Tracy Chatfield Becker

[1] The distinction made in the text and in the title of this work is not new. It was recognized by the father of medico-legal science, Zacchias, in his two prefaces, one to the “lector medicus,” the other to the “lector legumperitus” (“QuÆst. Med. Leg.,” Ed. Venet., 1727, fol.). In a note to the introduction of the “Medical Jurisprudence” of Dr. Paris and Mr. Fonblanque (the first work produced by joint authorship of a physician and a lawyer, in 1823) is the following (p. i.): “Some authors have objected to the term Medical Jurisprudence as implying a knowledge of the laws relating to medical topics, rather than an acquaintance with the medical science necessary for the elucidation of legal subjects. As it is our peculiar object to unite the sciences and to show their mutual relevance, the title becomes most applicable to this, although it may have been improperly affixed to former works.” The title of one of two existing French works in whose authorship a lawyer is associated is: “TraitÉ de MÉdecine lÉgale, de Jurisprudence mÉdicale et de Toxicologie,” par Le Grand du Saulle, Geo. Berryer et Gab. Pouchet, 2d ed., 8vo, Paris, 1886.

[2] “Bibl. Hist.,” I., ii., 77; Miot’s transl., Paris, 1834, i., 157.

[3] L. c., I., ii., 82; transl., i., 165.

[4] L. c., I., ii., 75, 76; transl., i., 152.

[5] The “Papyros Ebers,” in the University of Leipzig, the most ancient medical text known, was written about 1550 B.C., and is probably one of the books referred to by Diodorus. It contains no statement bearing upon our subject. It is, however, simply a collection of descriptions of remedies, and their uses, including the incantations to be used with them. (See “Papyros Ebers,” H. Joachim, Berlin. 1890.) The same is true of the Berlin and Leyden papyri. The Bibl. Nat. (Tf. 2) possesses a Chinese manuscript on legal medicine. The catalogue does not, however, state to what period it belongs.

[6] For an account of early Indian medicine, see Th. A. Wise, “Review of the Hist. of Med.,” Lond., 1867, i., 272 et passim; “Hindu System of Medicine,” 1845, by the same author; Haeser, “Lehrb. d. Gesch. d. Med.,” 3. ed., i., 5-40.

[7] Hippocr.: “De Superfoetatione,” ed. LittrÉ, viii., 472.

[8] Hippocr.: “De Septimestri partu;” ibid., “De Octimestri partu,” ed. LittrÉ, viii., 432, 436, 452.

[9] “Aphorismi,” vi., 18, 24; “De Morbis,” ed. LittrÉ, vi., 144.

[10] Petit, S.: “Leges AtticÆ,” Lugd. Bat., 1742, lib. iii., tit. 8.

[11] “Od.,” iv., 229; xvii., 384.

[12] For an excellent account of Attic criminal procedure, see Kennedy, C. R.: “Demosthenes’ Orations,” ed. Bohn, iii., 326-372.

[13] “Var. Hist.,” iii., 38.

[14] Kennedy’s transl., ed. Bohn, v., 95.

[15] What the contents of these depositions were and by whom made is unknown, as the papers referred to by the orator are not given. In the Attic courts the testimony was taken at a preliminary trial, and referred to at the trial by the orator.

[16] “Oratores Attici,” C. MÜller, Paris, 1877, i., 20.

[17] “Oratores Attici,” C. MÜller, ed. Didot, Paris, 1877, i., 200-203.

[18] In a doubtful fragment of Lysias the expression “as physicians andmidwives declare” (?spe? ?? ?at??? ?a? a? a?a? ?pe???a?t?) is used in connection with the question whether a foetus has life and may be murdered. Cf. “Orat. Attici,” MÜller and Hunziker, Paris, Didot, 1858, ii., 257.

[19] “Jul. CÆs.,” 82.

[20] “Hist. Nat.,” xi., 71.

[21] “Hist. Nat.,” vii., 4.

[22] A. Gellius: “Noct. Att.,” 1. 3, c. 16: “requisitis veterum philosophorum et medicorum sententiis.” The word “veterum” seems to indicate that the emperor consulted books, not living physicians.

[23] “Medici non sunt proprie testes, sed majis est judicium quam testimonium.”

[24] For accounts of the medico-legal provisions of the Justinian enactments, see: G. A. v. d. Pfordten, “BeitrÄge z. Gesch. d. ger. Med. aus d. Justin. Rechtssam.,” WÜrzburg, 1838: M. F. Eller, Bull. Med. Leg. Soc. N. Y., 1879, i., 226-237; and Friedreich, Blt. f. ger. Anthr., NÜrnberg, 1850, I., iii., 1-64; 1862, xiii., 188-215.

[25] See Mende: “Handb. d. ger. Med.,” Leipzig. 1819, i., 83-87.

[26] “Etablissements et CoÛtumes, Assises et ArrÊts de l’Echiquier de Normandie au xiii. SiÈcle,” A. J. Marnier, Par., 1839: “veue d’homme en langueur, veue de mÉfaits, veue d’homme occis et veue de femme despucelÉe.”

[27] “Ut peritorum judicio medicorum talis percussio asseveretur non fuisse letalis,” Mende, “Handb. d. ger. Med.,” i., 91.

[28] Hensschel, in “Janus,” Breslau, 1847, ii., 135.

[29] Assises de JÉrusalem,” Beugnot, Paris, 1841-43, quoted by Ortolan, l.c., infra.

[30] Ortolan: “DÉbuts d. l. MÉd. lÉg.,” Ann. d’Hyg., Par., 1872, 2 s., xxxviii., 361.

[31] “Registre Criminel du ChÂtelet de Paris,” Par., 1861, i., 255.

[32] Ibid., i., 313.

[33] Ibid., i., 375, 409.

[34] “QuÆst. Medico-legales,” t. ii., lib. vi., tit. ii.: vol. ii., pp. 33-49, ed. Venet., fol., 1737.

[35] See also “Reg. Crim. ChÂt. de Paris.,” i., 204, ii., 429; Desmaze: “Hist. MÉd. LÉg.,” 11-20, 33-41.

[36] Isensee: “Gesch. d. Med.,” i., 216.

[37] “Constitutio criminalis Carolina.” The first edition was printed at Mayence, 1533, fol., by J. SchÖffer. See also Kopp, “Jahrb. d. Staatsarznk.,” Frankf., 1808, i., 183.

[38] “Con. cr. Car.,” art. 147.

[39] Ibid., art. 149.

[40] Ibid., arts. 35, 36, 131, 133; “Bambergische Halssgerichts-Ordenung.” Bamb., 1507, art. 44.

[41] “Con. cr. Car.,” art. 37.

[42] Ibid., art. 134.

[43] Ibid., arts. 135, 179, 219.

[44] “Non per quoslibet, nec per insipidos et imperitos, sed tantum per peritos ac doctos medicos aut chirurgos,” p. 245.

[45] “Praxis Rerum Criminalium,” Antw., 1554 (the dedicatory epistle is dated 1551), pp. 245-252, 223-228.

[46] Wildberg, “Bibl. Med.-for.,” Berl., 1819, Nos. 553, 554, 1,124, 1,125, 1,126, 1,304, 1,835, 1,836, 2,342, cites nine works earlier than 1575. These are, however, monographs on the period of gestation, witchcraft, fasting girls, drunkenness, and wounds of the head.

Works on toxicology were written at a much earlier date: the T???a?? and ??e??f????a, of Nicander, ca. B.C. 135; ?epe?? d???t????? fa?????, of Dioscorides, ca. A.D. 50; the treatises, “De Venenis,” of Petrus de Abbano (ca. A.D. 1250), first printed Mantua, 1472; of Arnoldus da Villanova (ca. A.D. 1300), first printed (sine loc. et an.) ca. 1470; of Santes de Ardoynis, Venice, 1492, and of F. Ponzetti, Venice, 1492, are among the earliest. Works on toxicology are not considered in this Introduction, the historical sketch of that science being reserved for a later volume.

[47] Ed. Malgaigne, 1840, t. iii., l. xxvii., pp. 651-658; ed. princ., Paris, 1575, fol., pp. 931-944. On the title-page of an earlier work, printed in 1562, ParÉ is referred to as “chirurgien ordinaire du Roi, et JurÉ À Paris.” Ploucquet, “Lib. Med. dig.,” TÜb., 1809, iv., 349, mentions a monograph by “Tygeon, Th.,” printed at Lyons, 1575.

[48] S. Pineau: “De notis Integritatis et Corruptionis Virginum,” Paris, 1598; A. Hotman: “De la Dissolution du Mariage par l’Impuissance,” etc., Paris, 1581; de la Corde, “Ergo Virgo ... lac in mammis habere potest,” Paris, 1580. Wildberg, l. c., Nos. 555, 1,308, 1,309, are not properly medico-legal.

[49] In his “De Vitiis Vocis,” etc., Frankf., 1597. He had previously published a treatise, “De morbis veneficis ac veneficiis,” Venet., 1595.

[50] “De relationibus medicorum ... in quibus ea omnia quÆ in forensibus ac publicis causis medici referre solent,” etc., Panormi, 1602. Mongitore, “Bibl. Sic.,” Panormi, 1707-14. i., 199, mentions an edition of 1598, Pan., under the title: “Bissus [Birrus?], sive medicorum patrocinium,” etc.

[51] “QuÆstiones Medico-legales,” Rome, 1612-35, 3 t., fol. See also Kerschensteiner: Friedr. Bl. f. ger. Med., etc., NÜrnb., 1884, xxxv., 401-410.

[52] Wildberg, “Bibl. Med.-for.,” gives the titles of thirty-four treatises on legitimacy, impotence, sterility, signs of virginity, etc., published in France during this period.

[53] On reports: RÉnÉ Gendri, 1650; Nicolas de Blegny, 1684; J. Devaux, 1693; Prevot, 1753; H. M. Maret, 1757. On signs of death: P. E. Dionis, 1718; J. B. Winslow, 1740; S. J. Bruhier, 1745.

[54] On the signs of death, 1752; on the distinction between suicide and murder by hanging, 1763; on the duration of pregnancy, 1764, etc. These and other articles on drowning, etc., are collected in his “Œuvres diverses de Chirurgie,” 2 vols., Par., 1788.

[55] Cases of Monbailly, Syrven, Calas, Cassaigneux, Baronet, etc.

[56] “Recueil de piÈces relatives À la question des naissances tardives,” Amst. and Par., 1766, 2 vols.

[57] “Consult. MÉd.-lÉg. s. u. Accus. d’Infanticide,” 1785; “Obs. Chir.-lÉg.,” 1790; “MÉd.-lÉg.,” 1809; “Consult. et Rapp. sur diverses obj. d. MÉd.-lÉg.,” 1824; “MÉm. mÉd.-lÉg. s. l. ViabilitÉ,” 1826; “Consult. MÉd.-lÉg. s. u. cas d’amp. d. l. Cuisse,” 1828.

[58] “Les Lois ÉclairÉes par les Sciences physiques,” Par., 1798, 3 vols., 8vo; “TraitÉ de MÉd.-lÉg. et d’Hyg. publ.,” Par., 1813, 6 vols., 8vo.

[59] “MÉd.-lÉg.,” etc., Rouen, 1801; Paris, 1807, 1811.

[60] “Cours. de MÉd.-lÉg.,” Paris, 1809, 1811, 1819.

[61] “AperÇu et obs. s. l. MÉd.-lÉg.,” Lyon, 1811; “Secours aux Asphyxies,” Lyon, 1818; “Man. d. MÉd.-lÉg.,” Lyon, 1821.

[62] In the later editions ChaudÉ took the place of Brosson, and a chemist, J. Bouis, was added.

[63] Devergie, “MÉd.-lÉg.,” 1836, contains a legal chapter by de RobÉcourt. Paris and Fonblanque, “Med. Jurispr.,” Lond., 1823; Wharton and StillÉ, “Med. Jur.,” Phila., 1855; Le Grand du Saule, Berryer et Pouchet, “Tr. de MÉd.-lÉg. de Jur. mÉd. et de Tox.,” 2d ed., Par., 1881.

[64] “Sur les Attentats aux Moeurs,” 1st ed., 1857; 7th ed., 1878; “Sur l’Avortement,” 1856, 1861, 1868; “Sur la Pendaison,” etc., 1865, 1870, 1879; “Sur l’Empoisonnement” (with Z. Roussin), 1867, 1875; “Sur l’Infanticide,” 1868; “Sur la Folie,” 1872; “Sur les Blessures,” 1879; “Sur les Maladies, etc.,” 1879.

[65] Lib. iv., cap. ix.: Qua ratione morbum simulantes deprehendi queant; cap. x.: testificandi methodus circa eos, quibus venenum fuit exhibitum; cap. xi.: testificandi ratio in vulneribus capitis; et in iis qui aqu fuerunt suffocati; cap. xii.: Quomodo amissa virginitas: et alterius utrius conjugis sterilitas deprehendatur.

[66] “De renunciatione vulnerum,” etc., Lips., 1689, 8vo (“Egregium opus,” Haller).

[67] “De officio medici duplici, clinico nimirum et forensi,” Lips., 1704, 4to (“Eximius liber,” Haller).

[68] “PandectÆ Medico-legales,” etc., Francof., 1701, 4to; “NovellÆ Medico-legales,” etc., Francof., 1711, 4to; “Corpus Juris Medico-legale,” etc., Francof., 1722, fol.

[69] “Medicina forensis, hoc est responsa facultatis medicÆ Lipsiensis ad quÆstiones et casus medicinales, ab anno 1650 usque 1700,” Francof., 1706, 2 vols., 4to.

[70] “Der medicinische Richter, oder Acta physico-medico forensia Collegii medici Onoldini,” Onolzbach, 1755, 4to.

[71] “Systema JurisprudentiÆ MedicÆ,” etc., 6 vols., 4to, Halle, Leipzig, and GÖrlitz, 1725-47.

[72] “Institutiones MedicinÆ legalis et forensis,” Jena, 1723, 1731, 1740, 1762.

[73] “Medicina forensis demonstrativa,” etc., Frankf., ad Viadr., 1723; “Introductio in historiam litterariam scriptorum qui medicinam forensem commentarius suis illustraverunt,” Frankf., 1723, 1735.

[74] “Elementa MedicinÆ forensis,” Jena, 1767, published posthumously.

[75] Hebenstreit: “Anthropologia forensis,” Lips., 1753; Ludwig: “Institutiones MedicinÆ forensis,” ed. 2, Lips., 1774.

[76] “BeitrÄge zur medicinischen Gelehrsamkeit,” etc., Halle. 1748-54; “Sammlung medicinischen ... Zeugnissen,” etc., Leipz., 1776; “Institutionum MedicinÆ publicÆ,” etc., Lips., 1778.

[77] “Kurzgefasstes System der gerichtlichen Arzneywissenschaft,” KÖnigsb. u. Leipz., 1793.

[78] “Entwurf der gerichtlichen Arzneiwissenschaft,” etc., Frankf., 1796-1801, 4 vols.

[79] “Collectio Opusculorum selectorum ad Medicinam forensem spectantium.” Lips., 1785-90, 6 vols.

[80] “Conspectus MedicinÆ legalis,” etc., Prague, 1780.

[81] “Elementa MedicinÆ et ChirurgiÆ forensis,” ViennÆ, 1781; “Toxicologia,” etc., ViennÆ, 1785.

[82] Magazin fÜr die gerichtliche Arzneikunde und medicinische Polizei, Stendal, 1782-87, 6 vols. Pyl also published “AufsÄtze und Beobachtungen aus der gerichtlichen Arzneiwissenschaft,” Berlin, 1783-93, 8 vols. Uden was the first to edit a medical journal in Russia.

[83] “VollstÄndiges System der gerichtlichen Arzneikunde,” Stendal, 1795-1800; “BeitrÄge zur praktischen und gerichtlichen Arzneikunde,” Stendal, 1799.

[84] Jahrb. der gesam. Staatsarzneikunde, Leipzig, 1835-40, 7 vols.; Bibliotheca MedicinÆ publicÆ,” Berol., 1819, 2 vols. Between 1804 and 1849 Wildberg published fifteen books and treatises on medico-legal subjects.

[85] Kritische Jahrb. f. d. Staatsarznk. f. d. xix. Jahrb., 1806-09. Jahrb. d. Staatsarznk., 1808-19.

[86] Zeitschrift fÜr die Staatsarzneikunde, Erlangen, 1821-64, 118 vols.; “Lehrbuch der ger. Med.,” 1te Aufl., Berlin, 1812, 13te Aufl., Berlin, 1859.

[87] “Visa Reperta,” Wien, 1827-45, 3 vols.; “Systematisches Handb. d. ger. Med.,” Wien, 1te Aufl., 1813, 5te Aufl., 1846.

[88] “AusfÜrl. Handb. d. ger. Med.,” Leipzig, 1819-32, 6 vols.

[89] “Handb. d. ger. Med.,” Berlin, 1841.

[90] “Enzyklop. Handb. d. ger. Arzneyk.,” Leipzig. 1838-40, 2 vols.; Magazin f. die Staatsarzneykunde.

[91] Centralarch. f. d. ges. Staatsarznk., Ansbach, 1844-49; BlÄtter f. d. gerichtliche Anthropologie, Erlangen, 1850, now published at Erlangen under the title Friedreich’s BlÄtter f. ger. Med. u. SanitÄtspolizei.

[92] “Gutachten u. AufsÄtze,” etc., Leipzig, 1847; “Auswahl von Gutachten,” etc., Dresden, 1853.

[93] “BeitrÄge z. medicin. Statistik,” etc., Berl., 1825-35, 2 vols.; “DenkwÜrdigkeiten z. medicin. Statistik,” etc., Berl., 1846; “Gerichtl. Leichen-Oeffnungen,” Berl., 1851-53, 1850-52; “Klinische Novellen,” etc., Berl., 1863.

[94] “Pract. Handb. d. ger. Med.,” Berl., 1te Aufl., 1857-58; 8te Aufl., Berl., 1889, also translation of Geo. Balfour, New Sydenham Soc., London. 1861-65. The fourth and succeeding editions, published after Casper’s death (1864), were edited by Karl Liman, his successor in the chair of medical jurisprudence (d. 1892).

[95] Vierteljahresschr. f. ger. u. Öffentl. Med., Berl., 1852, edited after Casper’s death by Horn, 1865-70, Eulenberg, 1871-90, Wernich, 1891.

[96] “Handb. d. ger. Med.,” TÜbingen, 1881-82, 4 vols.

