to
which it had given origin_. By referring to our definition of _slow_
poisoning, we shall at once perceive the striking and important
distinction between that and _Consecutive poisoning_. The following
case, related by M. _Orfila_, may serve as an illustration. _Maria
Ladan_ drank by mistake a spoonful of _Aqua fortis_, the most violent
symptoms supervened, but which by judicious treatment gradually
subsided, when at length she passed by stool a long membranous
substance, rolled up, and which represented the form of the æsophagus
and stomach, and which, in fact, was found to be the interior membrane
of these organs; from that moment the sensibility of the digestive
organs became excessive, and two months after the accident she
experienced a sudden shock and died. M. _Tartra_, in observing upon
cases of this kind, asserts that the symptoms produced at first by the
nitric acid decrease insensibly; and that at the end of a certain
period, the internal membrane of the digestive canal is struck with
death, and thrown off, and the person dies of a _Marasmus_.
_Fordyce_[149] relates the case of a woman who was subject to cholics
for the space of thirty years, in consequence of having _once_ taken an
infusion of the pulp of Colocynth prepared with beer. This was
undoubtedly an extraordinary instance of idiosyncrasy, but it is
probable that some organic lesion was occasioned by its operation, to
which the subsequent suffering is to be referred. We have hitherto only
considered the effects that may arise from the ingestion of a _single_
dose of poison, but there are numerous and very interesting cases in
which fatal results have been produced by the repetition of small doses
at various intervals. We therefore propose a third, and new subdivision
of our subject, viz.

3. _Accumulative Poisoning._—By the repeated administration of a
substance, in doses, of which no single one could occasion harm; but
which, by gradually accumulating in the system, ultimately occasions
disease, and death.

The familiar operation of mercury will at once suggest itself to the
Physician, as a striking illustration of that species of poisoning which
we have ventured to name _Accumulative_, and to the forensic student the
effects of this metal, in reference to such a quality, will form a more
than ordinary object of interest, as involving questions which have
frequently embarrassed judicial inquiry; as, for instance, _Whether it
can lie dormant any considerable time without betraying its effects upon
the constitution_, and, having displayed its powers, and the symptoms
having subsided, viz. salivation, &c. _Whether they can be renewed
without a fresh application of the substance?_ See Corrosive sublimate.

To how many substances this power of accumulation extends is at present
not well understood. It may occur in those that act by absorption, and
in those whose action is wholly local. Arsenic, digitalis, and several
of the narcotic plants, as hemlock, may undoubtedly occasion serious
mischief in this manner, as the author has more fully explained in
another work,[150] and we have lately heard of several fatal cases
arising from accumulated masses of magnesia in the _primæ viæ_, from the
habitual use of small doses of that earth.

The history of many of the arts, especially those of metallurgy, would
furnish also abundant examples of this kind of poisoning.

These few facts are we trust sufficient to authorise the foregoing
arrangement, and we apprehend that the adoption of the distinctions,
upon which it is founded, will be of great service in establishing fixed
and definite notions with regard to the _chronic_ operation of poisons.
It may perhaps be useful to present the reader with a synoptical
recapitulation of the subject.

  _A Slow Poison._ A single dose is sufficient; which produces upon its
    administration no sensible effect, but gradually undermines the
    health.

  _A Consecutive Poison._ A single dose is sufficient; producing the
    most violent symptoms, very shortly after its ingestion, but which
    gradually subside, and the patient is supposed cured; when, at some
    future period, death takes place from the organic lesions that had
    been occasioned.

  _An Accumulative Poison._ Many doses are required; the effects being
    produced by the repetition of doses which would, _individually_, be
    harmless.

