Chapter IV: Part 4

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.