[97] Daniel: “Bibl. d. Staatsarznk.,” Halle, 1784, No. 107, mentions: “E. Prat, Rationarium chirurgicum, oder nothwendiges Handbuch des Wundarztes, wie er Bericht an die Obrigkeit thun soll u. s. w., aus dem Engl.,” Hamb., 1684. 4, 690. 8. The same title is reproduced by Wildberg (No. 239) in 1819, and the edition of 1684 is mentioned by Ploucquet, “Initia” (1803), Suppl. iv., 36, and “Litt. med. dig.” (1809), iii., 54, the name of the author being given as “Pratt (Elias).” This may be an early work by Ellis Pratt, but we can find no mention of it elsewhere. In the years 1734, 1761, and 1787 dissertations on abortion were defended at Edinburgh by Arnot, Harris, and Murray. Three treatises on death from suffocation by Goodwyn, Frank, and Coleman appeared in 1788-91. In 1788 S. Farr published at London his “Elements of Medical Jurisprudence,” to which Percival (“Med. Ethics,” Oxford, 1849, p. 102) justly refers as “a valuable epitome of S. F. Faselii’s “Elementa MedicinÆ Forensis [Regiom., 4to, 1787], in English by Dr. Farr.”

[98] “Med. Jur.,” iii., p. 226 seq. Report that Joseph Lane died of poison (1623). Report that Sir James Standsfield was strangled and not drowned, with account of autopsy (1687). Also extracts from the medical evidence in the cases of Spencer Cowper (from 13 Howell’s “State Trials”); Mary Blandy (Oxford, 1752); John Donellan (Warwick, 1781); and R. S. Donnall (Launceston, 1817).

[99] “Heads of Lectures on Medical Jurisprudence, or the Institutiones MedicinÆ legalis,” vi., 24 pp., 8vo, Edinb., 1792.

[100] See Beck “Med. Jur.,” 7th ed., xvi., and note.

[101] In the preface Dr. Percival says: “This work was originally entitled ‘Medical Jurisprudence,’ but some friends having objected to the term Jurisprudence it has been changed to Ethics.” An unfinished and unpublished edition, written prior to 1794 and containing Chapter IV., was printed about 1800 (see Editor’s Preface, p. 2, and note, Author’s Preface, pp. 25, 26, ed. Oxford, 1849).

[102] “An Epitome of Juridical or Forensic Medicine,” etc., viii., 199 pp., 8vo, London, 1816, also in Th. Cooper’s “Tracts on Med. Jur.,” Phila., 1819. In the preface the author refers to the lectures of Prof. Duncan.

[103] This excellent work (“The Principles of Forensic Medicine”) went through three editions in six years. Dr. Smith, who was a teacher of medical jurisprudence in the Royal Institution, Westminster Hospital, and University of London, and also published a number of papers in the Edinb. M. and S. Jour., and “Hints for the Examination of Medical Witnesses,” Lond., 1829, died at the age of forty-one in 1833, after fifteen months’ imprisonment in a debtors’ prison.

[104] “Med. Jur.,” 3 vols., 8vo, London, 1823. See note 1, p. v.

[105] “A Manual of Med. Jur.,” London, 1831, 2d ed., 1836, Amer. ed., with notes by R. E. Griffith, Phila., 1832.

[106] “Outlines of a Course of Lectures on Med. Jur.,” Edinb., 1836, 2d ed., 1840, Amer. ed., Phila., 1841.

[107] A. Amos, Lond. M. Gaz., 1830, vii.; 1831, viii. A. T. Thomson, Lond. M. and S. J., 1834-35, vi.; 1835, vii.; also Lond. Lancet, 1836-37, i., ii. (Thomson’s lectures were printed in German in book form, Leipzig, 1840.) H. Graham, Lond. M. and S. J., 1835, vi., vii. W. Cummin, Lond. M. Gaz., 1836-37, xix. T. S. Smith, Lond. M. Gaz., 1837-38, xxi.; 1838, xxii.

[108] Dease: “Med. Jur.,” and Haslam: “Med. Jur. Insanity,” along with the treatises of Farr and of Male, are reprinted in Cooper’s “Tracts on Med. Jur.,” Phila., 1819.

[109] Synop. Mod. Med. Jur.,” Lond., 1829.

[110] “Treatise on Med. Jur.,” Lond., 1834; Phila., 1836.

[111] “Homicide by External Violence,” Lond., 1837.

[112] “Med. Jur.,” Dublin, 1839.

[113] “Cases in Leg. Med.,” Edinb., 1840.

[114] “Med. Jur. of Insanity,” Lond., 1840.

[115] “Criminal Jurisprudence in relation to Mental Organization,” London, 1841.

[116] “Principles and Practice of Med. Jur.,” 1st ed., Lond., 1865; 3d ed., Lond., and Phila., 1883. “On Poisons,” 1st ed., Lond., 1848; 3d ed., Lond., 1875. “Lectures on Med. Jur.,” Lond. M. Gaz., 1846, n. s., ii., iii.; 1847, n. s., iv. Articles on arsenic, antimony, strychnine, and other toxicological subjects, strangulation, blood-stains, etc., in Guy’s Hosp. Repts.

[117] “Principles of Forensic Medicine,” Lond., 1844. The work is now in its sixth edition. Prof. D. Ferrier, Dr. Guy’s successor in King’s College, having been associated in the authorship of the 4th ed. in 1875 and subsequently.

[118] “Lectures on Med. Jur.,” edited by Fr. Ogston, Jr., Lond., 1878.

[119] Woodman and Tidy: “A Handy-book of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology,” Lond. and Phila., 1877. Tidy, “Legal Medicine.” 2 vols., Lond., 1882-83; also, Phila., 3 vols., 1882-84; New York, 3 vols., 1882-84.

[120] “Cirurgia Forense,” etc., 3 vols., 12mo, Madrid, 1796-97. Wildberg mentions two earlier monographs: “De partu Septimestri,” Antw., 1568, by F. Mena, physician in ordinary to Philip II.; and “Diez privilegios para mugeres prennantes,” Complut., 1606, by J. A. de Fontechia, professor at Alcala de HÉnares.

[121] “Elementos de Medicina y Cirurgia legal,” etc., Madrid, 1834; 4th ed., Zaragossa, 1844.

[122] “Tratado de Medicina y Cirurgia legal,” etc., Madrid, 1844; 5th ed., 4 vols., 8vo, Madrid, 1874-75.

[123] “InstituiÇÕes de Medicina forense,” Paris, 1832; 2d ed., Lisbon, 1840.

[124] “Vorlesungen Über die gerichtliche Arzneiwissenschaft,” 3 vols., 12mo, Bern, 1728-84.

[125] “Utkast til Medicinal-Lagfarenheten,” etc. (Project of medical jurisprudence, etc.) Stockh., 1776.

[126] “Forelaesninger over den legale Medicin,” Christiania, 1838.

[127] “Haandbog i den legale Medicin,” KjØbenhavn, 1843.

[128] “Versuch eines Umrisses der philosophisch.-medizinischen Jurisprudenz.” u. s. w., Dorpat, 1803.

[129] See Wildberg: “Bibl. med. leg.,” Nos. 1,198, 1,142, 1,215.

[130] Lugd. Bat., 1610, etc.

[131] Amstel., 1615.

[132] Rotterd., 1767.

[133] Lugd. Bat., 1768.

[134] S. Gravenh., 1815.

[135] “TraitÉ de MÉdecine lÉgale et de Jurisprudence de la MÉdecine,” 2 vols. in 1, Gand., 1859-60; 2d ed., Paris, 1878; 3d ed., Bruxelles, 1885. (See Toxicology.)

[136] “Yei sei honron” (Lectures on medical jurisprudence, translated by Gento Oye), 3d ed., 2 vols., Tokio, 1880.

[137] “Saiban igaku teiko” (Medical Juris.), 3 vols., Tokio, 1882-84.

[138] “Sixteen Introductory Lectures,” etc., Phila., 1811, pp. 363-395.

[139] Amer. Med. and Phil. Reg., N. Y., 1814, iv., 614. It is to be regretted that instruction in medical jurisprudence is not now given at this school (1893).

[140] Beck, “Med. Jur.,” 7th ed., xix. The Index Catalogue contains the titles of forty-nine works by Caldwell, none of which are medico-legal.

[141] Beck, loc. cit.

[142] “Tracts on Medical Jurisprudence,” etc., Phila., 1819.

[143] “Elements of Medical Jurisprudence,” 2 vols., 8vo, Albany, 1823; 12th ed., 2 vols., 8vo, Phila., 1863. A chapter on Infanticide by John B. Beck was added to the third edition. This and later editions are “by T. R. and J. B. Beck.”

[144] N. Y. Med. and Phys. Jour., 1823, ii., 9-30.

[145] “An Essay on Medical Jurisprudence,” Phila., 1824.

[146] Phila. J. M. and Phys. Sc., 1825, x., 36-46.

[147] “Syllabus of Lectures.” etc., Univ. of Va., 1827.

[148] “An Introductory Address,” etc., Phila., 1829, and “Syllabus of a Course of Lectures on ... Medical Jurisprudence in the Philadelphia Medical Institute” [n. p., n. d.].

[149] “A Catechism of Medical Jurisprudence.” etc., Northampton, 1835.

[150] Dean (A.): “Manual of Medical Jurisprudence,” Albany, 1840; Dean (A.): “Principles of Medical Jurisprudence,” Albany, 1854: Elwell (J. J.): “Medico-legal Treatise on Malpractice and Evidence,” New York, 1860; 4th ed., New York, 1881.

[151] “Medical Jurisprudence.” Phila., 1855. 4th ed., edited by R. Amory and E. S. Wood, 3 vols., Phila., 1884.

[152] “A Medico-legal Treatise on Malpractice and Medical Evidence,” N. Y., 1860; 4th ed., N. Y., 1881.

[153] “The Jurisprudence of Medicine,” etc., Phila., 1869.

[154] In that case (Bailey v. Mogg), the Court says of that statute (Laws of 1844, p. 406): “The triumph was now complete, for the legislature had made every man a doctor, and nostrums of every description and admixture could now be safely prescribed, and payments therefor exacted by authority of law.”

[155] Notwithstanding these statutory enactments, it has been held that one who undertakes to cure disease by rubbing, kneading, pressing, and otherwise manipulating the body (massage) is not liable for having violated the provisions of the statute against practising medicine or surgery without a license. Smith v. Lane, 24 Hun (New York Supreme Court), 32.

[156] Analysis of this decision shows that the main ground, upon which the court of last resort sustained the right of the applicant for admission to be admitted as a member of the society, was, that the provisions of the by-law in question were not specifically made applicable to a person applying for membership. The Court observed, pp. 192 et seq.: “The regulations embodied in the so-called code are admirably framed, and commend themselves to every reader, as tending to raise to a still higher elevation the character of the learned and honorable profession to which they were submitted for approval and adoption. They are not limited in their scope to the range of moral obligation, but embrace express rules of conduct, in personal, professional, and public relations. They are regulations in the various departments of morals and manners, of courtesy and etiquette, of delicacy and honor. They bind those who pledge themselves to their observance, but cannot be recognized in law, as conditions precedent to the exercise of an honorable profession, by learned, able, and upright men, who have not agreed to abide by them. The non-observance of such regulations may be made cause for exclusion or disfranchisement; but it must be either by the agreement of parties or by the exercise of the law-making power.

“The applicant was not a member either of the American Medical Association or of the Erie County Medical Society, at the time of his alleged deviation from the formulas prescribed by these conventional rules. He was under no legal obligation to observe them, and had neither actual nor constructive notice of their existence. Those who were members of the society could not lawfully be expelled for antecedent deviation from the code (Fawcett v. Charles, 13 Wend., 477). Much less could such deviation be alleged, as cause for exclusion, against one who had never agreed to be bound by it, and as to whom it was not merely an inoperative but an unknown law.

“As the relator demanded admission to the enjoyment of a franchise to which he was presumptively entitled, his exclusion could be justified only by facts repelling the presumption that he was duly qualified for admission, or by extraneous facts, showing that, if his application was granted, there were then subsisting causes, making ‘a clear case’ for immediate expulsion (Ex parte Paine, 1 Hill, 665).

“The burden was upon the appellant to establish affirmatively the existence of such present cause for expulsion. The society waived the right of making a return and taking a formal issue on the claim of the relator, to be determined as matter of fact by a jury, under the direction of the court; but submitted its objections in the form of affidavits, which failed to establish cause either for exclusion or expulsion.

“The only specific fact alleged in the opposing affidavits, as ground of objection, was the publication by the relator of a professional advertisement, which was inserted in one or more of the Buffalo journals in May, 1855, and discontinued in January, 1857, more than two years before his application was presented. It is charged that the printing of this notice was an empiricism, and in conflict with the code of ethics adopted by the Erie County Medical Society.

“There is nothing in the terms of the advertisement from which any inference can justly be drawn against the relator, in respect either to his personal character or his professional skill. There is no suggestion, in the affidavits, that any of the statements of fact contained in the notice are untrue, and there is nothing in its contents inconsistent with perfect good faith on the part of the relator. It refers to the treatment of bronchitis, asthma, and consumption, as a special department of the profession to which he had directed his particular attention; and it alludes to his use of the method recently introduced, of medicated inhalation, through an instrument appropriate to that purpose, in aid of such general treatment as experience had proved to be beneficial in that class of diseases. It is not denied that the relator possessed peculiar skill in this department of the profession; and the case discloses the fact that the method of auxiliary treatment, introduced by him in the county of Erie, was not only successful in his own practice, but was adopted, with beneficial results, by members of the county society of high professional standing, and that it was accepted by a large proportion of the physicians of Western New York. If, at the time this remedy was introduced, he had been a member of the County Society or of the American Medical Association, he would not have been at liberty to direct attention, through the medium of the public journals, to the benefits resulting from its use. This would, perhaps, have been unfortunate for those who were suffering, in that vicinity, from this particular class of diseases; but it is undoubtedly true that the suppression of such an advertisement would have been more considerate toward his professional brethren, and more in accordance with the rules of delicacy and good taste. But an error, in this respect, by one who had no notice of the society regulation is not cause for disfranchisement. The act of the relator was neither immoral nor illegal. It was no violation of the by-laws; for, as to him, they were wholly inoperative. It was no present cause for exclusion; for the publication of the objectionable notice had been discontinued for more than two years. When he applied for admission, he proposed to become bound by the by-laws; and this the society refused to permit, for the sole cause that he had not observed them before they became rules of conduct for him. ‘Where there is no law, there is no transgression.’ The relator, therefore, had been guilty of no legal wrong which could bar his claim to the franchise.”

[157] In Macpherson v. Cheadell (24 Wend., N. Y., 15) the Court said, p. 24:

“In the first place I doubt much whether the defendant below, after retaining the plaintiff as a physician and accepting his services as such, could call upon him in the first instance to prove a regular license. In other like cases, the presumption is against the defendant. It is so as between attorney and client, in a suit for services performed under a retainer. Pearce v. Whale, 7 Donl. & Ryl., 512, 515, per Bayley, Judge; 5 Barn. v. Cress., 38, S. C. There, if the objection sound in the fact that the plaintiff was never admitted, or that his admission has become inoperative, it lies with the defendant to show it. Id., and see Berryman v. Wise, 44 T. R., 566. and other cases; 1 Phil. Ev., 227, Cowen v. Hill’s ed. Besides, the contrary would be doing great violence to the presumption that no man will transgress the command of a positive law.” See also Thompson v. Sayre (1 Denio, N. Y., 75), where this principle seems to have been assumed as correct without question upon the strength of the decision quoted above. A similar doctrine appears to have been enunciated in the State of Illinois in Chicago v. Wood, 24 Ill. App., 42; and Williams v. People, 20 Ill. App., 92. It may be sound, and undoubtedly the English cases cited in Macpherson v. Cheadell, supra, tend to support it. But in a case in which the physician’s right to practise is denied, the safe course will be for him to have a duly authenticated copy of his license ready to be offered in evidence. The general rule is that the burden is on the plaintiff to show all the facts which make up his right of recovery. See Bliss v. Brainard, 41 N. H., 256; Salomon v. Dreschler, 4 Minn., 278; Kane v. Johnston, 9 Bosw., N. Y. Superior Ct., 154.

[158] That is, the burden devolves upon the defendant, and this notwithstanding the presumption of innocence, of showing what must be peculiarly within his own knowledge, namely, that he has been duly licensed. People v. Nyce, 34 Hun, N. Y., 298, and cases cited; 1 Greenleaf on Ev., § 79, and cases cited. See, contra, State v. Evans, 5 Jones. N. C., 250.

[159] In Finch v. Gridley’s Executors (25 Wend., N. Y., 469-471), Nelson, Ch. J., said: “I am also inclined to think the evidence which was given competent to prove the diploma from Fairfield College. The witness identified the corporate seal, and had himself received a diploma from that institution subscribed by the same president and secretary. Though he did not actually see them subscribe the paper, he had every means of becoming acquainted with their signatures; the delivery of it to him was an acknowledgment they had signed it. Besides, he was familiar with diplomas from the institution under their signature,” etc.

And see, also, Raynor v. State, 62 Wis., 289; Wendel v. State, id., 300.

[160] In some of the States, persons who simply administered roots and herbs in treating disease, have been excepted from that portion of the statute which forbids the practice of medicine and surgery without a license. The proper construction of such an exception is, that it is a question of fact for the jury, whether the person accused who claims the benefit of the exception, simply administered a concoction of roots and herbs within the meaning of the statute, or whether, under the guise of so doing, he really held himself out as and acted as a regular practitioner. All such penal statutes are to be construed, like all other penal statutes, with due regard to the rights of the individual, and at the same time with such degree of liberality as will tend to preserve the public safety.

[161] It has been held that the act of a physician in reporting to a health-board in good faith that his patient is suffering from small-pox, is not actionable. Brown v. Purdy, 8 N. Y. St. Rep., 143. The Court said (per Sedgwick, J.): “In order to give the public the protection due to it, according to the intention of the statute, any physician that possesses in fact an opinion that a patient has a contagious disease, is bound to report the case, whether he has or has not used ordinary professional skill and knowledge. A physician of skill in everything but cases of small-pox, which happily are not numerous, may, unexpectedly to himself, be called to a case which presents to him the appearance of small-pox. It may be said that he may call in counsel. It cannot, however, be said that private counsel should be called in rather than such as the law has appointed. Certainly, if he really thinks the case to be one of small-pox, it is his duty to communicate his opinion to the public authorities, who furnish skilled physicians peculiarly competent to pass upon the case. They are the experts the law points out for the physician. The attendance of these experts upon a patient can cause no injury, and thereafter the responsibility rests solely upon the public officer.”