There still remains another point of view in which it is essential to
regard the operation of a poison, in order to establish a distinction
between those substances which, in a given dose, will destroy life under
every circumstance of constitution, and those which occasion death in
consequence of some constitutional peculiarity in the individual to whom
they may have been administered, and which are innocuous to the general
mass of mankind; the gradations by which food, medicine, and poison, are
thus enabled to branch into each other cannot be defined, because the
circumstances with which they are related, defy generalization. The
distinction, however, must be acknowledged and preserved, and we know no
terms better adapted for expressing it than those of _Absolute_ and
_Relative_ poisons; and our readers are accordingly requested to receive
them in conformity with this explanation, whenever they occur in the
following pages. Every work professing to treat the subject of Poisons,
abounds with instances, in which articles that, by universal consent,
are considered innocuous, have occasioned the most direful effects.
_Morgagni_ relates a case of a person who died from eating bread made
with the farina of the chesnut. Dr. _Winterbottom_[151] says that he is
subject to severe nettle-rash after eating sweet almonds. _Schenkius_
relates a case in which the general law of astringents and cathartics
was always reversed. _Donatus_ tells us of a boy whose jaws swelled,
whose face broke out in spots, and whose lips frothed, whenever he eat
an egg: we might add many more examples, but it is needless to encumber
a subject with illustrations which is already so obvious and
indisputable. Nor do the anomalies of constitutional idiosyncrasies end
here, for they not only convert food into poison, but they change poison
into food, or at least, into a harmless repast. The most extraordinary
exemplification of this on record is contained in the history of the old
man at Constantinople, as related by M. _Pouqueville_, physician to the
French army in Egypt, and who was a prisoner at Constantinople in the
year 1798[152]. “This man,” says he, “was well known all over
Constantinople, by the name of _Suleyman Yeyen_, or _Suleyman, the taker
of corrosive sublimate_. At the epoch when I was there he was supposed
to be nearly a hundred years old, having lived under the Sultans
_Achmet_ III, _Abdul Hamet_, and _Selim_ III. He had in early life
habituated himself to taking opium; but, notwithstanding that he
constantly increased the dose, he ceased to feel from it the desired
effect, and then tried sublimate, the effects of which he had heard
highly spoken of; for thirty years this old man never ceased to take it
daily, and the quantity he could now bear exceeded a drachm. It is said,
at this epoch he came into the shop of a Jewish apothecary, and asked
for a drachm of sublimate, which he swallowed immediately, having first
mixed it in a glass of water. The apothecary, terrified, and fearing
that he should be accused of poisoning a Turk, immediately shut up his
shop, reproaching himself bitterly with what he had done; but his
surprise was very great, when, the next day, the Turk came again, and
asked for a like dose of sublimate.”

Morbid states of the body may also exist which are capable of resisting,
to a certain extent, or of modifying, the violent operation of
particular poisons. In the history of the Royal Academy of Sciences for
1703, a case is related of a woman, who being tired out by a protracted
dropsy, under which her husband had suffered, _charitably_ administered
to him fifteen or twenty grains of opium with the intention of
despatching him; but the dose immediately produced such copious
evacuations by sweat and urine, that it restored him to health. This
relation will immediately recal to the recollection of the classical
reader the story, recorded by _Plutarch_, in his life of _Crassus_, of
_Hyrodes_ king of the Parthians, who having fallen into a dropsical
complaint had poison (_Aconite_) administered to him by his second son,
_Phraates_, but which, instead of destroying the king, as intended,
cured his disease. The son, however, having thus failed in his attempt,
shortly afterwards smothered his father with his pillow.

                            GENERAL REMARKS

   ON THE MEDICAL EVIDENCE REQUIRED TO SUBSTANTIATE AN ACCUSATION OF
                               POISONING.

Although the phenomena by which we are enabled to discover the
administration of poison, will be fully enumerated, and carefully
examined, under the history of each particular substance, and will
necessarily vary according to the chemical properties, and physiological
action of each individual poison; yet there are some general points of
evidence, and several questions of importance, upon which it is very
essential to arrive at some definite conclusion, some fixed
understanding, before we proceed to the consideration of the particular
details, and subordinate ramifications, of this complicated subject.

The great constituents which form the medical proof of poisoning, are
derived from Chemical, Anatomical, and Pathological researches; viz.—the
existence of poison in the stomach or intestines; the morbid
appearances, corresponding to such poison, upon dissection; and the
characteristic symptoms which accompanied the action of it, previous to
death. Where these circumstances occur in combination, the demonstration
may be said to be complete, for we have arrived at absolute certainty.

But scientific evidence, short of such perfection, may be amply
sufficient to lead to conviction. The fact of a poison having been found
in the body may supersede the necessity of pathological testimony: thus
_Hoffman_,[153] “_Si venenum adhuc intra ventriculum reperitur, res est
clarissima, ubi vero, illud haud deprehenditur, res adhuc dubii plena
est._” We shall hereafter find that the discovery of organic lesions,
without the chemical proof (“_experimentum crucis_[154]”) is often
vague, and seldom satisfactory, and that even when sanctioned by the
testimony of the pathologist, will frequently be deemed insufficient to
sustain an indictment, unless indeed it be collaterally supported by a
very strong chain of circumstantial evidence of a moral nature,
especially such as relates to the character, conduct, and presumed
object of the prisoner.

