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

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

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

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

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

4. By starving or famine.

5. By wounding or blows.

6. By poisoning.

7. By laying noisome and poisonous filth at a man’s door, to the intent by a poisonous air to poison him. Mr. Dalton, cap. 93, out of Mr. Cook’s reading.^[94]

8. By strangulation or suffocation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By the 43 Geo. 3. c. 58. (commonly called Lord Ellenborough’s Act) any person administering poison with intent to murder another, (though no death ensue) or to procure the miscarriage of a woman quick with child, is declared guilty of felony without benefit of clergy: and persons administering medicines to procure miscarriage, though the woman is not quick with child, are declared guilty of felony, punishable by imprisonment or transportation (vide post). If a man persuade another to drink a poisonous liquor, under the notion of a medicine, who afterwards drinks it in his absence, or if A, intending to poison B, put poison into a thing, and deliver it to D who knows nothing of the matter, to be by him delivered to B, and D innocently delivers it accordingly in the absence of A;^[109] in this case the procurer of the felony is as much a principal as if he had been present when it was done (2 Hawk. P. C. 443: Vin. Ab. tit. Accessory) or if one mix poison with any eatable with intent to kill another, and a stranger casually eat it and die,^[110] it is murder; Dalton, 93. Agnes Gore’s case for poisoning by ratsbane (9 Co. Rep. 81: Palm. R. 547.), not so if it be to kill vermin; but query if it be manslaughter where there is not proper precaution, as where the poison is laid in ordinary places for keeping meat, and mixed with ordinary food, so that a child may take it. 1 East. P. C. He that counsels another to give poison, if that other doth it, the counsellor, if absent, is accessory before. Coke, P. C. 49. Case of the murder of Sir Thomas Overbury, Harg. St. Trials. But he that absolutely gives or lays the poison, to the intent to poison, though he be absent when it is taken by the party, yet he is principal, and this was Weston’s case. Harg. St. Trials: Co. P. C. p. 49. Vaux’s case, ubi supra, and Donellan’s case for the murder of Sir Theodosius Boughton, Warwick Assizes, 1784. See Appendix, 243.

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