As to how far the decision of an inspector appointed by a board of health is regarded by the law as quasi-judicial, and therefore conclusive, see Underwood v. Green, 42 N. Y., 140; Raymond v. Fish, 51 Conn., 80. Health officers who were guilty of gross negligence in removing infected persons from a city in stormy weather, and putting them in an unprotected and unsafe structure, so that such persons died from the exposure, have been held liable. Aaron v. Broiles, 64 Tex., 316.

The latest and most complete statute laws creating or regulating health boards are: England, 38 and 39 Victoria, chap. 55; United States (National Board of Health), 20 Stat. L., 484, suppl. to U. S. Rev. Stats., chap. 202, passed March 3d, 1889; Mass., chap. 79, Mass. Rev. Stats.; Pa., Laws of 1885, chap. 56; New York (State Board of Health), 2 N. Y. Rev. Stats., 1195; Local Boards, id., 1191-1193, chap. 270, Laws of 1885. The statutes of New Jersey are considered in Lozier v. Newark, 19 Vr., 453. In Missouri the power to license physicians is conferred upon the State Board of Health, and the Supreme Court of that State has held that the act of that board in granting or refusing a license is discretionary and its action in such a matter will not be enforced by a writ of mandamus (State v. Gregory, 83 Mo., 123); and a similar doctrine prevails in Minnesota, State v. State Med. Board, 32 Minn., 324. The latest and best work on the general subject of the organization and powers of boards of health is Parker & Worthington’s “Public Health and Safety,” M. Bender, publisher, Albany, N. Y., 1892.

[162] Consult, as to this, Parsons on “Contracts,” vol. ii., p. 56.

[163] Of course in those States or countries in which statutes of fraud render void, contracts for personal services for a longer period than one year (or any period named in the statute), unless such contracts are in writing and duly signed, contracts should be drawn and entered into with regard to those statutes.

[164] See also “Field’s Medico-Legal Guide,” 208-210, where the following cases are cited as sustaining this doctrine: New York, Carpenter v. Blake, 60 Barb., 488; same case on appeal, 75 N. Y. Court of Appeals, 12. Connecticut, Landon v. Humphrey, 9 Conn., 209. Iowa, Smothers v. Hawks, 34 Ia., 286. Indiana, Long v. Morrison, 14 Ind., 595. Maine, Leighton v. Sargeant, 27 Me. (7 Fost.), 468; Howard v. Grover, 28 Me., 97. Illinois, MacNevins v. Lowe, 40 Ill., 209. Kansas, Teft v. Wilcox, 6 Kan., 46. Massachusetts, Com. v. Thompson, 6 Mass., 134; Small v. Howard, 128 Mass., 131, 35 Am. Rep., 363. Pennsylvania, Potter v. Warner, 91 Pa. St., 362, 36 Am. Rep., 668. Wisconsin, Reynolds v. Graves, 3 Wis., 416. Vermont, Briggs v. Taylor, 28 Vt., 180.

[165] See Shear. & Redf. on Negligence, 440; Elwell on Malpractice, 55; Carpenter v. Blake, supra; Rex v. Long, 4 C. & P., 422; Slater v. Baker, 2 Willes (Eng.), 259; Ordronaux on Jurisp. of Med., pp. 29 et pass.; 20 Am. Law Rev., 82.

[166] On the points here suggested cf. Edington v. Life Ins. Co., 67 N. Y., 185, same case, 77 N. Y., 564; Grattan v. Life Ins. Co., 80 N. Y., 281; Dilleber v. Life Ins. Co., 87 N. Y., 79; Westover v. Life Ins. Co., 99 N. Y., 56; People v. Murphy, 23 N. Y. Weekly Digest, 42; same case, 101 N. Y., 126; Hunn v. Hunn, 1 T. & C., 499; Pierson v. The People, 79 N. Y., 432-435; People v. Carlyle Harris, 136 N. Y., 424.

[167] Patten v. Wiggin, 51 Me., 594.

[168] See on this question also Bigelow’s “Leading Cases,” on Torts, 295-303.

[169] Stevenson v. The New York, etc., Railroad Co., 2 Duer, 341; same case, 1 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cases, 343; Cincinnati, etc., R. R. Co. v. Davis, 43 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cases, 459.

[170] Bronson v. Hoffman, 7 Hun, 674; Williams v. Glenny, 16 N. Y., 389, and see Ordronaux on “Juris. of Med.,” supra, p. 46; but see also Danzinger v. Hoyt, 46 Hun, 270.

[171] And it has been held that a decedent’s estate is liable for fees of expert, who by direction of probate court examined widow and testified as to her pregnancy. This notice was put upon the ground that his testimony was necessary for the information of the court in a matter before it affecting the disposition of the estate. Rollwager v. Powell, 8 Hun, 10.

[172] Crain v. Baudouin, supra; Shelton v. Johnson, 40 Iowa, 84; Garry v. Stadlen, 67 Wis., 512.

[173] And a physician may recover the value of services rendered by his students. People v. Monroe, 4 Wend. (N. Y.), 200; Jay Co. v. Brewington, 74 Ind., 7. And the physician in attendance is not liable to the physician thus called. Guerard v. Jenkins, 1 Strobh., 171.

[174] Deway v. Roberts, 46 Michigan, 160.

[175] MacPherson v. Chedell, 24 Wend., 15; Adams v. Stevens, 26 Wend., 451; Story on Bailments, § 37.

[176] Duly licensed physicians are presumed to be experts as to the value of other physicians’ services. Beekman v. Platner, 15 Barb., 550.

[177] Bellinger v. Craigue, 31 Barb., 534; Gates v. Preston, 41 N. Y., 113; Blair v. Bartlett, 75 N. Y., 15. The general rule is that in an action arising on contract damages arising for a tort cannot be set up as a counter-claim. It follows from this that in an action of a physician for services, damages for malpractice could not be recouped or counter-claimed ordinarily. The way in which that rule is avoided, and the safer method, is for the defendant to plead that it was part of the contract of the physician (which it undoubtedly is), to perform his services in a faithful and skilful manner, and that he committed a breach of it, thus charging the damages which flowed from his acts as a breach of contract, not as a cause of action in tort for malpractice or negligence. If that is done the counter-claim arising in malpractice can probably be pleaded in an action for services, and possibly a counter-claim in excess of the amount claimed by the physician recovered as an affirmative judgment against him. On the other hand, in an action for malpractice brought by the patient against a physician, which is generally in form an action for a tortious act, or neglect, the physician cannot plead the performance of services and the non-payment of his bill as a counter-claim or recoupment, because that arises on a contract. If there is any exception to this rule it will be found to grow out of the language of sections 549 and 550 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the State of New York, and of similar enactments in other States, which permit counter-claims arising out of the same subject-matter as the cause of action, to be pleaded in that action. In New York State, however, any effect of that kind is negatived by the general provision that the actions must not only arise out of the same subject-matter but be of the same kind and class.

[178] The degree of care and skill required to be shown to entitle the physician or surgeon to recover compensation for his services has already been stated to be simply such care and skill as are possessed by the majority of other professional men of the same school of practice at the time, or what is known as ordinary care and skill.

[179] Foster v. Coleman, 1 E. D. Smith, 85; Larue v. Rowland, 7 Barb., 107; Clarke v. Smith, 46 Barb., 30; Knight v. Cunningham, 6 Hun, 100; Bay v. Cook, 22 N. J. L., 343.

[180] The writer is indebted for many valuable suggestions concerning this subject to Ansley Wilcox, Esq., of the Buffalo, N. Y., Bar, and his admirable lectures on Medical Jurisprudence before the Medical Department of the University of Buffalo.

[181] The conservatism of lawyers is proverbial. It is hard to convince them that forms that have been long in use and have been found to serve a useful purpose in the past, are not applicable to new conditions as they arise; for instance, that the methods of procuring the attendance and of examining ordinary witnesses do not fit the necessities of expert testimony. But the question as to the defects of the system as it now exists has been brought to public attention in the journals of the day, in papers read before medical societies and bar associations, and in arguments in legislative bodies, and it is hoped and believed that ere long a reform, something of the character indicated, may be brought about in this very important matter.

[182] It has been a matter of great discussion whether an expert is compellable to testify on matters of opinion, without compensation, the weight of the decisions being that he is not bound to do so. 1 Greenleaf on Evidence, § 310; 1 Warwick Law Assizes, 158; Parkinson v. Atkinson, 31 L. J. (n. s.) C. P., 199; Webb v. Page, 1 E. & K., 25; People v. Montgomery, 13 Abb. Pr., n. s., 207; Ex parte Roelker, 1 Sprague, 276; Buchanan v. The State, 59 Ind., 1; Dills v. The State, Id., 15; U. S. v. Howe, 12 Cent. L. J., 193; contra, 6 Central Law Journal, 11; Ex parte Dement, 53 Ala., 389; Sumner v. The State, 5 Tex., 21; 6 Southern Law Review, 706.; and see generally Wharton on Evidence, sec. 380, note 66, sec. 456; Lawson on Expert and Opinion Evidence; Rogers on Expert Testimony. As to the compensation being paid before the testimony is given, see Wharton on Evidence, secs. 456, 380; People v. Montgomery, 13 Abb. Pr., n. s., 207.

It is proper, although not necessary, that upon cross-examination the witness should be asked as to his fee; that is, as to whether he expects to receive any additional fee besides that of an ordinary witness, and it has been held that where the expert witness testified that he was to receive a fee which was contingent upon the case, he was disqualified from testifying. Pollock v. Gregory, 9 Bosworth, N. Y. Superior Ct. Rep., 121-124.

[183] This latter case holds that a second expert may be called to testify after the first has been thus challenged, to support his capacity and skill. The contrary rule, however, obtains in Alabama (Tellis v. Kidd., 12 Ala., 643; Pugh v. State, 44 Ala., 33). Neither can an expert be contradicted by books of science; that is, by books of science introduced in evidence as such (Wharton on Evidence, 666, 721). This is so because the rule is well established that books, although of great authority in themselves, may not, even if proven to be such, be placed in evidence. They may, however, be read to the witness, and so be placed upon the record, passage by passage, and the witness may be asked whether he agrees with that doctrine, not, however, as part of his direct examination, but as part of his cross-examination.

A medical expert is sometimes confronted upon the witness-stand by long quotations from well known medical text-books, and he is asked whether the doctrines, opinions, etc., there laid down are sound. Especially is this done when such doctrines and opinions are in apparent discord with his evidence as he gives it. In such cases as this, however honest, however intelligent and non-partisan the witness may be (except as any opinion on one side or the other of a disputed question may be considered partisan), he is placed in a very difficult position. If the citations and questions are from well-known authors, and he is a modest man, as most men of learning are, it will be difficult for him to deny that such authorities as these have great weight, even more weight than his experience, skill, and knowledge entitle him to claim. On the other hand, if he takes the bold course and sticks to his opinion, he is cried down the winds by counsel in summing him up, as a man of gall, boldness, audacity and egotism. His course is difficult whichever way he turns, but modesty as well as honesty is usually the best policy. Perhaps the best thing for such a witness to do under such circumstances is to do as once did the great mental alienist Dr. John P. Gray, when, having given an opinion on a question of insanity, he was cross-examined as to the different theories from time to time prevalent as to what insanity was, and having stated what theories were then the accepted ones, he was confronted by counsel on his cross-examination with the question: “What do you think of Dr. John P. Gray as an authority on that question?” and then with his own writings, quite extensive, of many years before, in which he had advocated theories apparently different from those which he had professed upon the witness-stand. Placed in this position, the distinguished gentleman simply replied: “It is true I cherished those theories at that time, but I lived to learn better,” thus substantially disarming any criticism that could be made of him in his capacity as a witness in that case.

[184] For general rules for the conduct of expert witnesses see infra.

[185] The principal classes of such subjects may, however, be briefly stated as follows:

1. Causes of death; especially in cases of homicide, suicide, accident, etc., including poisoning.

2. Causes, nature, and extent of personal injuries, by violence, accidents, explosions, railway disasters, collision between vessels, etc.

3. Birth of infants; was infant born dead or alive; if dead, was death the result of natural causes or of internal violence; age of infant at the time of birth or death. Also causes of alleged sterility or pregnancy; time pregnancy has existed; also cases of alleged impotency.

4. Rape, abortion, bastardy, pederasty, onanism, masochism, and many other matters relating to the sexual organs.

5. Malpractice cases, involving the degree of care and skill usual, and that used in the case under investigation, and involving delicate questions as to the propriety of the treatment adopted, etc.

[186] See also 1 Bishop Crim. Law, sec. 36; Rex v. Romiski, 1 Moody, 19; Reg. v. Ellis, 2 Car. & K., 470.

[187] In such cases as these the patient would have a right of action in the civil courts for damages against the physician or surgeon, because he had taken wilful and wicked advantage of his professional relation to her, to do her a grievous wrong.

[188] The Pennsylvania courts at an early period refused to follow this common-law doctrine, and held that the moment the womb is instinct with life in embryo and the process of gestation has begun the crime may be perpetrated. Mills v. Com., 13 Pa. St., 631.

[189] 1 Bishop Crim. Law, sec. 217, citing Rex v. Williamson, 3 Car. & P., 635.

[190] The same learned and philosophical text-writer (2 Bishop Crim. Law, sec. 664) compares the English and American cases and declares that the difference between them is more apparent than real.

[191] See Rice v. The State, 8 Mo., 561; Fairlee v. People, 11 Ill., 1; Holmes v. State, 23 Ala., 17; Rex v. Spilling, 2 M. & Rob., 107; Ferguson’s Case, 1 Lew., 181; Thomas v. Winchester, 2 Selden, N. Y. Court of App., 397; Com. v. Pierce, 138 Mass., 165, and cases cited; State v. Hahn, 38 Ark., 605; Wharton’s Crim. Law, sec. 1015; Elwell on Malpractice, etc., 238, 239.

[192] 1 Bishop Crim. Law, sec. 558, citing Groenvelt’s case, 1 Lord Raymond, 213; Rex v. Long, 4 C. & P., 398.

[193] See also Kelsey v. Hay, 84 Ind., 189; Small v. Howard, 128 Mass., 131; Gates v. Fleisher, 67 Wis., 286; Smothers v. Hanks, 34 Iowa, 286; Almond v. Nugent, 34 Iowa, 300; Haire v. Reese, 7 Phila. (Pa.), 138; Nelson v. Harrington, 72 Wis., 591.

[194] Ruddock v. Low, 4 F. & F., 519; Musser v. Chase, 29 Ohio St., 577.

[195] See particularly Gieselman v. Scott, 25 Ohio St., 86; Lanphier v. Phipos, 8 C. & P., 475; Pym v. Roper, 2 F. & F., 783; Carpenter v. Blake, 60 Barb., 485, 50 N. Y., 696, 10 Hun, 358, 75 N. Y., 12; Leighton v. Sargent, 7 N. H., 460.

[196] Synonymous terms with “reasonable care” are “fair knowledge and skill,” Jones v. Angell, 95 Ind., 376; “ordinary care and skill,” Heath v. Glisan, 3 Oregon, 64.

[197] See Corsi v. Maretzek, 4 E. D. Smith, 1, quoted at p. 362 of this volume.

[198] Small v. Howard, 128 Mass., 131, and cases cited.

[199] Clairvoyancy of course is not recognized in the courts as medical or surgical practice. And any one professing to treat patients as a clairvoyant must be held to the standard of regular practising physicians in the neighborhood where the clairvoyant operates. Nelson v. Harrington, 72 Wis., 591; Bibber v. Simpson, 59 Me., 181; Musser v. Chase, 29 Ohio St., 577.

[200] McCandless v. McWha, 22 Pa. St., 261; Carpenter v. Blake, supra; Leighton v. Sargent, supra.

[201] Kelley v. Hay, 84 Ind., 189; Stone v. Evans, 32 Minn., 243; Teft v. Wilcox, 6 Kans., 646; Brooke v. Clark, 57 Tex., 105; Graunis v. Branden, 5 Day (Conn.), 260, s. c., 5 Am. Dec., 143; Wenger v. Calder, 78 Ill., 275; Carpenter v. Blake, supra.

[202] Hyrne v. Irwin, 23 S. Car., 226, s.c., 55 Am. Rep., 15; Whittaker v. Collins, 34 Minn., 209.

[203] Boor v. Lowrey, 103 Ind., 468.

[204] Hitchcock v. Burgett, 38 Mich., 501.

[205] See U. P. R. R. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U. S., 250; McQuiggan v. D., L. & W. R. R. Co., 129 N. Y., 50; Roberts v. O. & L. C. R. Co., 29 Hun, 154, and cases cited.

[206] Olmstead v. Gere, 100 Pa. St., 127; Carpenter v. Blake, supra.

[207] Greenleaf Ev., s. 236; Taylor Ev., s. 908; Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, p. 363; Am. and Eng. Enc. of Law, vol. 19, p. 122; Code Civ. Pro. Cal., s. 1,881; Mills’ Ann. Stats. of Col., 1891, s. 4,824; Rev. Stats. Idaho, 1887, s. 5,958; Gen. Stats. Minn., 1891, s. 5,094; Comp. Stats. Mont., 1887, s. 650; Gen. Laws Ore., 1892, s. 712; Comp. Laws Utah, 1888, s. 3,877.

[208] Taylor Ev., s. 911; Stephen, Dig. of Ev., art. 115; Greenleaf Ev., s. 237.

[209] The successive efforts made to extend protection by judicial ruling to communications between physician and patient will appear from a consideration of the cases that are usually cited as authority for the English rule: Annesley v. Earl of Anglesea (1743), 18 How. St. Tr., 1,139; Duchess of Kingston’s case (1776), 20 How. St. Tr., 355 (cf. p. 572, p. 585, p. 586, p. 613); Wilson v. Rastall (1791)., 4 Term R. (Durnford & East), 753; Rex v. Gibbons (1823), 1 C. & P., 97; Broad v. Pitt (1828), 3 C. & P., 518; Greenough v. Gaskell (1832), 1 My. & K., 98. See also Wheeler v. Le Marchant, 50 L. J. Ch., 795 (1880).

1 Phillips Ev., p. 136; Starkie Ev., p. 40; Wharton Ev., s. 606; Greenleaf Ev., secs. 248, 237, 239; Taylor Ev., s. 916; Stephen, Dig. of Ev., art. 115; Rogers’ Expert Testimony, s. 45; Reynolds’ Theory of Evidence, s. 86.