As the duty of the medical witness, upon such occasions, must always be
anxious, and generally perplexing, it becomes our duty at least to clear
away those adventitious difficulties with which ignorance on the one
hand, and sophistry on the other, have obstructed a path of inquiry,
which, from its very nature and direction, must necessarily be obscure
and intricate.

We shall endeavour upon this, as we have upon similar occasions, to
bring the more leading and popular points of controversy within the
scope of a few prominent questions, assigning to each a share of
attention, commensurate with our idea of its importance.

  Q. 1. _Whether all, or most of the symptoms, characteristic of the
    action of corrosive and narcotic poisons, may not arise from morbid
    causes of spontaneous origin?_

  Q. 2. _Whether organic lesions, similar to those produced by
    poisoning, may not occasionally result from natural causes?_

  Q. 3. _Whether the rapid progress of putrefaction, in the body
    generally, or in any particular part, is to be considered as
    affording any presumptive evidence, in favour of a suspicion of
    poisoning?_

  Q. 4. _How far the absence of poison, or the inability of the chemist
    to detect it, in the body, or in the fluids ejected from it, is to
    be considered as a negative to an accusation of poisoning?_

  Q. 5. _What degree of information can be derived from administering
    the contents of the stomach of a person supposed to have been
    poisoned, to dogs, or other inferior animals?_

We shall now consider these questions in succession.

   Q. 1. _Whether all, or most of the symptoms, characteristic of the
  action of corrosive and narcotic poisons, may not arise from morbid
                     causes of spontaneous origin?_

It must be admitted that the symptoms produced by violent irritation in
the primæ viæ, are not characterised by a diversity, corresponding with
that of the causes which may excite it; thus it is, that we have a
disease to which the term “_cholera_” has been assigned, and which is
indicated by the following symptoms, “_Humoris biliosi vomitus, ejusdem
simul dejectio frequens; anxietas; tormina; surarum spasmata_,” (Cullen
Syn: LX. 1.) symptoms which supervene, and with nearly the same force,
the spontaneous effusion of acrid bile into the intestines, and the
ingestion of some acrid poison; and hence the nosologist has very
properly divided _cholera_ into two species, viz.

C. _Spontanea_, “Tempestate calida, sine causa manifesta oboriens.”

C. _Accidentalis_, “A rebus acribus ingestis.”

The problem therefore for solution, is the mode of distinguishing the
two species from each other. Although the leading characters are, as we
have said, the same in both, such as bilious vomiting, and purging,
violent tormina of the bowels, cold sweats, cramps, faintings, and
death, yet by a careful and circumstantial examination of the case, the
intelligent practitioner will generally be enabled to arrive at a
probable conjecture; the season of the year[155], the prevailing
epidemics, the age[156] and constitutional predisposition of the
patient, his habit with respect to diet, are circumstances which will
greatly assist the diagnosis. The progress of cholera morbus is also
rarely, or never, fatal in this climate, especially in so short a period
as that in which death occurs from the operation of a violent, corrosive
poison.[157] There are besides in this latter case, very frequently
other symptoms which do not attend _cholera spontanea_,[158] such as
sanguineous vomiting, extreme burnings in the æsophagus and region of
the stomach, swollen countenance, great dryness and tumefaction of the
fauces, peculiar fætor of the breath, ischuria, with discharges of
bloody urine, and ulcerations about the fundament[159]; this latter
symptom was particularly remarkable in the case of _Mr. Blandy_, whose
history, as related by his physician, _Dr. Addington_, will be found in
our _Appendix_, _p._ 236, and well deserves the attentive consideration
of the medical jurist. The matter voided will also sometimes lead to a
just diagnosis; in the true cholera _spontanea_ there is a discharge of
almost pure bile by vomiting and stool, simultaneously or alternately;
now, although the same vomiting and purging may arise from the action of
a poison, yet it does not follow that the matter discharged is bilious.
The evidence delivered on the extraordinary trial of _Donnall_, for the
wilful murder of his mother-in-law, _Mrs. Elizabeth Downing_, has been
also printed in the _Appendix_, as well illustrating those doubts with
which the present question is naturally encompassed. An opinion has
existed that the appearance of jaundice during, or after the severe
symptoms of _cholera_, offers a satisfactory proof of its spontaneous
origin. Upon this point we would observe, that by violent and protracted
retching a person may sometimes become jaundiced, a circumstance not
unlikely to occur in cases of poisoning. The stomach, diaphragm, and
abdominal muscles are, under such repeated efforts, very apt to be
rendered eminently irritable, so that at each effort of the former to
discharge its contents, the latter will frequently be simultaneously
thrown into strong spasmodic contractions, and the liver, together with
the gall-bladder, will be suddenly caught, and, as it were, tightly
squeezed in a powerful press, in consequence of which the bile will
regurgitate, and be carried into the _venæ cavæ_; for _Haller_ has shewn
with what facility a subtle injection, when thrown into the hepatic
duct, will escape by the hepatic veins; upon which _Dr. Saunders_ has
made the following remark, “I know this to be a fact, for I have
ascertained by experiment, that water, injected in the same direction,
will return by the veins in a full stream, although very little force is
used.”