It is to be noted that none of the cases which are cited as authority for the common-law rule as usually stated are really precedents to that extent. The cases of the Duchess of Kingston (supra); Lord William Russel (9 How. St. Tr., 602); Dr. Ratcliff (9 How. St. Tr., 582); Earl Ferrers (19 How. St. Tr., 886), and Rex v. Gibbons (supra), were all criminal prosecutions; and in Annesley v. Anglesea, Wilson v. Rastall, Broad v. Pitt, and Greenough v. Gaskell (supra), which were civil causes, the question of the privilege of a medical man was not really in dispute. It is well settled that communications between attorney and client are privileged, and yet Judge Pitt Taylor expresses some doubt whether the protection cannot be removed without the client’s consent in cases where the interests of criminal justice require the production of the evidence (Taylor Ev., s. 929). This intimation of a distinction between criminal and civil actions, even in the case of attorneys, suggests the possibility of a difference between those two classes of actions in the case of medical men. The cases cited establish authoritatively that in criminal prosecutions, at common law, confidential communications between medical man and patient are not privileged; but in civil causes, the opinions of the eminent judges seem to be obiter dicta. It is, however, established by other decisions that mere confidential relations do not prevent the disclosure of communications. (For the case of bankers, see Loyd v. Freshfield, 2 C. & P., 325; managers, Anderson v. British Bank of Columbia. 45 L. J. Ch., 449; clerks, Lee v. Burrell, 3 Camp., 337; Webb v. Smith, 1 C. & P., 337; stewards, Vaillant v. Dodemead, 2 Atk., 524; Earl of Falmouth v. Moss, 11 Price, 455; Pursuivant of Herald’s College, Slade v. Tucker, 49 L. J. Ch., 644.)

The opinions of so many eminent men, though strictly speaking obiter dicta, together with the uniform statements of text-writers based upon them, leave no room for reasonable doubt that independent of statute, in civil as well as criminal causes, communications between medical adviser and patient are not entitled to protection from disclosure in evidence.

[210] See Duchess of Kingston’s case (supra, p. 91, note 3) (cf. ib., pp. 572, 585, 586, 613).

[211] Greenleaf Ev., secs. 249, 252, 252a.

[212] Greenleaf Ev. s. 249.

[213] See Barnes v. Harris, 7 Cush., 576; Hatton v. Robinson, 4 Pick, 422. See also historical review of the attorney’s privilege and the reasons for it, by Judge Seldon, at Special Term, in Rochester City Bank v. Suydam, 5 How. Pr. (N.Y.), 254.

[214] Wilson v. Rastall, 4 Term R., 753.

[215] Best, Prin. of Ev., s. 582.

[216] The revisers of the New York Statutes in 1828 in their report (5 N. Y. Stats. at Large, edited by John W. Edmonds, 2d ed., p. 726) stated as their reason for suggesting a statutory privilege for communications between physician and patient, that “in 4 Term Rep., 580, Buller, J. (to whom no one will attribute a disposition to relax the rules of evidence), said it was ‘much to be lamented’ that the information specified in this section (2 R. S., p. 406, s. 73) was not privileged. Mr. Phillips expressed the same sentiments in his treatise on Evidence, p. 104. The ground on which communications to counsel are privileged is the supposed necessity of a full knowledge of the facts, to advise correctly, and to prepare for the proper defence or prosecution of a suit. But surely the necessity of consulting a medical adviser, when life itself may be in jeopardy, is still stronger. And unless such consultations are privileged, men will be incidentally punished by being obliged to suffer the consequences of injuries without relief from the medical art, and without conviction of any offence. Besides, in such cases, during the struggle between legal duty on the one hand and professional honor on the other, the latter, aided by a strong sense of the injustice and inhumanity of the rule, will in most cases furnish a temptation to the perversion or concealment of truth, too strong for human resistance. In every view that may be taken of the policy, justice or humanity of the rule as it exists, its relaxation seems highly expedient.”

These or similar reasons have prevailed in many States and Territories to bring about a statutory restriction on disclosures.

[217] The following cases show or tend to show that the English rule is in operation in Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Texas, and West Virginia: Wilson v. Town of Granby, 47 Conn., 59; Fayette v. Chesterville, 77 Me., 28; Weems v. Weems, 19 Md., 334; Morrissey v. Ingham, 111 Mass., 63; Barber v. Merriam, 11 Allen, 322; Castner v. Sliker, 4 Vr., 95; Steagald v. State, 3 S. W. Rep., 771; Jarrett v. Jarrett, 11 W. Va., 584. For the common-law rule in the States where statutes are now in force, see Campau v. North, 39 Mich., 606; Territory v. Corbett, 3 Mont., 50; Pierson v. People, 79 N. Y., 424; Edington v. Ætna L. I. Co., 77 N. Y., 564; Buffalo Loan Tr. & S. D. Co. v. Knights Templar, etc., 126 N. Y., 450.

[218] Dig. Stats. Ark., 1884, s. 2,862; Code Civ. Pro. Cal., s. 1,881 as amended Law 1893, c. 217; Mills’ Ann. Stats. Col., 1891, secs. 4,824, 4,825; R. S. Ida., 1887, s. 5,958; Myers’ Ann. R. S. Ind., 1888, s. 497; Act of May 2d, 1890, U. S. Stats. at Large, c. 182, making the laws of evidence of Arkansas applicable to Indian Territory; McClain’s Ann. Code Iowa, 1888, s. 4,893; Code Civ. Pro. Kan., s. 323; Gen. Stats. Kan., 1889, s. 4,418; Howell’s Ann. Stats. Mich., 1882, s. 7,516; Kelley’s Gen. Stats. Minn., 1891, s. 5,094; R. S. Mo., 1889, s. 8,925; Comp. Stats. Mont., 1887, s. 650; Code of Civ. Pro. Neb., secs. 333, 334; Bailey & Hammond’s Gen. Stats. Nev., 1885, s. 3,406; Code Civ. Pro. N. Y., secs. 834, 836, as amended by Laws 1893, c. 295; Laws of N. C., Act of 1885, c. 159; Code Civ. Pro. Dak., 1883, s. 499; Smith & Benedict’s R. S. Ohio, 1890, s. 5,241; Stats. of Okl., 1893, s. 4,213; Hill’s Gen. Laws Ore., 1892, secs. 712, 713; Code Civ. Pro. Dak., 1883, s. 499; Code Civ. Pro. Utah, s. 1,156; Comp. Laws of Utah, s. 3,877; 2 Hill’s Ann. Stats. Wash., 1891, s. 1,649: Sanborn & Berryman’s Ann. Stats. Wis., 1889, s. 4,075; R. S. Wyo., 1887. s. 2,589. For the chronological order and the date of the passage of the earlier of these laws, see note to Gartside v. Connecticut Mutual L. I. Co., 76 Mo., 446.

[219] Rev. Stats. U. S., s. 721.

[220] Conn. Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Union Trust Co., 112 U. S., 250. See also Dreier v. Continental L. I. Co., 24 Fed. Rep., 670; Adrereno v. Mutual Res. Fund L. I. Co., 34 Fed. Rep., 870.

[221] Logan v. United States, 144 U. S., 263; United States v. Reid, 12 How., 361.

[222] See references to the several statutes in note 2 on p. 94.

[223] See Freel v. Market St. Cable Ry. Co., 31 Pac. Rep., 730 (Supr. Ct. Cal.).

[224] This seems to be the proper construction of the Kansas and Oklahoma statutes, though what seem to be typographical errors in the published laws render it doubtful.

[225] For laws regulating practice in the several States and Territories, see infra, p. 137 et seq.

[226] Laws N. Y., Act 1893, c. 295.

[227] N. Y. Code Civ. Pro., s. 836, as amended Act 1893, c. 295. A similar exception was introduced by Act 1891, c. 381, and modified by Act 1892, c. 514.

[228] Supra, p. 94, note 1.

[229] Bishop, Written Laws, secs. 119, 155; Potter’s Dwarris, Statutes, p. 185; 1 Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, “Construction,” p. 386.

[230] Masonic Mut. Ben. Assn. v. Beck, 77 Ind., 203. For the construction of particular words and phrases, see infra, p. 115 et seq.

[231] For waiver of the privilege, see infra, p. 106.

[232] Penn Mut. L. I. Co. v. Wiler, 100 Ind., 92.

[233] Lunz v. Mass. Mut. L. I. Co., 8 Mo. App., 363.

[234] Kling v. City of Kansas, 27 Mo. App., 231.

[235] Gartside v. Conn. Mut. L. I. Co., 76 Mo., 446; said to be overruled by Groll v. Tower, 85 Mo., 249, in Squires v. City of Chillicothe, 89 Mo., 226; but followed in Thompson v. Ish, 99 Mo., 160.

[236] N. Y. Code Civ. Pro., s. 3,345. Disclosures by physicians are restricted by secs. 834, 836 of said Code.

[237] Code Civ. Pro., secs. 834, 836, as new existing are re-enactments with modifications of 2 R. S., p. 406, s. 73.

[238] People v. Stout, 3 Park Cr. Rep., 670; Edington v. Mut. L. I. Co., 67 N. Y., 185. Cf. Kendall v. Grey, 2 Hilt., 300; Pearsall v. Elmer, 5 Redf., 181. A disposition to construe the statute strictly was disclosed in the opinion of Earl, J., in Edington. v. Ætna L. I. Co., 77 N. Y., 564, but his personal views were disapproved in subsequent cases; see Grattan v. Metro. L. I. Co., 80 N. Y., 281; Renihan v. Dennin, 103 N. Y., 573; Buffalo Loan, etc., Co. v. Knights Templar, etc., 126 N. Y., 450. See also Jones v. Brooklyn, etc., Ry. Co., 3 N. Y. Supp., 253; in matter of Darragh, 52 Hun, 591; Marx v. Manhattan Ry. Co., 56 Hun, 575; Treanor v. Manhattan Ry. Co., 28 Abb. N. C., 47.

[239] See Collins v. Mack, 31 Ark., 684.

[240] N. Y. Code of Pro., s. 390; N. Y. Code of Civ. Pro., s. 870.

[241] Edington v. Mut. L. I. Co., 5 Hun, 1; s. c., 67 N. Y., 185.

Under sec. 873, Code Civ. Pro., as amended by Law 1893, c. 721, the plaintiff in an action for personal injuries may be compelled to submit to a physician’s inspection. Cf. Page v. Page, 51 Mich., 88.

[242] Supra, p. 96.

[243] Guptill v. Verback, 58 Iowa, 98. In this case, however, it was determined that it did not appear that a crime was intended.

[244] 2 R. S., 406, s. 73.

[245] Act 1876, c. 448, Code Civ. Pro., secs. 834, 836.

[246] Act 1877, c. 417, s. 1.

[247] 3 R. S., 1029, s. 19. Superseded by Code Crim. Pro., s. 392, as amended by Act 1892, c. 279, s. 7. People v. Murphy, 101 N. Y., 126. People v. Brower, 53 Hun, 217.

[248] Pierson v. People, 79 N. Y., 424; People v. Harris, 136 N. Y., 423.

[249] Pierson v. People, 18 Hun, 239.

[250] People v. Murphy, 101 N. Y., 126 (1886).

[251] People v. Brower, 53 Hun, 217 (1889). See also People v. Stout, 3 Park Cr. Rep., 670.

[252] Johnson v. Johnson, 4 Paige, 460; s. p., 14 Wend., 636; Hanford v. Hanford, 3 Edw. Ch., 468; Hunn v. Hunn, 1 T. & C., 499.

In Indiana, information as to abortion and criminal intimacy is protected in an action for criminal conversation. Harris v. Rupel, 14 Ind., 209. In Hewitt v. Prime, 21 Wend., 77 N. Y. (1839), in an action for seduction the testimony of a physician that he was asked for medicine to produce an abortion was admitted. It was stated that such testimony is not privileged, but there were other reasons for the judgment, and the case seems to be at variance with later decisions on that principle.

See also Briggs v. Briggs, 20 Mich., 34.

[253] Allen v. Pub. Adm., 1 Bradf., 221 (1850).

[254] Staunton v. Parker, 19 Hun, 55 (1879).

[255] Citing the fact that no objection was raised in the noted case of Delafield v. Parish, 25 N. Y., 1.

[256] Renihan v. Dennin, 103 N. Y., 573 (1886), followed in Loder v. Whelpley, 111 N. Y., 239 (1888). In re Hannah, 11 N. Y. St. Rep., 807 (Supr. Ct., G. T., 1887). In matter of Connor (Sup. Ct., G. T.), 27 N. Y. St. Rep., 905 (1889); Mason v. Williams (Sup. Ct., G. T., 1889), 6 N. Y. Supp., 479; Van Orman v. Van Orman (Sup. Ct., G. T., 1890), 34 N. Y. St. Rep., 824. See also In matter of Halsey (N. Y. Surr.), 29 N. Y. St. Rep., 533 (1890). Allen v. Pub. Adm., 1 Bradf., 221, had been overruled in part by Edington v. Mut. L. I. Co., 67 N. Y., 185 (1876), but not on this point.

[257] Supra, p. 98.

[258] Heuston v. Simpson, 115 Ind., 62.

[259] Fraser v. Jennison, 42 Mich., 206. In this case the testimony was admitted on the ground that the representative could waive the privilege. See Thompson v. Ish, 99 Mo., 160.

[260] In re Benson (Monroe County Court), 16 N. Y. Supp., 111 (1891). Some States have statutory provisions for the qualification of physicians as examiners in lunacy, e.g., Laws of Col., 1893, c. 119, s. 5; Laws of N. Y., 1874, c. 446, t. 1, art. 1, s. 1. The bearing of these provisions upon the statutory privilege has not been made clear.

[261] In matter of Baird, 11 N. Y. State Rep., 263 (1887).

[262] In matter of Hoyt, 20 Abb. N. C. (Sup. Ct., G. T., 1887).

[263] 13 N. Y. W. D., 505 (1880).

[264] Dilleber v. Home L. I. Co., 13 N. Y. W. D., 505 (1881).

[265] The following cases in which the rule has been enforced have arisen out of contracts of life insurance: Masonic Mut. Ben. Assn. v. Beck, 77 Ind., 203; Excelsior Mut. Aid Assn. v. Riddle, 91 Ind., 84; Penn Mut. L. I. Co. v. Wiler, 100 Ind., 92; Ætna L. I. Co. v. Denning, 123 Ind., 390; Lunz v. Mass. Mut. L. I. Co., 8 Mo. App., 363; Edington v. Mut. L. I. Co., 67 N. Y., 185; Grattan v. Metrop. L. I. Co., 80 N. Y., 281; s. p., 92 N. Y., 274; Conn. Mut. L. I. Co. v. Union Tr. Co., 112 U. S., 250.

[266] See Renihan v. Dennin. 103 N. Y., 573, dictum to same effect.

As to whether a physician may contradict his patient to prevent fraud, see infra, p. 111 et seq.

[267] Supra, p. 97.

[268] Infra, p. 119.

[269] “Physician: A person who has received the degree of doctor of medicine from an incorporated institution; one lawfully engaged in the practice of medicine.”—Bouvier’s Law Dict., vol. ii., p. 412.

“Surgeon: One who applies the principles of the healing art to external diseases or injuries, or to internal injuries or malformations, requiring manual or instrumental intervention. One who practises surgery.”—Bouvier’s Law Dict., vol. ii., p. 698, q. v.

[270] Edington v. Mutual L. I. Co., 5 Hun, 1.

[271] People v. Stout, 3. Park Cr. Rep., 670 (1858). In this case the witness was undoubtedly a duly qualified physician under the State law.

[272] Wiel v. Cowles, 45 Hun, 307 (1887) (Supreme Ct., Gen. T.). Sec. 356, N. Y. Penal Code, which was in operation at that time, was repealed by Act 1887, c. 647, s. 9, but the prohibition of unauthorized practice is now to be found in Act 1893, c. 661, s. 140.

[273] Kendall v. Gray, 2 Hilt., 300 (N. Y. Com. Pl., Gen. T., 1859).

[274] Brown v. Hannibal & St. J. R. R. Co., 66 Mo., 588.

[275] Carrington v. St. Louis, 89 Mo., 208.

[276] Infra, p. 128.

[277] Record v. Village of Saratoga Springs, 46 Hun, 448 (N. Y. Supr. Ct., Gen. T.).

[278] Supra, p. 96.

[279] Penn Mut. L. I. Co. v. Wiler. 100 Ind., 92; Morris v. Morris, 119 Ind., 341.

[280] Grand Rapids & Ind. R. R. Co. v. Martin, 41 Mich., 667; Fraser v. Jennison, 42 Mich., 206.

[281] Carrington v. St. Louis, 89 Mo., 208; Squires v. City of Chillicothe, 89 Mo., 226; Blair v. C. & A. R. R. Co., 89 Mo., 334; s. p., 89 Mo., 383; Adrereno v. Mut. Res. F. L. I. Co., 34 Fed. Rep., 870; Davenport v. City of Hannibal, 18 S. W. Rep., 1122.

[282] The most of the cases in which the rule has been enforced are those in which the physician has actually testified without raising the objection himself, and in which, therefore, the rule could not be enforced if the physician’s waiver were valid, but the following cases particularly are in point: Harris v. Rupel, 14 Ind., 209; Barton v. Allbright, 29 Ind., 488; Storrs v. Scougale, 48 Mich., 387; Lunz v. Mass. Mut. L. I. Co., 8 Mo. App., 363; Johnson v. Johnson, 14 Wend., 636; Hanford v. Hanford, 3 Edw. Ch., 468; People v. Stout, 3 Park Cr. Rep., 670.

[283] Mulhado v. Brooklyn City R. R. Co., 30 N. Y., 370; Heller v. Sharon Springs, 28 Hun, 344; Winner v. Lathrop, 67 Hun, 511.

[284] See Penn Mut. L. I. Co. v. Wiler, 100 Ind., 92; Territory v. Corbett, 3 Mont., 50; Johnson v. Johnson, 14 Wend., 636; Babcock v. People, 15 Hun, 347.

[285] Barton v. Allbright, 29 Ind., 488; Campau v. North, 39 Mich., 606; Territory v. Corbett, 3 Mont., 50; Blair v. Chic. & Alton R. R. Co., 89 Mo., 334; Johnson v. Johnson, 14 Wend. (N. Y.), 636.

[286] N. Y. Code Civ. Pro., s. 836 (Act 1876, c. 448), as amended Act 1877, c. 416, s. 185. Previous to the Code of Civil Procedure the provision for waiver was not in the statute, 2 R. S., 406, s. 73.

The amendment of 1891 allowed an express waiver of information, except confidential communications and such facts as would tend to disgrace the memory of the patient, by his personal representatives, or if the validity of the last will and testament of the patient is in question, by the executor or executors named in said will. Law 1891, c. 381.

The amendment of 1892 added the surviving husband, widow, heir at law, any of the next of kin or any other party in interest, in case the validity of the last will and testament of the patient is in question. Law 1892, c. 514. The present law contains the same provisions. Act 1893, c. 295.

[287] Westover v. Ætna L. I. Co., 99 N. Y., 56; Loder v. Whelpley, 111 N. Y., 239; Alberti v. N. Y., L. E. & W. R. R. Co., 118 N. Y., 77. Staunton v. Parker, 19 Hun, 55, is thus overruled.

[288] See In matter of Freeman, 46 Hun, 548 (N. Y. Supr. Ct., G. T.,1887).

See Adrereno v. Mut. Res. F. L. I. Co. (U. S. C. C. Mich.), 34 Fed. Rep., 870.

[289] Alberti v. N. Y., L. E. & W. R. R. Co., 118 N. Y., 77.

[290] Masonic Mut. Ben. Assn. v. Beck, 77 Ind., 203.

[291] Fraser v. Jennison, 42 Mich., 206.

[292] Groll v. Tower, 85 Mo., 249.

[293] Thompson v. Ish, 99 Mo., 160, distinguishes the New York statute from the Missouri statute; but seems to misinterpret Heuston v. Simpson, 115 Ind., 62, which does not hold that representatives cannot waive, but that they can invoke protection.

[294] State v. Depoister, 25 Pac. Rep., 1000.

[295] Johnson v. Johnson, 14 Wend., 636; Babcock v. People, 15 Hun, 347; Valensin v. Valensin, 14 Pac. Rep., 87 (Supr. Ct. Cal., 1887); cf. In re Hannah, 11 N. Y. St. Rep., 807.

[296] Penn Mut. L. I. Co. v. Wiler, 100 Ind., 92; Allen v. Pub. Adm., 1 Bradf., 221; Edington v. Mut. L. I. Co., 67 N. Y., 185; see Westover v. Ætna L. I. Co., 99 N. Y., 56. Breisenmeister v. Supr. Lodge, etc., 45 N. W. Rep., 977 (Supr. Ct. Mich., 1890).

[297] Penn Mut. L. I. Co. v. Wiler, 100 Ind., 92.

[298] Harris v. Rupel, 14 Ind., 209. See also Carthage T. Co. v. Andrews. 1 N. E. Rep., 364.

[299] Morris v. Morris, 119 Ind., 341.

[300] Scripps v. Foster, 41 Mich., 742.

[301] Mason v. Libbey, 2 Abb. N. C., 137; Mott v. Consumers’ Ice Co., 2 Abb. N. C., 143.

[302] Territory v. Corbett, 3 Mont., 50.

[303] People v. Stout, 3 Park Cr. Rep., 670 (N. Y., Oy. and Ter., 1858).

[304] Johnson v. Johnson, 14 Wend., 636 (overruling s. c., 4 Paige, 460); Breisenmeister v. Supreme Lodge, etc., 45 N. W. Rep., 977 (Supr. Ct. Mich., 1890).

[305] Valensin v. Valensin, 14 Pac. Rep., 87 (Supr. Ct. Cal., 1887).

[306] N. Y. Code Civ. Pro., s. 2, 618.

[307] Hoyt v. Hoyt, 9 N. Y. St. Rep., 731 (N. Y. Supr. Ct., G. T.), affirmed 112 N. Y., 493.

[308] Hoyt v. Hoyt, 9 N. Y. St. Rep., 731 (N. Y. Supr. Ct., G. T.).

[309] Van Valkenburg v. Van Valkenburg, 90 Ind., 433.

[310] Dilleber v. Home L. I. Co., 69 N. Y., 256.

[311] Loder v. Whelpley, 111 N. Y., 29.

[312] Supra, p. 96.

[313] Valensin v. Valensin, 14 Pac. Rep., 87 (Supr. Ct. Cal., 1887).

[314] Masonic Mut. Ben. Assn. v. Beck, 77 Ind., 203.

[315] Dreier v. Continental L. I. Co., 24 Fed. Rep., 670; cf. Breisenmeister v. Supr. Lodge, etc., 45 N. W. Rep., 977 (Supr. Ct. Mich., 1890).

[316] Penn Mut. L. I. Co. v. Wiler, 100 Ind., 92.

[317] Williams v. Johnson, 112 Ind., 273.

[318] Ætna L. I. Co. v. Denning, 123 Ind., 390.

[319] Lane v. Boicourt, 27 N. E. Rep., 1111.

[320] McConnell v. City of Osage, 45 N. W. Rep., 550.

[321] Campau v. North, 39 Mich., 606.

[322] Dolton v. Albion, 24 N. W. Rep., 786.

[323] Carrington v. St. Louis, 89 Mo., 208; Squires v. Chillicothe, 89 Mo., 226; Thompson v. Ish, 99 Mo., 160.

[324] Mellor v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co., 14 S. W. Rep., 758; 16 S. W. Rep., 849.

[325] Adrereno v. Mut. Res. F. L. I. Co., 34 Fed. Rep., 870.

[326] State v. Depoister, 25 Pac. Rep., 1000; but see dissenting opinion of Bigelow, J.; see also McKinney v. Grand St. R. R. Co., 104 N. Y., 352.

[327] Edington v. Mut. L. I. Co., 5 Hun, 1 (reversed in part by Edington v. Mut. L. I. Co., 67 N. Y., 185, but affirmed on this point).

[328] Cahen v. Continental L. I. Co., 41 N. Y. Super., 296 (overruled on another point but affirmed on this in 69 N. Y., 300).

[329] Jones v. Brooklyn, B. & W. E. Ry. Co., 3 N. Y. Supp., 253.

[330] Grattan v. Metrop. L. I. Co., 92 N. Y., 274.

[331] McKinney v. Grand St. R. R. Co., 104 N. Y., 352; see criticism of this case in Breisenmeister v. Supr. Lodge, 45 N. W. Rep., 977 (Supr. Ct. of Mich., 1890). See also Mason v. Libbey, 2 Abb. N. C., 137; see unanswered queries on similar points in People v. Schuyler, 106 N. Y., 298.

[332] See In re Freeman, 46 Hun, 458, in which a will was admitted to probate on the concurrence of Learned, J., who held that the relation of physician and surgeon was not established, and Landon, J., who held that the request to sign constituted a waiver; Williams, J., dissenting, on the ground that the relation was established in the case, and the waiver could not be assumed without proof of the patient’s mental capacity to comprehend the waiver; that it was not proper to assume testator’s competency to waive in order to enable the witness to testify that the patient was competent to make a will.

On the analogous case of an attorney as witness to a will, see Matter of Coleman. 111 N. Y., 220; and N. Y. Code Civ. Pro., s. 836, as amended Act 1893, c. 295.

[333] Record v. Village of Saratoga Springs, 46 Hun, 448 (Supr. Ct., Gen. T., N. Y.). See also Hope v. Troy and Lansingburg R. R. Co., 40 Hun, 438; Jones v. B., B. & W. E. R. R. Co., 3 N. Y. Supp., 253.

[334] Supra, p. 113, note 7.

[335] 28 Abb. N. C., 37 (N. Y. Com. Pl., Gen. T., 1891).

[336] Marx v. Manhattan Ry. Co., 56 Hun, 575 (N. Y. Supr. Ct., Gen. T.).

[337] Buffalo L. & T. Co. v. Masonic Mut. Aid Assn., 126 N. Y., 450.

[338] Supra, p. 98.

[339] Collins v. Mack, 31 Ark., 684. The main point of this decision was that the information was not necessary; see infra. p. 124.

[340] v. Briggs, 20 Mich., 34.

[341] Ibid.

[342] Fraser v. Jennison, 42 Mich., 206; Breisenmeister v. Supr. Lodge, etc., 45 N. W. Rep., 977 (Supr. Ct. Mich., 1890).

[343] Dalman v. Koning, 54 Mich., 321.

[344] Brown v. Mut. L. I. Co., 65 Mich., 306.

[345] Breisenmeister v. Supr. Lodge, etc., 45 N. W. Rep., 977.

[346] Cooley v. Foltz, 48 N. W. Rep., 176.

[347] Lunz v. Mass. Mut. L. I. Co., 8 Mo. App., 363; Gartside v. Conn. Mut. L. I. Co., 76 Mo., 446 (said to be overruled by 85 Mo., 249; see 89 Mo., 226, but followed in Thompson v. Ish, 99 Mo., 160). For an argument on the distinction between information and communications, see brief of respondent’s counsel in Gartside v. Conn. Mut. L. I. Co.

[348] 27 Mo. App., 231 (1887).

[349] Streeter v. City of Breckenridge, 23 Mo. App., 244.

[350] Ibid.

[351] Corbett v. St. L., I. M. & S. Ry. Co., 26 Mo. App., 621.

[352] Thompson v. Ish, 99 Mo., 160.

[353] People v. Stout, 3 Park Cr. Rep., 670.

[354] Edington v. Mut. L. I. Co., 5 Hun, 1; s. p., 67 N. Y., 185; Grattan v. Met. L. I. Co., 80 N. Y., 281.

[355] Grattan v. Met. L. I. Co., 80 N. Y., 281; Van Orman v. Van Orman, 34 N. Y. St. Rep., 824 (Supr. Ct., G. T.); Wilcox v. Wilcox, 46 Hun, 32.

[356] Sloan v. N. Y. C. R. R. Co., 45 N. Y., 125; Dilleber v. Home L. I. Co., 69 N. Y., 256.

[357] Cahen v. Continental L. I. Co., 69 N. Y., 300.

[358] 77 N. Y., 564.

[359] See also Staunton v. Parker, 19 Hun, 55.

[360] 103 N. Y., 573; see also Grattan v. Met. L. I. Co., 80 N. Y., 281.

[361] Grattan v. Nat. L. I. Co. of U. S., 15 Hun, 74; Edington v. Mut. L. I. Co., 5 Hun, 1; see s. c., 67 N. Y., 185.

[362] Per Smith, J., in Steele v. Ward, 30 Hun, 555.

[363] People v. Brower, 53 Hun, 217.

[364] People v. Harris, 136 N. Y., 423.

[365] Burley v. Barnhard, 9 N. Y. St. Rep., 587 (Supr. Ct., G. T., 1887).

[366] Pandjiris v. McQuillen, 37 N. Y. St. Rep., 602 (Supr. Ct., G. T., 1891).

[367] Hoyt v. Hoyt, 9 N. Y. St. Rep., 731 (Supr. Ct., G. T., 1887).

[368] Hoyt v. Hoyt, ibid.

[369] In matter of Boury, 8 N. Y. St. Rep., 809 (Supr. Ct., G. T., 1889).

[370] Brown v. R. W. & O. R. R. Co., 45 Hun, 439.

[371] Numirich v. Supr. Lodge K. & L. of H., 3 N. Y. Supp., 552 (Trial Term, City Ct. of N. Y., 1889); Patten v. U. L. & A. Ins. Assn., 133 N. Y., 450.

[372] Patten v. United L. & A. Ins. Assn., 133 N. Y., 450.

[373] In matter of Darragh, 15 N. Y. St. Rep., 452 (N. Y. Surr.).

[374] In matter of Darragh, 52 Hun, 591 (Supr. Ct., G. T.), see infra, p. 128.

[375] Masonic Mut. Ben. Assn. v. Beck, 77 Ind., 203.

[376] Heuston v. Simpson, 115 Ind., 62; Penna. Co. v. Marion, 23 N. E. Rep., 973.

[377] Guptill v. Verback, 58 Iowa, 98.

[378] Guptill v. Verback, 58 Iowa, 98.

[379] McConnell v. City of Osage, 45 N. W. Rep., 550.

[380] Raymond v. Burlington, C. R. & N. Ry. Co., 65 Iowa, 152.

[381] Ibid.

[382] See argument in Edington v. Mut. L. I. Co., 67 N. Y., 185. See argument for difference between information and communications in brief for respondent, Gartside v. Conn. Mut. L. I. Co., 76 Mo., 446.

[383] Supra, p. 115.

[384] Act of Congress, May 2d, 1890, c. 182.

[385] Collins v. Mack, 31 Ark., 684.

[386] Cahen v. Continental L. I. Co., 69 N. Y., 300; see Grattan v. Met. L. I. Co., 24 Hun, 43.

[387] Hoyt v. Hoyt, 112 N. Y., 493.

[388] Freel v. Market St. Cable Ry. Co., 31 Pac. Rep., 730.

[389] People v. Glover, 71 Mich., 303.

[390] Per Learned, J., In matter of Freeman, 46 Hun, 458 (Supr. Ct., Gen. T., 1887).

[391] Renihan v. Dennin, 103 N. Y., 573; and cases in notes following.

[392] People v. Stout, 3 Park Cr. Rep., 670 (N. Y. Oy. and Ter., 1858); see Grossman v. Supreme Lodge, etc., 6 N. Y. Supp., 821 (Gen. T. Supr. Ct., 1889), visiting physician at a hospital attending out of curiosity with regular physician.

[393] People v. Schuyler. 106 N. Y., 298, affirming 43 Hun, 88.

[394] In matter of Baird, 11 N. Y. St. Rep., 263 (N. Y. Supr. Ct., Chambers, 1887, per Donohue, J.).

[395] See 28 Abb. N. C., 55. note.

[396] Grattan v. Met. L. I. Co., 24 Hun, 43 (Supr. Ct., Gen. T., 1881); 92 N. Y., 274.

[397] People v. Murphy, 101 N. Y., 126.

[398] People v. Kemmler, 119 N. Y., 580; People v. Sliney, 137 N. Y., 570.

[399] Heath v. Broadway & S. A. Ry. Co., 8 N. Y. Supp., 863 (Super. Ct., Gen. T., 1890).

[400] Henry v. N. Y., L. E. & W. R. R. Co., 57 Hun, 76 (Supr. Ct., Gen. T., 1890).

[401] Renihan v. Dennin, 103 N. Y., 573; Jones v. B., B. & W. E. Ry. Co., 3 N. Y. Supp., 253.

[402] Ætna L. I. Co. v. Deming, 123 Ind., 390; Raymond v. B., C. R. & N. Ry. Co., 65 Iowa, 152.

[403] Grattan v. Metr. L. I. Co., 24 Hun, 43 (Supr. Ct., Gen. T., 1881).

[404] Edington v. Ætna L. I. Co., 13 Hun, 543 (Supr. Ct., Gen. T., 1878), affirmed 77 N. Y., 564. The broad expressions of this latter case were disapproved in Renihan v. Dennin, 103 N. Y., 573, but it does not appear that this point was not properly decided.

[405] In matter of Darragh, 52 Hun, 591 (Supr. Ct., Gen. T., 1889), 15 N. Y. St. Rep., 452 (N. Y. Surr.) Brigham v. Gott, 3 N. Y. Supp., 518 (Supr. Ct., Gen. T., 1889).

[406] Stowell v. American Co-op. Assn., 23 N. Y. St. Rep., 706 (Supr. Ct., Gen. T., 1889).

[407] Supra, p. 98.

[408] 8 Mo. App., 363.

[409] 27 Mo. App., 231.

[410] Gartside v. Conn. Mut. L. I. Co., 76 Mo., 446; see also Burley v. Barnhard, 9 N. Y. St. Rep., 587 (N. Y. Supr. Ct., Gen. T.).

[411] Grattan v. Metr. L. I. Co., 92 N. Y., 274.

[412] Fisher v. Fisher, 129 N. Y., 654.

[413] Grattan v. Metr. L. I. Co., 24 Hun, 43 (Supr. Ct., Gen. T., 1881).

[414] Per Learned, J., In matter of Freeman, 46 Hun, 458.

[415] Supra, p. 98.

[416] Collins v. Mack, 31 Ark., 684.

[417] Raymond v. B., C. R. & Nor. Ry. Co., 65 Iowa, 152.

[418] Campau v. North, 39 Mich., 606.

[419] Brown v. Metr. L. I. Co., 65 Mich., 306.

[420] People v. Glover, 71 Mich., 303.

[421] Breisenmeister v. Supr. Lodge, etc., 45 N. W. Rep., 977 (Supr. Ct. Mich., 1890).

[422] Jacobs v. Cross, 19 Minn., 523.

[423] Norton v. City of Moberly, 18 Mo. App., 457.

[424] Streeter v. City of Breckenridge, 23 Mo. App., 244.

[425] Kling v. City of Kansas, 27 Mo. App., 231.

[426] Hewitt v. Prime, 21 Wend., 77 (N. Y. Supr. Ct. of Judic., 1839). See Edington v. Mut. L. I. Co., 67 N.Y., 185.

[427] 53 Hun, 217 (Supr. Ct., Gen. T., 1889).

[428] Sloan v. N. Y. C. R. R. Co., 45 N. Y., 125.

[429] Edington v. Mut. L. I. Co., 67 N. Y., 185. See also People v. Stout, 3 Park Cr. Rep., 670 (N. Y. Oy. and Ter., 1858).

[430] People v. Harris, 136 N. Y., 423.

[431] Babcock v. People, 15 Hun, 347; see also People v. Harris, supra.

[432] 77 N. Y., 564; see also s. p., 17 W. D., 566.

[433] 80 N. Y., 281.

[434] 80 N. Y., 281.

[435] Jones v. Brooklyn, Bath and West End Ry. Co., 3 N.Y. Supp., 253 (City Ct. of Brooklyn, Gen. T., 1888).

[436] Grattan v. Metr. L. I. Co., 24 Hun, 43 (Supr. Ct., Gen. T., 1881).

[437] In matter of Freeman, 46 Hun, 458.

[438] People v. Schuyler, 43 Hun, 88, affirmed 106 N. Y., 298.

[439] 9 N. Y. St. Rep., 31 (Supr. Ct., Gen. T.), affirmed 112 N. Y., 493. Although this point was discussed, the case was really decided on the ground that the objector had lost her right to object if she ever had it.

[440] Brown v. R. W. & O. R. R. Co., 45 Hun, 439 (Supr. Ct., Gen. T.).