The fact of the bile becoming, under certain circumstances, highly acrid
and deleterious, has been seized by the humoral pathologist as a
powerful argument in support of his doctrines. Amongst the more
distinguished authors who have fully treated this subject, and
maintained that our secretions may thus become acrid poisons, we have
_Galen_[160], _Aretæus_[161], _Fernelius_[162], _Morgagni_[163],
_Hebenstreit_[164], _Hilchen_[165], _Hoffman_[166], _Baumer_[167],
_Belloc_[168], _Alibert_[169], _Foderé_[170], _Mahon_[171], _De la
Mettrie_[172], and _Tronchin_[173]. Some of the authors above enumerated
have expressed their opinions in the strongest terms; thus _Morgagni_
(loco citato) “_Facile agnosco a prava ipsa corporis dispositione
internum aliquando posse venenum gigni_;” and _Hebenstreit_ observes,
“_Possunt omnino in corpore venena nasci, atque ipsi humores vitales vim
vasa sua destruendi sæpe acquirunt._[174]” _Hilchen_, after attempting
to establish a diagnosis between the effects of poison, and those
arising from a morbid degeneracy of the fluids, exclaims, apparently in
despair, “_Inquilinos corruptosque humani corporis humores, eum
acrimoniæ gradum, eamque corrodendi vim acquirere posse, quæ eosdem edat
effectus, quos venena corrosiva sistunt, eamdem sordium vomitu
rejectarum putrilaginem, fætorem, haud dissimilem, et acerrimam, et
pelves arrodentem acrimoniam certum est._” And _Plouquet_, after
describing all the phenomena of poisoning, concludes by acknowledging
“_Probe autem notandum hæc omnia etiam ex aliis statibus morbosis nasci
posse._” _De la Mettrie_ also has observed upon this question, “_Il est
prouvé que la bile se peut changer dans nos corps en espece d’Arsenic!_”
Our own countryman, _Dr. Currie_[175], has furnished the public with an
opinion upon the subject under discussion, and he states his belief
that, under a peculiar state of irritation, the biliary organs may
secrete a bile of so very acrid a nature as to excite an almost
immediately fatal impression upon the alimentary canal, especially when
suddenly effused, and in a highly concentrated form.

We have deemed it right to adduce these various authorities, in relation
to the important question before us, still, however, reserving our
opinion, that the physician will on such occasions, by means of the
subsidiary sources of discrimination above enumerated, generally be
enabled to form a diagnosis[176] which, although it may not amount to
certainty, must be considered as capable of increasing the weight of the
general mass of circumstantial evidence.

As the medical treatment to be adopted in cases of acute disease, or
poisoning, can hardly be considered a subject of Medical Jurisprudence,
we should have passed it over in silence, did not the evidence delivered
upon the trial of Donnall imperiously call upon us for some
animadversion; and we feel it our painful duty upon this occasion to
observe, that the whole tenor of the medical defence displayed a very
unbecoming contest; the witnesses conducted themselves like advocates,
raising doubts, and defending their positions with a pertinacity that
belongs to those who seek triumph rather than truth.