[441] In matter of O’Neil, 26 N. Y. St. Rep., 242 (N. Y. Surr., 1889).

[442] Taylor, Ev., s. 2; Greenleaf, Ev., s. 2.

[443] McConnell v. City of Osage, 45 N. W. Rep., 550.

[444] Harris v. Rupel, 14 Ind., 209.

[445] Van Valkenberg v. Van Valkenberg, 90 Ind., 433.

[446] Storrs v. Scougale, 48 Mich., 387; see also Dolton v. Albion, 24 N. W. Rep., 786.

[447] Page v. Page, 41 Mich., 88; see also McQuigan v. D. & L. R. R. Co., 129 N. Y., 50; Roberts v. Ogdensburgh, etc., Ry. Co., 29 Hun, 158; McSwyny v. Broadway & S. A. Ry. Co., 7 N. Y. Supp., 459; and cf. N. Y. Code Civ. Pro., s. 873, as amended Act 1893, c. 722.

[448] Winner v. Lathrop, 67 Hun, 511.

[449] Lunz v. Mass. Mut. L. I. Co., 8 Mo. App., 363.

[450] Johnson v. Johnson, 4 Paige, 460 (Chancery, 1834); see also Hanford v. Hanford, 3 Edw. Ch., 468 (Vice Chan., 1841).

[451] 14 Wend., 636 (Ct. of Errors, 1835).

[452] 112 N. Y., 493.

[453] Edington v. Ætna L. I. Co., 17 W. D., 1883 (N. Y. Supr. Ct., Gen. T.); Hoyt v. Hoyt, 9 N. Y. St. Rep., 731 (Supr. Ct., Gen. T.), affirmed 112 N. Y., 493.

[454] Johnson v. Johnson, 14 Wend., 636; Babcock v. People, 15 Hun, 347; Valensin v. Valensin, 14 Pac. Rep., 87 (Supr. Ct. Cal., 1887).

[455] Kelly v. Levy, 8 N. Y. Supp., 849 (G. T. N. Y. City Ct., 1890).

[456] Mott v. Consumers’ Ice Co., 2 Abb. N. C., 143 (N. Y. Com. Pl., Sp. T., 1877).

[457] Edington v. Mut. L. I. Co., 5 Hun, 1; Renihan v. Dennin, 103 N. Y., 573; Record v. Village of Saratoga Springs, 46 Hun, 448; Loder v. Whelpley, 111 N. Y., 239.

[458] Supra, p. 101 et seq.

[459] Supra, p. 101 et seq.

[460] Supra, p. 107.

[461] Grattan v. Nat. L. I. Co. of U. S., 15 Hun, 74.

[462] Buffalo L. T. & S. D. Co. v. Knights T. & M. M. Aid Assn., 126 N. Y., 450.

[463] Edington v. Ætna L. I. Co., 13 Hun, 543; see Grattan v. Nat. L. I. Co. of U. S., 15 Hun, 74.

[464] McConnell v. City of Osage, 45 N. W. Rep., 550.

[465] Cooley v. Foltz, 48 N. W. Rep., 176.

[466] People v. Schuyler, 43 Hun, 88 (N. Y. Supr. Ct., Gen. T.), affirmed 106 N. Y., 298; Stowell v. American Co-operative Assn., 23 N. Y. St. Rep., 706 (N. Y. Supr. Ct., Gen. T.); Henry v. N. Y., L. E. & W. R. R. Co., 57 Hun, 76 (N. Y. Supr. Ct., Gen. T.); Edington v. Ætna L. I. Co., 77 N. Y., 564; Gartside v. Conn. Mut. L. I. Co., 8 Mo. App., 592.

[467] Gartside v. Conn. Mut. L. I. Co., 8 Mo. App., 592.

[468] Feeny v. Long Island R. R. Co., 116 N. Y., 375.

[469] Numirich v. Supr. Lodge K. & L. of H., 3 N. Y. Supp., 552 (Trial Term, City Ct. of N. Y., 1889); see also supra, p. 115.

[470] Herrington v. Winn, 60 Hun, 235 (Supr. Ct., Gen. T., 1891).

[471] In matter of Halsey, 29 N. Y. St. Rep., 533 (N. Y. Surr., 1890); cf. Matter of Darragh, 52 Hun, 591.

[472] Patten v. United L. & A. Ins. Assn., 133 N. Y., 450.

[473] Brigham v. Gott, 3 N. Y. Supp., 518 (Supr. Ct., Gen. T., 1889); supra, p. 124.

[474] Buffalo L. T. & S. D. Co. v. K. T. & Mas. Mut. Aid Assn., 126 N. Y., 450.

[475] Harris v. Rupel, 14 Ind., 209; Sullings v. Shakespeare, 46 Mich., 408; Storrs v. Scougale, 48 Mich., 387; Buffalo, etc., Co. v. Knights T. & Mas. Mut. Aid Assn., 126 N. Y., 450.

[476] Coryell v. Stone, 62 Ind., 307; People v. Schuyler, 43 Hun, 88, affirmed 106 N. Y., 298.

[477] Supra, p. 123.

[478] Supra, p. 119.

[479] Penn Mut. L. I. Co. v. Wiler, 100 Ind., 92. Valensin v. Valensin, 14 Pac. Rep., 87 (Supr. Ct. Cal., 1887); cf. In re Hannah, 11 N. Y. St. Rep., 807.

[480] Mason v. Libbey, 2 Abb. N. C., 137; Mott v. Consumers’ Ice Co., 2 Abb. N. C., 143.

[481] Lane v. Boicourt, 27 N. E. Rep., 1111; see also Winner v. Lathrop, 67 Hun, 511 (N. Y. Supr. Ct., G. T.).

[482] Scripps v. Foster, 41 Mich., 742.

[483] Grattan v. Metr. L. I. Co., 80 N. Y., 281.

[484] See p. 137, this volume, for the medical laws of the several States and Territories; for history of physician’s right of action for services, see Graham v. Gautier, 21 Tex., 117; see Wood v. Munson, 70 Hun, 468. In Georgia and Alabama a physician’s books are evidence in such actions. Code Ala., 1886, s. 2,777; Code Ga., 1882, s. 3,777.

[485] Kendall v. Grey, 2 Hilt., 300.

[486] Kling v. City of Kansas, 27 Mo. App., 231; Pierson v. People, 79 N. Y., 424.

[487] Supra, p. 103. Matter of Coleman, 111 N. Y., 220.

[488] Supra, p. 103.

[489] Supra, p. 104.

[490] Supra, p. 127.

[491] Laws of N. Y., Act 1893, c. 661, secs. 23, 31. In New York physicians are also required to attest certificates of the fact of birth for registration (Act 1893, c. 661, secs. 22, 31), and to certify the existence of contagious and infectious diseases (ib., s. 24).

[492] See suggestions on the policy of the New York law in Conn. Mut. L. I. Co. v. Union Tr. Co., 112 U. S., 250; Pearsall v. Elmer, 5 Redf., 181; and contra, Edington v. Mut. L. I. Co., 5 Hun, 1.

[493] A valuable note is appended to this last case, citing the law literature of burial-grounds, burials, etc., and also giving in full the opinion of the Special Term of the New York Supreme Court, in the case of Secord v. Secord, not elsewhere reported. And see also The Law of Burial, 4 Bradf., 503. (Matter of Beekman St.)

[494] Ambrose v. Kerreson, 10 C. B., 776; Bradshaw v. Beard, 12 Com. B., n. s., 344; Johnson v. Marinus, 18 Abb. N. C., 72; Hewitt v. Bronson, 5 Daily, 1; Cunningham v. Reardon, 98 Mass., 538.

[495] In New York State, section 305 of the Penal Code provides: “A person has the right to direct the manner in which his body shall be disposed of after his death; and also to direct the manner in which any part of his body, which had become separated therefrom during his lifetime, shall be disposed of; and the provisions of this chapter do not apply to any case where a person has given directions for the disposal of his body or any part thereof inconsistent with those provisions.” See also Patterson v. Patterson, 59 N.Y., 583; Me. R. S., ch. 13, sec. 1; Minn. Gen. Stats., sec. 6,220; N. D. Comp. Laws. sec. 6,549; Oklahoma Stats., sec. 2,188. See also Williams v. Williams, Law Rpts., 20 Ch. D., 659; 2 Wms. on Exrs., p. 968; Secord v. Secord, supra.

[496] Chappel v. Cooper, 13 M. & W., 252.

[497] Secord v. Secord, supra; Wyncoop v. Wyncoop, 42 Pa. St., 293; Bogert v. Indianapolis, 13 Ind., 135; Snyder v. Snyder, 60 How. Prac., 368; Law of Burial, 4 Bradf., 503.

[498] 1 Bishop Crim. Law, sec. 506; see also Roscoe’s Cr. Ev., 445, 446; Stephens’ Dig. Crim. L., sec. 292; Reg. v. Clark, 15 Cox C. C., 171.

[499] Some of the United States have enacted statutes declaring it to be a misdemeanor to attach or seize under execution a dead body. Arizona Pen. Code, 491, etc.; Cal. Pen. Code, sec. 295; Me. R. S., chap. 124, sec. 26; Mass. Pub. Stat., chap. 207, sec. 46; N. Dak. Comp. Laws, sec. 6,563; Oklahoma Stat., sec. 2,202; R. I. Pub. Stat., sec. 3,222.

[500] So in Meagher v. Driscoll, 96 Am. Dec., 759, it was held that a dead body is not the subject of property, and after burial it becomes a part of the ground to which it has been committed; “Earth to earth, ashes to ashes, dust to dust.”

[501] 1st Pres. Ch. v. 2d Pres. Ch., 2 Brewster, 372; and see also Pierce v. Proprietors Swan Point Cem., supra.

[502] Craig. v. 1st Pres. Ch., 88 Pa. St., 42; Charleston v. Wentworth Cem., 4 Strob. (S. Car.), 306; Coates v. New York City, 7 Cow., 585; Hamilton v. New Albany, 30 Ind., 482; Paige v. Symonds, 63 N. H., 17.

[503] Peters v. Peters, 43 N. J. Eq., 140; Lowry v. Plitt, 11 Phila., 303; Weld v. Walker, supra; In re Downs, 14 N. Y. St. Rep., 189; Morland v. Richardson, 22 Beav., 596; s.c. 24 id., 33; Guthrie v. Weaver, 1 Mo. App., 136; 4 Step. Com., 371; Reg. v. Theiss, 10 B. & S., 298.

[504] Weld v. Walker, supra; see also Johnson v. Marinus, supra.

[505] See also Com. v. Slack, 19 Pick., 304; People v. Fitzgerald, 105 N. Y., 146; People v. Richards, 138 N. Y., 137. In this last case it was held that a tomb, although constructed in the form of an elaborate mausoleum and built above the surface of the ground, was not a “building, erection or enclosure,” within the meaning of the criminal statutes defining the crime of burglary in entering a “building, erection or enclosure;” and hence that entering such a tomb and taking therefrom a dead body with its grave-clothes and cerements would not amount to the crime of burglary.

[506] County of Northampton v. Innes, 2 Carey (Pa.), 156; Com. v. Hannan, 4 Barr. (Pa.), 269; Alleg. Co. v. Watts, 3 Barr. (Pa.), 468; Van Hovenbergh v. Hasbrouck, 45 Barb. (N. Y.), 197; Cosford v. Board Supervisors, 38 N. Y. St. Rep., 964; Co. of Alleg. v. Shaw, 34 Pa. St., 301; Board of Com. v. Jameson, 86 Ind., 154; Mo. Rev. Laws, sec. 2,469; No. Car. Laws, 1887, chap. 269; Tenn. Code, sec. 6,150; N. Y. Laws of 1874, chap. 535, sec. 2; N. Y. Laws, 1889, chap. 500, amending sec. 308 of The Pen. Code.

[507] Am. & Eng. Enc. of Law, vol. 4, p. 171.

[508] 4 Co., 57; 3 Com. Dig., 242.

[509] 1 Black. Com., 347.

[510] Am. & Eng. Enc. of Law, vol. 4, p. 173.

[511] Giles v. Brown, 1 Mill (S. C.) Const., 230; People v. Devine, 44 Cal., 452.

[512] Bouvier’s Law Dict., vol. 1, p. 405.

[513] Lancaster County v. Dern, 2 Grant (Pa.), 262. In this case a concussion or collision took place in a street between the sleighs of two parties, whereby a woman sustained an injury by the shaft, or some other part of one of the parties’ sleigh, striking her immediately above the eye, and penetrating the brain. Surgical aid was immediately called in, and the woman received all the care and attention that the exigencies of the case required till five days afterward, when she died in consequence of the wound received. On the sixth day the coroner held an inquest, and in this, an action to recover for his services against the county, it was held he could recover.

[514] County of Lancaster v. Mishler, 100 Pa. St., 624. In this, a suit by the coroner against the county to recover his fees, it was held that this presumption was not conclusive, and evidence was admissible to show that he acted in bad faith and knowingly without sufficient cause or reason. The Court said: “The duty of a coroner to hold an inquest rests on sound reason, on that reason which is the life of the law. It is not a power to be exercised capriciously and arbitrarily against all reason. The object of an inquest is to seek information, and obtain and secure evidence, in case of death by violence or other undue means. If there be reasonable ground to suspect it was so caused, it becomes the duty of the coroner to act. If he has no grounds for suspecting that the death was not a natural one, it is a perversion of the whole spirit of the law to compel the county to pay for such services.”

[515] County of Fayette v. Batton, 108 Pa. St., 591. It appeared in this case, that nineteen persons came to their death suddenly and almost simultaneously by an explosion of fire-damp in a coal-mine. The coroner held a separate inquest over each body at the respective homes of the deceased, qualifying the same jury separately over each body, and the inquest returned a separate finding in each case. It was held that this was the necessary and proper course to pursue under the circumstances, and that the coroner was entitled to the legal fees in each case. In Boislinieu v. Board of Co. Commissioners, 32 Mo., 375, it was held that the coroner is the sole judge as to the propriety or necessity of holding the inquest, and his action in that respect is not subject to revision by the county commissioners, and he is entitled to fees under the statute notwithstanding the verdict of the coroner’s jury discloses that the deceased died of a natural death, and not by casualty or violence.

[516] Am. & Eng. Enc. of Law, vol. 4, p. 175.

[517] Garnett v. Ferrand, 6 Barn. & Cress., 611.

[518] People v. Fitzgerald, 43 Hun (N. Y.), 46.

[519] People v. Devine, 44 Cal., 452; Commonwealth v. Hawkins, 3 Gray (Mass.), 463.

[520] People v. Fitzgerald, 105 N. Y., 146.

[521] Jameson v. Board of Comrs., 64 Ind., 524.

[522] Regina v. White, 3 Ellis & Ellis (Eng.), 137. In this case a second inquisition found by a coroner’s jury was quashed by the court upon application of the defendants who were charged therein with wilful murder. In People v. Budge, 4 Park Crim. Rep. (N.Y.), 519, a coroner’s jury found that the death was caused by suicide, and nearly four months afterward the coroner summoned another jury and held a second inquest, at which the jury found that the deceased was killed by another, whereupon the coroner issued a warrant of commitment under which the accused was imprisoned, but on habeas corpus he was discharged from imprisonment on the ground that the second inquisition was unauthorized.

[523] The King v. Ferrand, 3 Barn. & Ald. (Eng.), 260; 2 Hawk P. C., 77.

[524] Mass. Pub. Stat., chap. 26, §§ 1 and 10.

[525] County of Northampton v. Innes, 2 Casey (Pa.), 156; Commonwealth v. Hannan, 4 Barr (Pa.), 269.

[526] Allegany County v. Watts, 3 Barr (Pa.), 462; Van Hoevenbergh v. Hasbrouck, 45 Barb. (N. Y.), 197. The New York legislature has made provision making the physician’s services in such a case a charge against the county and the physician must look to the county for his pay. Cosford v. Board of Supervisors, 38 N. Y. St. Rep., 964; 15 N. Y. Supp., 680. In Pennsylvania a physician or surgeon, employed by the coroner to make a post-mortem examination, may recover from the county a reasonable compensation for his services; and the county commissioners have no power to appoint a surgeon to perform such services, so as to preclude the coroner from selecting a proper person, in the exercise of his discretion. County of Allegany v. Shaw, 34 Pa. St., 301. It has been held that the authority of a coroner to employ a chemist to discover whether poison caused the death of one on whose body he holds an inquest does not restrict him to the employment of a resident of the county, and that the analysis of the chemist must not be made in the county of the coroner, and that even though the latter was, by corrupt appliances of others, induced to employ a chemist, it is no defence to a suit by the chemist to recover compensation for his services. Board of Commissioners v. Jameson, 86 Ind., 154.

In New York he is empowered by statute to employ not more than two competent surgeons to make post-mortem examinations and dissections and to testify to the same. N. Y. Laws of 1874, chap. 535, § 2.

[527] People v. Fitzgerald, 105 N. Y., 146. In this case, upon application of the defendant and upon affidavits showing sufficient reasons therefor, a coroner of Chemung County, N. Y., directed the exhumation of the body of a man, who died in California about one year previous and was buried in Chemung County; for the purpose of a post-mortem examination to determine whether the deceased was murdered, and the body was accordingly exhumed, and an examination had without empanelling a jury. An indictment was found against the defendant charging her with body-stealing under section 311 of the New York Penal Code, against body-stealing. It was held that conceding the proceeding to have been irregular, a conviction under that provision of the Penal Code could not be sustained, and this, without regard to the motives which actuated the defendant; that if she had committed any offence it was not that of body-stealing.

[528] Crisfield v. Perine, 15 Hun, 200, affirmed 81 N. Y., 622. This was an action of assault and battery and it appeared that the defendant was a coroner, and that he held an inquest on the dead body of a man who died after receiving personal injuries in an affray which he had with his nephew. A post-mortem examination was about to be made by two surgeons employed by the coroner for that purpose. The plaintiff, who was also a physician and surgeon, was in the room when the examination was about to be entered upon and said that he wished to remain and witness it, but the coroner asked him to leave, and on his refusing caused him to be put out of the room. For this act this suit was brought. It was held that the suit could not be maintained.

[529] Mass. Pub. Stat., chap 26, § 19.

[530] Ib., chap. 26, § 11.

[531] Commonwealth v. Dunan, 128 Mass., 422.

[532] Mass. Pub. Stat., chap. 26, §§ 12, 13, 17.

[533] Mass. Pub. Stat., chap. 26. § 18.

[534] N. Y. Criminal Code, § 773.

[535] N. Y. Revised Statutes, part iv., chap. iii., § 102.

[536] N. Y. Criminal Code, § 774.

[537] Ib., § 775.

[538] Ib., § 777.

[539] Ib., § 778.

[540] Ib., § 779.

[541] N. Y. Crim. Code, § 780.

[542] Ib., § 776.

[543] Ib., § 782.

[544] Ib., § 783.

[545] 2 Hawk P. C., 77; King v. Ferrand, 3 Barn. & A. (Eng.), 260.

[546] Rex v. Ferrand, 3 B. & Ald., 260.

[547] In re Coroners, 11 Phila. (Pa.), 387.

[548] Crisfield v. Perine, 15 Hun, 200, affirmed 81 N. Y., 622.

[549] 2 Hawk P. C., 77.

[550] Matter of Collins, 11 Abb. Pr. (N. Y.), 406; 20 How. Pr., 111. In this case it was held that a commitment issued by a coroner against a person charged with murder is not void for the omission of the allegation that he caused the death “feloniously,” if it is such that the fact that he caused the death feloniously may be collected on its face. And see People v. Beigler, 3 Park Crim. Rep. (N. Y.), 316.

[551] Rex v. Bowen, 6 Car. & P., 602; Rex v. Bennett, 6 Car. & P., 179.

[552] State v. Evans, 27 La. An., 297.

[553] Rex v. Nicholas, 7 Carr & Payne (Eng.), 538.

[554] People v. White, 22 Wend. (N. Y.), 167.

[555] Matter of Collins, 11 Abb. Pr. (N. Y.), 406; 20 How. Pr., 111.

[556] Matter of Ramscar, 10 Abb. N. C. (N. Y.), 442. The prisoner in this case was detained on a commitment issued by a coroner, he not having had an examination, and the Court directed an examination before a magistrate.

[557] N. Y. Code Crim. Pro., § 145.

[558] People v. Devine, 44 Cal., 452; Commonwealth v. Hawkins, 3 Gray (Mass.), 463.

[559] People v. Monden, 103 N. Y., 211.

[560] People v. Willett, 92 N. Y., 29. In this case upon the trial of an indictment for murder, evidence was received on the part of the prosecution, under objection and exception, to the effect that upon the coroner’s inquest a witness testified that shortly after the murder a stranger called at her house and asked the way to Sandy Hill, and also for a drink of water; that the prisoner with a number of others was placed around a room, and the witness pointed out the prisoner as the one who so called; also that a number of persons, including the prisoner passed behind her, each one repeating the question asked her by the stranger, and she identified the prisoner by his voice, and that the prisoner on that occasion did not Footnote: deny that he was such stranger. It was held that the prisoner was not bound to speak and his silence could not be regarded as an evidence of guilt, and that the evidence was improperly received. The Court said: “The question whether the defendant was bound to speak, and understood that he was at liberty to speak, if he chose, was submitted to the jury by the Court in his charge, and an exception taken thereto. The doctrine as to silence being taken as an implied admission of the truth of allegations spoken or uttered in the presence of a person, does not apply to silence at a judicial proceeding or hearing. And if the proceedings before the coroner were of a judicial character the evidence was erroneously received. It is very apparent that the examination before the coroner partook of a judicial character, and what then transpired must be considered as a part of the proceedings; the coroner was there, a jury had been empanelled, and witnesses were examined whose testimony was returned as a portion of the coroner’s proceedings. It is difficult to see upon what ground it can be claimed that the experiments which were made were not in connection with the proceedings before the coroner and a part thereof.”

[561] Hendrickson v. People, 10 N. Y., 13.

[562] People v. McMahon, 15 N. Y., 384.

[563] Teachout v. People, 41 N. Y., 7.

[564] People v. Mondon, 103 N. Y., 211.

[565] People v. McGloin, 91 N. Y., 241.

[566] Williams v. Commonwealth, 29 Pa. St., 102. In this case the prosecution was permitted to prove upon the trial that a justice of the peace had held an inquest on the body of a dead person, and appointed another person foreman of the inquest, and directed him to swear witnesses; and while the inquest was still sitting, the foreman called upon and requested the defendant to be sworn and give evidence as a witness, and he was duly sworn and was examined by the foreman, in presence of the inquest. It was held on appeal that his evidence was admissible. On this point the Court said: “If the defendant had been awakened out of sleep, charged with crime, and then, in the necessary confusion of his faculties sworn to testify, I should have steadfastly resisted the subsequent introduction of the testimony against him. The common law, which justifies an accused man in entire silence, appears in beautiful contrast to the continental systems, which permit the criminal to be racked by inquisitorial skill, until something be wrung from him which may be patched up into proof of guilt. This case shows nothing of the kind. The phrase ‘called up’ commented on by the counsel, does not appear in the record, and if employed by the witnesses related doubtless to the ordinary case of calling forth a witness, and not awakening him from slumber. When the defendant was sworn before the inquest, he had neither been charged with nor suspected of crime. He might have declined to testify, and this would have pointed suspicion directly to him. He took the risk of a statement, and cannot complain that he met the legitimate consequences of the act. In the eye of all the authorities, it was a voluntary statement.”

[567] Clough v. The State, 7 Neb., 320.

[568] The facts upon which the following statements are based have been largely drawn from Taylor. See Stevenson’s Taylor, vol. i., p. 204 et seq.

[569] Recent attention to such subjects by Italian writers places them in the foremost rank. Although their system of judicature differs from our own, this fact does not lessen the value of their medico-forensic literature.

[570] Canada Med. and Surg. Journal, 1875, vol. iii., pp. 56-60.

[571] Some interesting facts by Dr. W. H. Holmes regarding “The Condition of Bodies Long Buried” may be found in the Boston Med. and Surg. Journal, July 23d, 1891.

[572] Quar. Journal of Psychological Medicine, N. Y., 1869, vol. iii., p. 691.

[573] See writer’s article, “Cephalometry, Craniometry,” in “Reference Handbook of the Medical Sciences.”

[574] See writer’s “Cruise of the Corwin” to Alaska and the Northwest Arctic Ocean, Washington, 1883.

[575] See writer’s article, “Feet,” in “Reference Handbook of the Medical Sciences;” also, Ellis, T.S., “On the Human Foot,” London, 1889.

[576] See Dwight: “The Closure of the Cranial Sutures as a Sign of Age,” Boston Med. and Surg. Journal, April 29th, 1890.

[577] See Dwight: “The Sternum as an Index of Sex, Height, and Age,” Journal of Anatomy and Physiology, vol. xxiv.

[578] Boston Med. and Surg. Journal, March, 1850, vol. xii., p. 162.

[579] The British Medical Journal, April 18th, 1874, p. 527.

[580] Taylor’s “Med. Jurisprudence,” vol. i., p. 157.

[581] Theatre-goers are familiar with the establishment of personal identity by means of traces of a perfume in the play of “Diplomacy.”

[582] New York Med. Journal, vol. x., p. 412.

[583] New York Med. Record, August 18th, 1877.

[584] Annales d’Hygiene Publique, 1883.

[585] Med. Gazette, vol. xli., p. 650.

[586] In a series of papers to Riv. Sper. di freniat, Reggio-Emilia, 1883.

[587] See Mr. Galton’s paper in Nature, June 21st, 1888, p. 173; also in his recent work on Finger Prints.

[588] For a few classical citations that are more erudite than profitable see Zeitschrift fÜr Ethnologie, Berlin., 1888, xx., p. 412.

[589] See “Guy’s Hospital Report,” xix., 1874; also “Histoire MÉdicale de Tatouage” in Archiv. de MÉdecine Navale, tom. 11, 12, Paris, 1869. A later study on the medico-legal importance of tattooing may be found in Lo Spallanzani, Roma, 1891, 2s, xx., 169, 208.

[590] According to Lombroso, all who are tattooed on the back or the sexual organs have without exception either been among the Pacific Islands or sojourned in a prison.

[591] A paper by Dr. J. N. Hall on “The Medico-Legal Value of Powder-Stains in Gunshot Wounds,” with a report of cases, may be found in the Transactions of the Colorado Medical Society, 1890, xx., 94.

[592] Bulletin de l’Acad. de MÉd., 17 janvier, 1853, t. xviii., p. 348.

[593] La Escula de Medicina, Mexico, 1880-81.

[594] Lyon Medical, 1880.

[595] Med. Press and Circular, May 30th, 1888, p. 576.

[596] Phil. Trans., B., 1891.

[597] See Proc. Royal Soc., London, May 28th, 1891. A medico-legal study of imprints may also be found in Archiv d’Anthropologie Criminel, 15th July, 1891.

[598] See Annual of the Universal Medical Sciences, 1888, vol. v., pp. 143-147.

[599] See paragraph II., General Orders No. 33, Adjutant-General’s Office, April 1st, 1889.

[600] In 1892 only three failures are recorded.

[601] “PrÉcis de MÉd. LÉg.,” 2d Ed., 1890.

[602] “Med. Jurisprud.,” 11th Amer. Ed., 1892.

[603] ArrÊt du tribunal de Lyon, 8 et 15 dÉcembre, 1859.

[604] “Lectures on Med. Jurisprud.,” 1878, pp. 422, 423.

[605] See Figs. 10 and 11.

[606] “Lehrbuch der Speciellen Chirurgie.”

[607] “Manuel de Leg.,” 5th Ed., 1892.

[608] “PrÉcis de Med. Leg.,” 2d Ed., 1890.

[609] Taylor: “Medical Jurisprudence,” 11th American Edition (1892).

[610] Taylor: “Medical Jurisprudence,” 11th American Edition (1892).

[611] London Med. Gaz., vol. xvi., p. 596.

[612] Ch. Vibert: “PrÉcis de MÉdecine LÉgale,” 2d Ed., p. 205.

[613] Taylor’s “Medical Jurisprudence,” 11th Amer. Ed., 1892.

[614] London Lancet, Jan. 21st, 1893, and N. Y. Med. Journal, March 11th, 1893, and May 13th, 1893.

[615] Ann. d’Hyg., 1847, t. 2, p. 377.

[616] Taylor: “Medical Jurisprudence,” 11th Amer. Ed., 1892.

[617] “Med. Jurisprud.,” 11th Amer. Ed., 1892.

[618] “On Homicide,” p. 187.

[619] Med. Gaz., May, 1840.

[620] Guy’s Hosp. Gaz., 1873.

[621] Vibert: “PrÉcis de MÉdecine LÉgale,” 2d Ed., 1890.

[622] Vibert: “PrÉcis de MÉdecine LÉgale,” 2d Ed., 1890.

[623] Vibert: “PrÉcis de MÉdecine LÉgale,” 2d Ed., 1890.

[624] Vibert: “PrÉcis de MÉdecine LÉgale,” 2d Ed., 1890.

[625] Quoted by Vibert from the “Traite de pathologie externe” of Follin and Duplay.

[626] “Med. Jurisprud.,” 11th Amer. Ed., 1892.

[627] “Med. Jurisprud.,” 11th Amer. Ed., 1892.

[628] “Med. Jurisprud.,” 11th Amer. Ed., 1892.

[629] Taylor: “Medical Jurisprudence,” 11th Amer. Ed., 1892.

[630] Taylor: “Medical Jurisprudence,” 11th Amer. Ed., 1892.

[631] Taylor: “Medical Jurisprudence,” 11th Amer. Ed., 1892.

[632] Taylor: “Medical Jurisprudence,” 11th Amer. Ed., 1892.

[633] Taylor: “Medical Jurisprudence,” 11th Amer. Ed., 1892.

[634] Med. Times, 1854, ii., p. 238.

[635] “Ueber die Kopf-Verletzungen,” 1842, p. 57.

[636] “PrÉcis de MÉdecine LÉgale,” 2d Ed., 1890, p. 203.

[637] “Med. Jurisprud.,” 11th Amer. Ed., 1892.

[638] Taylor, “Med. Jurisprud.,” 11th Amer. Ed., 1892.

[639] Lutaud: “Man. d. MÉd. LÉg.,” 5th Ed., 1892.

[640] “Med. Jurisprudence,” 11th Amer. Ed., 1892.

[641] “Med. Jurisprudence,” 11th Amer. Ed., 1892.

[642] Taylor: “Med. Jurisprudence,” 11th Amer. Ed., 1892.

[643] Willis: “Circumstantial Evidence,” p. 97.

[644] “Lectures on Med. Jurisprudence,” p. 424.

[645] See “Med. Leg.,” trad. par Brouardel, p. 601.

[646] “Med. Jurisprudence.” 11th Amer. Ed., 1892.

[647] “Med. Jurisprudence,” 11th Amer. Ed., 1892.

[648] “Med. Jurisprudence,” 11th Amer. Ed., 1892.

[649] “Med. Jurisprudence,” 11th Amer. Ed., 1892.

[650] Ann. d’Hyg., 1863, t. 1. p. 463.

[651] “Med. Jurisprudence,” 11th Amer. Ed., 1892.

[652] “Med. Jurisprudence,” 11th Amer. Ed., 1892.

[653] Vibert: “PrÉcis de MÉd. LÉg.,” 2d Ed., 1890.

[654] “Med. Jurisprudence,” 11th Amer. Ed., 1892.

[655] “PrÉcis de MÉd. LÉg.,” 2d Ed., 1890, p. 264.

[656] “PrÉcis de MÉd. LÉg.,” 2d Ed., 1890.

[657] “PrÉcis de MÉd. LÉg.,” 2d Ed., 1890, p. 246.

[658] “PrÉcis de MÉd. LÉg.,” 2d Ed., 1890.

[659] “Med. Jurisprudence,” 11th Amer. Ed., 1892.

[660] “Med. Jurisprudence,” 11th Amer Ed., 1892, p. 334.

[661] London Lancet, 1873, i., p. 697.

[662] “An American Text-Book of Surgery,” p. 496.

[663] “Med. Jurisprudence,” 11th Amer. Ed., 1892.

[664] “Med. Jurisprudence,” 11th Amer. Ed., 1892.

[665] “Med. Jurisprudence,” 11th Amer. Ed., 1892.

[666] Edin. Med. and Surg. Jour., Oct., 1845, p. 527.

[667] “Manuel de MÉd. LÉg.,” 5th Ed., 1892.

[668] “MÉd. LÉg.,” t. 2, p. 243.

[669] Beck, vol. ii., pp. 329, 333; Wharton and StillÉ, 2d Ed., p. 580; N. A. Med. and Chir. Review, March, 1859, p. 299; N. Y. Med. Times, Apr. and May, 1855; Amer. Jour. Med. Sciences, July, 1861, p. 292, and Aug., 1829, p. 307.

[670] Amer. Jour. Med. Sci., July, 1861, p. 292. Case of bullet in heart wall for twenty years.

[671] Edin. Med. and Surg. Jour., Oct., 1844, p. 557.

[672] “MÉd. LÉg.,” t. 2, p. 253.

[673] “Med. Jurisprudence,” 11th Amer. Ed., 1892.

[674] “Manuel MÉd. LÉg.,” 5th Ed., 1892.

[675] Quoted by Taylor, “Med. Jurisprudence,” 11th Amer. Ed., 1892, p. 340.

[676] “Med. Jurisprudence,” 11th Amer. Ed., 1892, p. 351.

[677] Senn, “Experimental Surgery,” 1889.

[678] Senn, “Experimental Surgery,” 1889.

[679] “Med. Jurisprudence,” 11th Amer. Ed., 1892.

[680] Med. Times and Gazette, 1864, ii., 527.

[681] Med.-Chir. Rev., 1836, p. 296.

[682] “Med Jurisprudence,” 11th Amer. Ed., 1892, p. 347.

[683] Lancet, 1872, ii., p. 10.

[684] Lancet, 1870, ii., p. 471.

[685] See Taylor, “Med. Jurisprudence,” 11th Amer. Ed., 1892, p. 348.

[686] “Med. Jurisprud.,” 11th Amer. Ed., 1892.

[687] See Taylor, “Med. Jurisprud.,” 11th Amer. Ed., 1892, p. 351.

[688] Reported by Teale, Lon. Clin. Society, Feb. 26th, 1875.

[689] Reineke, Brit. and For. Med. and Surg. Rev., April, 1876.

[690] “Experiences sur les effets de chaleur, etc.,” Jour. de Physique, lxiii., p. 77. Paris, 1805.

[691] Henke’s “Zeitschrift,” 1860.

[692] Brit. and For. Med.-Chir. Rev., 1855.

[693] Caspar’s “Vierteljahrschrift,” 1864.

[694] Flint, “Practice of Medicine,” p. 685; Aitken, “Practice of Medicine,” vol. ii., p. 388.

[695] Flint, “Practice of Medicine,” p. 685; Aitken, “Practice of Medicine,” vol. ii., p. 391.

[696] Levick, Amer. Jour. Med. Sciences, Oct., 1866.

[697] Katzenbach, New York Med. Jour., vol. xvii., p. 91.

[698] Wood, Phil. Med. Times, Aug. 5th, 1876.

[699] Hanfield Jones, Brit. Med. Jour., July, 1870, p. 35.

[700] Pouillet, Comptes Rendus, 1836, p. 782.

[701] Taylor, “Med. Jurisprudence,” 8th Amer. Ed., p. 444; also the Med. Gazette, vol. xviii., p. 89.

[702] Chambert, Annales d’Hygiene. 1859.

[703] Buchner, Prager Vierteljahr., i., p. 129.

[704] Tidy, “Legal Medicine,” vol. ii., p. 124.

[705] Taylor, “Med. Jurisprudence,” 8th Amer. Ed., p. 407.

[706] Tidy, “Legal Medicine,” vol. ii., p. 99.

[707] Caspar, “Forensic Medicine,” vol. i., p. 314; Schjerning, Vierteljahr. fÜr gericht. Med., xli., 1884.

[708] The “Parkman Case,” Boston, 1850.

[709] Report of the “Druse Case,” Trans. New York State Med. Society, 1887, p. 417.

[710] See the Druse Case above.

[711] Annales d’Hygiene, 1835, ii., p. 387.

[712] Edinb. Med. and Surg. Journal, vol. xxxv., p. 320, April, 1831.

[713] Ann. d’Hygiene, 1846, i., p. 320.

[714] Friedrich’s Blatter f. gericht. Med., 1877, Heft iii., p. 210.

[715] “Path. Research, on Vital and Post-Mortem Burning,” 1850.

[716] “Forensic Medicine,” vol. iv., p. 299.

[717] “Forensic Medicine,” Ed. 1877, p. 886.