In the cure of cholera the experience of the physicians of all ages
wholly concurs. In the commencement of the disease the evacuation of the
redundant bile is to be favoured by the plentiful exhibition of mild
diluents, and after the redundant bile has been thus eliminated, or when
the spasmodic affections of the alimentary canal become dangerously
violent, opiates, in sufficiently large doses, but in small bulk, may be
administered. To employ evacuants, as _Sydenham_ quaintly observes, “is
to increase the disturbance, and as it were, to endeavour to quench fire
by oil; and on the other hand, to commence with opiates is shutting up
the enemy in the bowels.” Under such authority, we presume, one of the
witnesses in the defence of Donnall, felt justified in condemning the
practice of the respectable physician who attended the deceased
(_Appendix, p._ 304); but we here see a witness assuming as a fact, what
was never proved in evidence, and then deducing conclusions from it.
_Dr. Edwards_ informed the court that “there were no symptoms of cholera
morbus when _he_ saw Mrs. Downing; but from what _he_ heard of her
complaint, he imagined that there was something offensive either in the
stomach or bowels, which ought to be evacuated.” (_Ibid. p._ 286.)

Nor are the symptoms produced by the operation of narcotic poisons so
distinct as to escape the possibility of being confounded with those of
spontaneous disease. They may, for instance, simulate those of apoplexy,
or epilepsy; but the history of the case, the odour of the breath, and
the subsequent examination of the body after death, will generally clear
up the difficulties which may at first present themselves. But we shall
have occasion to consider this subject hereafter; the difficulties of
the case are well illustrated by the evidence on the trial of
_Donellan_, for the murder of _Sir Theodosius Boughton_, with laurel
water, for which see _Appendix, p._ 243.

Before we quit the subject which involves the consideration of our
fluids degenerating, under particular circumstances, into poisons, we
may just notice the opinion of some foreign chemists, that in certain
diseases the _Prussic acid_[177] is generated in some of the fluids of
the animal body. We are not inclined to accede to this proposition,
because during life we do not think the chemical decompositions, known
to be necessary for the production of this substance, can ever take
place. At all events, it must be preceded by a state of the system which
would necessarily prevent the chance of any medico-judicial fallacy.

Q. II. _Whether organic lesions, similar to those produced by poisoning,
           may not occasionally result from natural causes?_

In entertaining this question, we are prepared to meet with numerous
alleged difficulties; but as many of them appear to have arisen, rather
from the ignorance or carelessness of the operator, than from the
natural obscurity of the subject itself, we are inclined to hope that by
getting rid of the former source of fallacy, we shall be enabled to
examine with some satisfaction and advantage, those which, in a greater
or less degree, will be liable to baffle the researches of the more
experienced anatomist.

Such are the changes which an animal body undergoes after death, that
unless the anatomist be intimately acquainted with their nature and
extent, it is impossible that he should be able to derive any safe
conclusions from his dissection; thus, said _Mr. John Hunter_, we may
see appearances which are natural, and may suppose them to have arisen
from disease; we may see diseased parts, and suppose them to be in a
natural state, and we may suppose a circumstance to have existed before
death, which was, in reality, a consequence of it; or we may imagine it
to be a natural change after death, when it was truly a disease of the
living body. It is not difficult, therefore, to perceive, how a person
in such a state of ignorance must blunder, when he attempts to connect
the appearances in the dead body, with the symptoms that were observed
during life; and indeed it may be safely asserted, that the great
utility of anatomical inspections depends upon the accuracy, judgment,
and sagacity with which such comparisons are made. In our chapter, on
the art of conducting dissections, we have endeavoured to point out each
fallacy which is likely to present itself to the inexperienced
anatomist, we shall therefore confine ourselves, on the present
occasion, to the consideration of those points whose obscurity must be
admitted to belong intrinsically to the subject, and to be wholly
independent of the ignorance or skill of the dissector.

Amongst the signs of the action of poison on the human body, disclosed
by the light of dissection, the separation of the villous coat of the
stomach has been generally considered the most certain criterion.
_Hebenstreit_, whose opinion has been adopted by _Mahon_, and many other
forensic physicians, has delivered his unreserved judgment upon the
question, in the following emphatic sentence. “_Præterea sola atque
infallibilis deglutiti veneni nota est, separata et veluti decorticata
simulque cruenta interna ventriculi tunica: nam separatio ista supponit
applicatam superficiei internæ ventriculi materiam fervidam, igni
similem, quæ tunicam istam a substrata solvit vasculari nervea._”[178]
In opposition to such an opinion, it is our duty to state that several
cases stand recorded[179] in which the detachment of the villous coat of
the stomach and intestines has taken place, without the slightest ground
to suspect the administration of poison, while many vegetable poisons
destroy life without occasioning any inflammation in the _primæ viæ_,
and consequently leave no traces of disorganization. But there still
remains another source of fallacy connected with the present question
which demands a full and impartial inquiry, viz. that the gastric juice,
by its action upon the dead stomach, can occasion such changes in
structure, as may be mistaken for the effects of a corrosive poison;
these changes are according to circumstances liable to vary in every
possible degree of intensity, from the slight erosion of the interior
villous coat of the stomach, as displayed by the smooth, thin, and more
transparent condition of that viscus, to the destruction of all its
membranes, and the production of large perforations in its great
extremity. This phenomenon, the nature of which was first explained by
_Mr. John Hunter_[180], depends upon the gastric juice, which the
stomach secreted during life, becoming its solvent after death. Amongst
the endless proofs which the history of the animal economy affords of
that universal law by which chemical and vital forces are wisely
preserved in a state of perpetual hostility, there is no illustration
more striking and satisfactory, than that which is furnished by the
phenomenon in question. If animals, or parts of animals, while possessed
of the living principle, be taken into the stomach, they are not in the
least affected by the solvent powers of its juices; thence it is that we
so constantly find animals of various kinds living in the stomach, or
even being hatched and bred there; but no sooner do these animals lose
the living principle, than they become subject to the digestive powers
of the stomach, and are accordingly dissolved, and assimilated. If it
were possible, says _Mr. Hunter_, for a man’s hand to be introduced into
the stomach of a living animal, and kept there for some considerable
time, it would be found that the dissolvent powers of the stomach could
produce no impression upon it; but if the same hand were separated from
the body, and introduced into the same stomach, we should then find that
this organ would immediately act upon it. _Spallanzani_, with a patience
that almost wearies his readers, made many attempts at dissolving the
stomach by its own juice, but succeeded satisfactorily in none; he
proved, however, two important facts, _first_, that the process of
digestion, or more correctly speaking, of solution, continues after
death; and _secondly_, that the stomach itself is digestible. The truth
of the first he demonstrated by introducing food into the stomach, after
he had killed his animal; and that of the second, by giving the stomach
of one dog to be devoured by another. The fact then is clearly
established, that the stomach, after death, may be dissolved by its own
juice[181]; and this may exist in its cavity, or be retained in the
vessels which had secreted it. It remains for us then to examine the
circumstances under which it is likely to occur, and the appearance by
which it may be distinguished; and we may here be allowed to observe
with an ingenious writer,[182] that were these points merely of a
speculative nature, or were their decision a matter of mere curiosity,
it would be idle to consume so much valuable time in their discussion;
but when we remember that they are questions upon which the medical
practitioner may be called upon to deliver a solemn opinion, in order to
determine the fate of a criminal, they undoubtedly demand the highest
attention of those who profess to aid the administration of Justice, by
the lights of science. We have, therefore, first to inquire into _the
circumstances under which this natural erosion of the stomach is known
to take place_. _Mr. John Hunter_[183] details the history of three
examples, in which the stomach was considerably perforated. Two of the
men had died shortly after having their skulls fractured, and the third
was a man who had been hanged, so that in each of these cases the person
had been deprived of life by violence; whence _Dr. Adams_[184] inferred,
that _Mr. Hunter_ limited the action of the gastric juice on the stomach
to such as died from violent and sudden causes; and many physiologists
have, accordingly, supposed that solution of the coats of the stomach
never takes place, except where the person has died suddenly; this,
however, is an inference, as _Mr. Burns_[185] has very justly observed,
“by no means warranted by the general tenour of _Mr. Hunter’s_ essay,”
indeed he expressly states, that “there are few dead bodies in which the
stomach is not, _at its great end_, in some degree digested;” “and any
one,” continues _Mr. Hunter_, “who is acquainted with the art of
dissection, can easily trace the gradations from the smallest to the
greatest.” The consideration of the vast importance of this fact, and
frequent opportunities of investigating the subject, induced _Mr. Burns_
to collect the observations which he had made during the dissection of
those bodies in which he found the stomach digested; and these
observations, he informs us, have led him to conclude, that the
phenomenon in question is neither so rare in its occurrence as some have
imagined, nor confined to such subjects as had been, previous to death,
in a healthy condition; they have also convinced him, that other parts
of the stomach, besides the large end, may be occasionally acted on by
the gastric juice. “That the digestion of the coats of the stomach after
death is not a very rare occurrence, I think myself authorised to infer,
from my having examined nine bodies in which the solution had proceeded
to such an extent as to have made holes of considerable size through
that viscus; and, besides these nine instances in which the digestion of
part of the stomach was complete, I have had occasion to see, in opening
this viscus, various degrees of dissolution of its villous coat.”[186]