[718] “Med. Jurisprudence,” Amer. Ed., 1880. p. 408.

[719] Annales d’Hygiene, 1859, 2d ser., xi., 342, 379.

[720] Vierteljahr. f. gericht. Med., Bd. xxxvi., Heft i., 1880.

[721] Eulenb., Vierteljahr. f. gericht. Med., xli., 1885, xlii., 1887.

[722] Tidy, “Legal Med.,” vol. i., p. 108; also Buzzard, London Lancet, vol. i., p. 60, 1863.

[723] Eulenberg’s Vierteljahr. f. gericht. Med., xli., p. 44 et seq.

[724] “Die Verbrennungen und VerbrÜhungen.”

[725] Wien. med. Presse, 1868, pp. 309, 605.

[726] Berliner klinische Wochenschrift, 1876, No. 17; 1877, No. 46.

[727] Eulenberg’s Vierteljahr. f. gericht. Med., xlii., p. 47.

[728] See page 643 of this section

[729] Asclepiad, 1890, vii., pp. 102-117.

[730] Compt. Rendu Soc. Biol., 1890, ii., pp. 383-387.

[731] Archiv. Biol. de Gand., 1887, vii., pp. 217-227.

[732] “On the Value of Certain Signs,” etc., Edinburgh, 1873.

[733] “Lehrbuch gericht. Med.,” 1891, p. 502.

[734] Bull. Acad. MÉd., 1876, v., p. 763.

[735] Archiv. gÉn. de MÉd., 1856, p. 302.

[736] “Lehrb. d. ger. Med.,” 1891. p. 500.

[737] “LeÇons sur les anÆsthÉsiques,” Paris, 1875, p. 471.

[738] Viert. f. ger. Med., etc., 1871, xv., pp. 58-96.

[739] Translation in Ann. d’Hyg., 1832, viii., p. 432.

[740] Med. Record, N. Y., 1882, xxii., p. 427.

[741] See Maier (Friedreich’s Blat., 1882, p. 460); Moreaud (Virchow’s Archiv, 1880, i., p. 648); Petrina (Prag. med. Woch., 1880, No. 39); Wagner (Jahr. f. Psych., 1889, viii.). [Hofmann, “Lehrbuch,” pp. 570-572]. See Cases 17, 19, 31.

[742] Bull. Ac. MÉd., 1876, v., p. 761.

[743] Ass. FranÇ. Av. Sci. (1883), 1884, xii., pp. 1042-1045.

[744] Rev. d’Hyg. thÉr., 1890, ii., pp. 67-72 and 131-137.

[745] Alger. MÉd., 1887, xv., pp. 78-90.

[746] Viert. ger. and Öff. Med., 1870, xii., pp. 340-369.

[747] Ann. d’Hyg., 1867, xxviii., pp. 388-402.

[748] Viert. f. ger. Med., etc., 1870, xiii., pp. 247-260.

[749] Loc. cit.

[750] “Med. Jur.,” Amer. ed., 1892, p. 411.

[751] Tidy, “Med. Jur.,” Amer. ed., 1884, iii., p. 263.

[752] Ann. d’Hyg., 1867, xxviii., p. 393.

[753] “Lehrb. d. ger. Med.,” 1891, p. 504.

[754] “Pendaison,” etc., 1870, p. 169.

[755] Op. cit., p. 393.

[756] Op. cit., p. 504.

[757] Op. cit., p. 394.

[758] “Handb. ger. Med.,” i., 1881, p. 569.

[759] Compt. rend. Soc. Biol. (1879), 1880, i., p. 310.

[760] Compt. rend. Soc. Biol. (1881), 1882, iii., pp. 159-161 and 165-168.

[761] Tidy, op. cit.

[762] “Med. Jur.,” Am. ed., 1892, p. 413.

[763] Lyon thesis, 1883, No. 188, p. 85.

[764] Tidy, op. cit.

[765] Gaz. MÉd. de Par., 1875, xlvi., pp. 90-92.

[766] “Handb. ger. Med.,” i., p. 571.

[767] Tidy, op. cit.

[768] Tardieu, “Pendaison,” etc., p. 174.

[769] Virchow’s Archiv, 1880, lxxix., p. 409, and 1878, lxxiv., p. 401.

[770] Tidy, “Leg. Med.,” Am. ed., iii., p. 265.

[771] “Ger. Med.,” i., p. 623 and 632.

[772] Edinb. Med. Jour., 1856, ii., p. 824.

[773] “Med. Jur.,” Am. ed., 1892, p. 414.

[774] “Ger. Med.,” i., p. 632.

[775] Paris thesis, 1874, No. 291.

[776] Paris thesis, 1859, No. 9.

[777] Page, “On the Value of Certain Signs,” etc., Edinburgh, 1873.

[778] “Ger. Med.,” i., 573.

[779] Tardieu, “Pendaison,” etc., p. 178.

[780] Op. cit., p. 29.

[781] Vier. f. ger. Med., etc., 1867, vii., pp. 140-174.

[782] “Ger. Med.,” i., p. 576.

[783] Ib., p. 572.

[784] “Ger. Med.,” i., p. 575.

[785] “On the Value of Certain Signs,” etc., Edinburgh, 1873, p. 24.

[786] “Vier. f. ger. Med., etc., 1886, xlv., p. 295.

[787] “Leg. Med.,” Am. ed., iii., p. 267.

[788] “Med. Jur.,” Am. ed., 1892, p. 415.

[789] Ann. d’Hyg., 1867, xxviii., pp. 388-402.

[790] “Med. Jur.,” Am. ed., 1892, p. 416.

[791] Ib., p. 415.

[792] “Pend.,” p. 186.

[793] “Med. Jur.,” Am. ed., 1892, p. 415.

[794] Op. cit., p. 415.

[795] “Med. Jur.,” Am. ed., 1892. p. 419.

[796] “Pend.,” p. 208.

[797] Ib., p. 242.

[798] Med. Times and Gaz., 1871, i., p. 671, and 1876, i., p. 93.

[799] Med. Record, N. Y., 1882, xxii., p. 428.

[800] Ohio Med. Record, 1878, ii., pp. 350-352.

[801] Arch. Laryngol., N. Y., 1880, i., p. 144.

[802] Indian Med. Gaz., 1888, xxiii., p. 299.

[803] Archiv. anthrop. crim., Paris, 1886, i., p. 229.

[804] “Lehrbuch f. ger. Med.,” 5th ed., 1890-91.

[805] “Med. Jur.,” Am. Ed., 1892, p. 394.

[806] Aertz. Intel. Bl., 1876, xxiii., p. 324.

[807] Practitioner, 1870, iv., p. 193.

[808] Mitt. d. Wien med. Doct. Colleg., 1878, iv., pp. 97-112.

[809] Centralb. f. med. Wiss., 1875, xiii., p. 403.

[810] Arch. gen. de Med., 1856, vii., p. 310.

[811] Archiv. anthrop. crim., Paris, 1886, i., p. 229.

[812] Bull. Acad. Roy. Med., 1893, vii., pp. 331-342.

[813] Lyon thesis, 1883, No. 188.

[814] Paris thesis, 1879, No. 172. p. 39.

[815] “Forensic Med.,” Appendix, p. 561.

[816] “Med. Jur.,” Am. Ed., 1892, p. 394.

[817] Tidy, op. cit., p. 240.

[818] Tardieu, “Pendaison,” 1870, p. 16.

[819] Lyon thesis, 1891, No. 647.

[820] MÜnch. med. Woch., 1893, xl., pp. 87-91, 127-129, 194.

[821] Tracy, Pop. Sci. Mo., 1878, xiii., pp. 349-354.

[822] Lancet, 1847, i., p. 403.

[823] “Med. Jur.,” Am. Ed., 1892, p. 396.

[824] See articles of Huppert, Vier. ger. Med., etc., xxiv., pp. 237-252, and MÜller-Beninga, Berlin. klin. Woch., 1877, xiv., p. 481.

[825] Jour. Amer. Med. Assn., 1885, i., p. 658.

[826] “Pend.,” etc., p. 22.

[827] Dorpat Diss., 1891.

[828] Arch. gÉn. de MÉd., 1856, vii., p. 315.

[829] Op. cit., p. 308.

[830] Lancet, 1871, ii., p. 98.

[831] Glasgow Med. Jour., 1880, xiv., p. 387.

[832] Philadelphia Medical Times, 1875.

[833] Lancet, 1869, i., p. 636.

[834] Indian Med. Gaz., 1876, xi., p. 29.

[835] Op. cit., p. 245.

[836] “Med. Jur.,” Am. ed., 1892, p. 398.

[837] Op. cit., p. 523.

[838] Op. cit., Levy’s translation, 1881, p. 363.

[839] Deutsch. Archiv f. Staats, 1870, xxviii., p. 313.

[840] Op. cit., p. 281.

[841] Indian Med. Gaz., 1876, xi., p. 29.

[842] Op. cit., p. 287.

[843] “Med. Jur.,” p. 527.

[844] “Med. Jur.,” Am. ed., 1892, p. 399.

[845] Vier. f. ger. Med., 1870, xii., pp. 340-369.

[846] Ib., 1870, xiii., pp. 247-260.

[847] Op. cit., p. 281.

[848] Pellier, op. cit., p. 83.

[849] Ind. Med. Gaz., 1876, xi., p. 30.

[850] “Handbuch,” p. 571.

[851] Wien. med. Presse, 1881-1882, xxii., p. 1533.

[852] Vier. f. ger. Med., 1881, xxxv., p. 201.

[853] Lehrbuch, p. 532.

[854] Op. cit., p. 245.

[855] See Brit. and For. Med. Rev., ii., p. 214.

[856] Op. cit., p. 98.

[857] Paris thesis, 1859, No. 9.

[858] Paris thesis, 1874, No. 291.

[859] Op. cit., p. 245.

[860] Op. cit., p. 533.

[861] Med. Times and Gaz., 1871, i., p. 671.

[862] Lyon MÉd., 1883, xliv., p. 11.

[863] Lehrbuch, p. 535.

[864] Vier. f. ger. Med. and Öff. San., 1881, xxxv., pp. 201-248.

[865] Virchow’s Archiv, 1870, xlix., p. 290.

[866] Rev. MÉd. de l’Est, 1890, xxii., pp. 545-554.

[867] Ann. d’Hyg., 1885, xiii., pp. 209-228.

[868] Op. cit., p. 105.

[869] Lehrbuch, p. 537.

[870] Op. cit., p. 607.

[871] Op. cit., p. 597.

[872] Op. cit., pp. 44, 54.

[873] Bull. Soc. MÉd. LÉg., Paris, 1875-76, iv., p. 373.

[874] Indian Med. Gaz., 1881, xvi., p. 275.

[875] Ann. d’Hyg., 1886, xvi., pp. 108-125.

[876] “Med. Jur.,” Am. ed., 1892, p. 408.

[877] Freidreich’s Bl. f. ger. Med., 1890, xxi., pp. 149-171.

[878] Vier. f. ger. Med., etc., 1880, xxxii., p. 232, foot-note.

[879] “Med. Jur.,” Am. ed., 1880, p. 448.

[880] Indian Med. Gaz., 1876, xi., p. 3.

[881] Op. cit., p. 132.

[882] Op. cit., p. 66.

[883] Amer. Jour. Obstet., 1886, xix., pp. 349-352.

[884] Tardieu., op. cit., p. 291.

[885] “Med. Jur.,” Am. ed., 1892, p. 428.

[886] Trans. Mass. Leg. Soc., 1878, i., pp. 14-24.

[887] See Ogston, p. 550.

[888] Med. Times and Gaz., 1878, i., p. 603.

[889] Johnson, Lancet, 1878, ii., p. 501.

[890] Med. chir. Trans., 1862, xlv., p. 449.

[891] Archiv. gÉn. de MÉd., 1856, vii., p. 300.

[892] Op. cit., p. 539.

[893] “Amer. Pract.,” 1872, vi., pp. 193-206.

[894] Brit. Med. Jour., 1879, i., p. 970.

[895] “Nature,” 1879, xx., p. 108.

[896] Gaz. hebd. MÉd., Paris, 1872, ix., p. 806.

[897] Bull. Acad. MÉd., Paris, 1876, v., p. 764.

[898] Jour. Amer. Med. Ass., 1891, xvi., p. 805.

[899] Trans. Amer. PÆd. Soc., 1891, iii., pp. 128-132.

[900] Brit. Med. Jour., 1880, ii., pp. 122-124 and 163-165.

[901] Med. Rec., N. Y., 1893, xliii., p. 289.

[902] Amer. Jour. Med. Sci., 1891, ci., pp. 109-116.

[903] Coll. and Clin. Record, 1892, xiii., pp. 170-172.

[904] Glasgow Med. Jour., 1885, xxiv., pp. 344-354.

[905] Med. Press and Circ., 1889, xlviii., p. 433.

[906] Asclepiad, 1885, ii., pp. 171-187.

[907] Lancet, 1885, i., pp. 245-247, 289-292.

[908] Asclepiad, 1890, vii., p. 201.

[909] Bull. Acad. MÉd., Paris, 1876, v., pp. 611, 754, 904; and 1881, x., pp. 847-852.

[910] Op. cit., p. 279.

[911] Op. cit., p. 288.

[912] Indian Med. Gaz., 1890, xxv., p. 257.

[913] Brit. Med. Jour., 1877, i., p. 444.

[914] Ib., 1891, p. 399.

[915] Lancet, 1889, ii., p. 255.

[916] Paris thesis, 1877, No. 327.

[917] Hofmann, “Lehrbuch,” p. 514.

[918] “MÉd. LÉg.,” 1874, p. 406.

[919] Op. cit., p. 554.

[920] Op. cit., p. 275.

[921] Op. cit., p. 288.

[922] Op. cit., p. 23.3

[923] Tardieu, op. cit., pp. 296, 298.

[924] Physician, etc., New York, 1880, xiii., p. 181.

[925] Trans. Mass. Med. Leg. Soc., 1878, i., pp. 14-24.

[926] Op. cit., p. 291.

[927] Second Kings, viii., 15.

[928] Taylor, op. cit., p. 482.

[929] Op. cit., p. 434.

[930] Taylor, “Med. Jur.,” Am. ed., 1880, p. 485.

[931] Op. cit., p. 31.

[932] Jour. de MÉd. de Toulouse, 1851, iii., p. 237.

[933] Op. cit., p. 295.

[934] Ann. d’Hyg., 1843, xxx., p. 225.

[935] See writer’s “Bathing and Boating Accidents,” Jour. American Medical Association, April 19th, 1890.

[936] See writer’s article, “Memory, Diseases of,” in “Reference Handbook of the Medical Sciences.”

[937] Medical Record, August 22d, 1891.

[938] “Medico-Legal Experience in Calcutta,” Edinburgh, 1891.

[939] Indian Medical Gazette, December, 1888.

[940] Jour. of Orificial Surgery, April 1st, 1893, p. 709.

[941] Trans. of the Massachusetts Medico-Legal Society, vol. i., No. 8, 1885.

[942] Lesser, Dr. Adolph: “Ueber die wichtigsten Sectionsbefunde bei dem Tode durch Ertrinken in dÜnnflÜssigen Medien,” Berlin, 1884.

[943] Gilberti, Dr. A.: “I Segni dell’ Annegamento nel Cadavere in Putrefazione,” 1889.

[944] Barlerin, Paul, le Dr.: “Etude MÉdico-lÉgale sur la Submersion,” Tarare, 1891.

[945] Fagerlund, L. W.: Ueber das Eindringen von ErtrÄnkungsflÜssigkeit in die GedÄrme.” Vierteljahrschrift fÜr gerichtl. Med. und off. SanitÄtswesen,” Berlin, 1890.

[946] Circular No. 3, War Department, Surgeon-General’s Office, Washington, 1871, pp. 129-131.

[947] The subject has been well studied by Dr. A. CarrÉ, Archiv. de l’Anthropologie Criminelle et des Sciences PÉnales, 15 Janv., 1892.

[948] Flint’s “Text-Book of Physiology,” Ed. 1877, p. 517; I. Forster, “Zeitschrift fÜr Biologie,” tome ix., 1872.

[949] Foster, “Handbook of Physiology,” Ed. 1880, p. 457; Kirke’s “Handbook of Physiology,” 11th Ed., vol. i., p. 311.

[950] F. Spaeth, “Archiv fÜr Hygiene,” 1886, pp. 68-81.

[951] Rochard, “EncyclopÆd. d’Hygiene,” vol. ii., p. 796.

[952] For elaborate statements consult Edward Smith, “Foods,” Int. Sci. Ser., N. Y. Ed., 1878; Pavy, “On Food,” 2d Ed., 1881, N. Y., p. 467; Buck, “Hygiene,” Ed. 1879, vol. i., p. 190; Parkes, “Hygiene,” Ed. 1873, p. 179; Levy, “TraÏtÉ de Hygiene,” vol. i., p. 739.

[953] Corrigan, “On Famine and Fever,” etc., Dublin, 1849.

[954] Donnivan, “On Famine,” Dublin Med. Press, 1848, p. 67.

[955] Folet, Ann. de Hygiene et de MÉd. Legal, 2d ser., vol. xlviii.

[956] Sloan, London Med. Gazette, vol. xvii., p. 265; Martin, Med. Times and Gazette, 1861, vol. i., p. 344.

[957] Chossat, “RÉcherches experimentales sur inanition,” Paris, 1843, p. 45.

[958] “RÉcherches experimentales sur inanition,” 1845.

[959] Bouchardat, “De l’Alimentation insuffissant,” Paris, 1852, p. 10.

[960] Greenfield, Brit. Med. Jour., Oct. 20th, 1877.

[961] Dr. McLoughlin, London Lancet, Nov. 2d, 1878.

[962] Reg. v. Jacobs and wife, Carmarthen Summer Assizes, 1890; also London Lancet, 1890, vol. ii., p. 132.

[963] Caspar, “Forensic Medicine,” Syd. Soc. Pub., vol. ii., p. 29; London Lancet, April 11th, 1877, pp. 580-620.

[964] Thornhill, Med. Gazette, Nov. 28th, 1835, p. 390.

[965] Caspar, “Forensic Medicine,” Syd. Soc. Pub., vol. ii., p. 36; Martin, Med. Times and Gazette, March 30th, 1861 (Case 132).

[966] “The Penge Case;” Reg. v. Staunton, Central Crim. Court, 1877.

[967] The case of Reg. v. Jacobs and wife.

[968] Holland, “On Morbid Effects of Deficiency of Food,” London, 1839.