In three of the instances alluded to by _Mr. Burns_, the patients had
been worn out by debilitating diseases; and they were emaciated and
anasarcous. That the solution of the coats of the stomach in these cases
was properly attributed to the gastric juice is very satisfactorily
shewn by the relation of the following instructive dissection. “I had
occasion,” says _Mr. Burns_, “two days after death, to open the body of
a very emaciated and anasarcous young girl, who had died from scrofulous
enlargement of the mesenteric glands. On raising the coverings of the
abdomen, the stomach, which was empty, presented itself to view, _with
its front dissolved_.[187] The aperture was of an oblong shape, about
two inches in its long diameter, and an inch in its short, with tender,
flocculent, and pulpy edges. This I demonstrated to the pupils attending
my class; and I especially called their attention to the fact, that the
liver, which was in contact with the hole, had no impression made on it.
Having proceeded thus far, I placed all the parts as they had been,
stitched up the abdomen, and laid the body aside in a cold situation for
two days. Then I opened it again, in presence of the same gentlemen, and
we found that, now, _the liver, where it lay over the dissolved part of
the stomach, was pulpy; its peritoneal coat was completely dissolved,
and its substance was tender to a considerable depth_. At this time the
other parts of the liver were equally solid as before, and as yet every
part of the subject was free from putrefaction; _the posterior face of
the stomach, opposite to the hole, was dissolved, all except the
peritoneal coat, at least the internal coats were rendered pulpy and
glutinous; the peritoneal covering had become spongy and more
transparent than it ought to have been_.” These facts, in addition to
the many other important conclusions to which they will give rise,
admonish us, that in judicial investigations into the cause of
dissolution of the coats of the stomach, _the appearances will vary,
according to the period after death at which the body is examined_. But
the most satisfactory case which has been reported, in proof that the
_post mortem_ solution of the stomach may occur after a lingering
disease, is that just published by _Dr. Haviland_,[188] where the
patient died of fever after an illness of 22 days; when upon opening the
body about 12 hours after death, the following appearances were noticed:
“On raising the stomach and examining the little omentum, we were
surprised by the appearance of a dark-coloured fluid, which seemed to
escape from the former viscus. A most careful search was now made, and a
large opening was perceived in the stomach on the upper and back part,
near the cardia. The stomach was then detached, with a portion of the
œsophagus and duodenum, when a large perforation of the diaphragm came
into view, in the muscular part, corresponding precisely to, and
communicating with, the hole in the stomach; so that a portion of the
contents of the latter organ had escaped into the cavity of the chest.
This part of the diaphragm was next removed. A careful examination of
the other abdominal and thoracic viscera did not lead to the detection
of the slightest diseased appearance. There was no where the smallest
evidence of previous inflammation, no adhesions or ulcerations of any
part of the viscera. The fluid which had escaped appeared to be nothing
more than the contents of the stomach, of which the wine and water[189]
formed a part, and probably gave it its dark colour. The stomach, on
being examined after its removal from the body, afforded the following
observations. The mucous membrane appeared to be more red and vascular
than usual throughout its whole extent, and, here and there, were small
spots of what seemed to be extravasated blood, lying below the mucous
coat—for these spots were not to be washed off, nor to be removed by the
edge of the scalpel. There were two holes in the stomach, the larger
very near to the cardiac end of the small curvature, and on the
posterior surface: this was more than an inch in length, and about half
that breadth; the other not far from the former, also on the posterior
surface, about the size of a sixpence. The edges of these holes were
smooth, well defined, and slightly elevated. The coats of the stomach
were thin in many other spots, and in one in particular nothing was left
but the peritoneum, the mucous and muscular coats being entirely
destroyed. The hole in the diaphragm was through the muscular portion,
where it is of considerable thickness, and was large enough to admit the
end of the finger. There was no appearance of ulceration or of pus
adhering to the edges of this perforation of the diaphragm.” We have
extracted a full account of this dissection, as the case is in itself
truly interesting. The symptoms of the patient had been carefully
watched, and no pain, or uneasiness was ever heard of, throughout the
whole course of the disease, except in the head.

The powers of the stomach, as it would appear from the report, had
suddenly revived at about twelve hours before his death, for “he asked
for food, and swallowed a few spoonsfull of calves’-foot jelly with
apparent relish.” May we not then conclude by observing, that the facts
above related very satisfactorily corroborate the truth of the corollary
deduced by _Mr. Burns_, “that the digestion of the coats of the stomach
may take place under two very different conditions of the body; that
although such solution is most frequent in those who have been suddenly
deprived of life, when in full health, that it is not confined to those
alone, but does, under certain circumstances, occur in those who have
died from lingering diseases.”

Having then shewn under what circumstances the phenomenon in question
may take place, we shall now proceed to describe more minutely the
appearances which it may assume, and _first, with respect to the part of
the stomach, more usually acted upon by the gastric solvent_. _Mr.
Hunter_ thought, that digestion of the stomach after death was
occasioned by that portion of the gastric juice _contained in the
cavity_ of the stomach; consequently it followed, as a fair inference
from this doctrine, that the coats of this viscus will only be acted on
at that part on which the contents of the stomach rested. In _Mr.
Hunter’s_ cases, the great end of the stomach, which in the supine
position of the body is the most depending part of this viscus, was
found to be chiefly affected; a fact which tended to corroborate and
support his opinion, and to render his conjecture extremely probable.
Other anatomists, however, have discovered instances of solution of
other parts of the stomach than the great end, indeed we have already
described such an instance in the case of the emaciated and anasarcous
girl examined by _Mr. Burns_, where the situation of the aperture was
different from what it had been in any of _Mr. Hunter’s_ cases. It was
seated _on the fore-part_ of the stomach, about an inch distant from the
pylorus, and mid-way between the smaller and greater curvatures of this
viscus; at a part of the stomach with which the gastric juice _could not
have come into contact_, as the body had constantly been in the supine
posture. “If then,” asks _Mr. Burns_, “the stomach was not acted on by
the fluid contained in its cavity, how came it to be dissolved?” To us
we confess his solution of the problem appears sensible and
satisfactory. “We cannot, with propriety, ascribe the digestion of the
stomach, in every case, to the gastric juice which has been _poured into
the cavity_ of that viscus; we are more properly in some instances to
refer it to the action of the fluid _retained in the vessels_ which had
secreted it.” If this be admitted as a correct explanation of the fact,
we shall cease to have any difficulty in accounting for the dissolution
of other parts of this viscus besides the large end. We shall learn that
the part acted on must vary, according to the place of the stomach where
the gastric juice is retained in the apparatus which secreted it, and
thus we shall be enabled to explain some cases, which, at present, seem
to be in opposition to the observation of _Mr. Hunter_.

With respect to the appearances, which such erosions assume, some
difference of opinion has also unfortunately existed. _Mr. Hunter_ has
asserted that “there are very few dead bodies, in which the stomach is
not, _at its great end_, in some degree digested; and the anatomist,”
says he, “who is acquainted with dissections can easily trace the
gradations from the smallest to the greatest. To be sensible of this
effect, nothing more is necessary than to compare the inner surface of
the great end of the stomach, with any other part of the inner surface;
what is sound will appear soft, spongy, and granulated, and without
distinct blood-vessels, opaque, and thick, while the other will appear
smooth, thin, and more transparent, and the vessels will be seen
ramifying in its surface; and upon squeezing the blood which they
contain, from the larger to the smaller branches, it will be found to
pass out at the digested ends of the vessels, and appear like drops on
the inner surface.” This condition, however, of the vessels does not
invariably accompany such solution. In three of the subjects dissected
by _Mr. Burns_, there was no appearance of vessels ramifying on the
coats of the stomach. To account for the absence of this vascular
appearance several explanations have been attempted; “but we are not,”
says _Mr. Burns_, “to regard the cause of this deviation from _Mr.
Hunter’s_ description, as depending upon the particular part of the
stomach acted on in the different cases; neither are we to imagine that
the stage of the process at which we examine the body will assist us in
this investigation; we are rather to obtain an explanation of this fact,
from contemplating the difference of condition of the different
individuals at the time of death; the subjects, whose cases are detailed
by _Mr. Hunter_, were persons cut off by violence, in the plenitude of