continue a long time, and may advance far towards the destruction of life, before the victim is so reduced by it as to be altogether confined from an intercourse with the world. In this state a blow, which at another time would have been perfectly harmless, may rupture the aneurismal sac, and he will expire instantly. Is the author of such a blow, even if given in a quarrel or altercation, to be regarded as a murderer?

Even with a weapon, in its nature a deadly one, a blow may be given in such a manner as to occasion death, yet it may be very manifest that this would not have been the result, but for some peculiarity in the health of the person killed. The hemorrhage from the bursting spontaneously of an aneurism in the ham or from a varicose vein (morbid disten-. tion of the urine) in the leg, is sometimes so profuse as to cause death in a very short time, unless some person of sufficient skill to manage it happen to be present at the moment, although the disease may not have advanced so far as to disable the subject of it, or to render him incapable of labor. Such cases, though not frequent, are occasionally met with in practice. Now if we suppose the aneurismal or varicose tumor, instead of bursting spontaneously, is ruptured in a quarrel, and death ensues; the existence of such a tumor is not suffered to make the crime of murder of an offence, which, but for that, would have been no more than an ordinary assault and battery; but reduces the crime, in the eye of the law, to manslaughter. Other cases of a similar nature might be mentioned. All that it concerns us, however, at present, to know, is that a peculiar state of health, or a peculiar constitution of the body, by which an injury is rendered fatal, that would not otherwise have been so, may so modify the character of the offence in which the injury was given, as materially to diminish its criminality. In this case the peculiarity of structure or disease can avail the prisoner nothing, provided the injury be sufficiently severe to have destroyed life under ordinary circumstances. It must be shown that it was rather the

peculiarity in the state of the system, than the injury received, which destroyed life. It must be the province of the physician in such a case to determine how far either of these causes of death may have predominated, and, consequently, in some measure, to decide the degree of guilt of the accused. This question will be, in some instances, one of no small difficulty to determine with such a degree of certainty as to be satisfactory, in a matter of so great importance. Where the nature of the case, in respect to occurrences of this sort is doubtful, other circumstances, such as tend to point out the temper and disposition of the criminal at the time the act was committed, will doubtless be suffered to have an influence in the decision.

The case of a peculiar structure of the body, by which it is more exposed to accidents than in the ordinary mode of organization, is analogous to that of peculiar exposure from some disease. In a few instances, some one and perhaps more of the arteries which supply the limbs, take a course much more superficial than is usual in the generality of mankind. In such a case, a wound which commonly would be very trifling, might produce a very dangerous, and, (if no surgical aid is at hand) perhaps a fatal hemorrhage. An unusual construction of some of the bones furnishes a similar example of a preternatural liability to injury.

Some examples of these several kinds of extraordinary exposure, whether from peculiarity of organization or from particular diseases, will be mentioned when we come to speak of injuries done to the several parts of the body. In the mean time the following case, quoted by Morgagri, may serve as an illustration of this subject.

'An old man, being busy in cutting wood in the forest of another person, was caught by the master of the forest in the middle of his theft. The master first blamed him, which was answered from the old man with curses and threats; and at length, as the old man was running away, the master struck him on the back, once only, with a club. The man fell down dead from the blow, after going two or three paces. The

great artery was found to be ruptured transversely, and cleft asunder; notwithstanding, the vertebræ and ribs were sound and unhurt.'1

On this case Morgagri remarks:

'If it happen that this vessel was very near to rupture of itself, when it received a concussion from a violent blow upon the vertebra, to which it adhered, it will not seem very foreign to probability to suppose that it might be broken through ; especially as by reason of the various passions and feelings of the old man, who was caught in the theft, enraged, and put to flight, the artery would be straightened at the same time, in several places, by irregular contractions, and the action of threatening and cursing, and the efforts of running, would more speedily urge on the blood, and force it more vehemently into this artery.'

A case is stated by Zacchias, analogous to those which we have been considering, of the complication of a wound with. a disease, in itself distinct from it, in a manner somewhat different. During the prevalence of an epidemic of any kind, all who live in the sphere of its influence are more or less predisposed to take the disease. In some instances, this predisposition is of itself sufficiently strong to give rise to the disease, without any other cause; in others it only seems to prepare the system, so as to give effect to any exciting cause that may happen to present itself, and to give a character to the disease which is produced.

In this manner, a wound may become the exciting cause of a disease to which it has no direct relation, and thus the time of an epidemic become the cause of death, when at a different period it would have been attended by no very serious consequences.

When the plague was raging in the city,' says Zacchias, 'Silvius Amorinus, being suddenly provoked by one Ansovinus, struck him on the head. The wound was considerably severe, but there was no fracture of the bone, nor any other

1.De causis et sediler Morborum, III. p. 194.

injury, which should render it in itself dangerous. On the third day, Ansovinus was seized with a violent fever, with very acute pain in the head, and vertigo, and vomiting of bilious matter. At the same time the wound became greatly inflamed, and the next day mortification began in it; and livid spots appeared over the whole body,-on the sixth day he died. Silvius was accused of killing him; and his friends applied to Zacchias for his opinion upon the case. Zacchias decided that he was not guilty of the homicide. For as the wound was not in its nature a mortal one, it was to be presumed that Ansovinus died of the plague, independently of the wound.' It is easy to conceive that a case might occur in which it would be extremely difficult to determine to which cause the death ought to be attributed. But the merits of such a case must depend so exclusively upon the peculiar circumstances of the case itself, that it would be useless to dis cuss it in the abstract. Besides the general purpose of examining a wounded man, to ascertain the extent and degree. of mortality of the wounds, it is sometimes of importance to attend carefully to their situation and to the direction in which they were given, in reference to the question whether they could have been inflicted by the person himself. Every circumstance of this sort, which can in any manner bear upon the question of the guilt or innocence of the supposed criminal, should receive a careful attention. To a physician,however, who is sufficiently familiar with the anatomy and with the powers of the human body, this case will present no difficulty, provided proper care is taken in the examination of the wound.

For a similar reason, it may be important to determine not only that a particular wound was a fatal one, but in what length of time life would be destroyed by it. The duration of the period that might have intervened between the time of giving the wound, and its fatal termination, may in some cases have a serious effect in detecting the real criminal, or in removing suspicion from an innocent man.

The result of all our observations is, that every circumstance which can have any relation to the question, either as to the cause or the mode of death, produced by a wound, or to the innocence or guilt of the man who gave the wound, should be carefully noted, and fully taken into the account, in making up a professional opinion.

I will conclude this part of our subject with a case which has occurred among us, and which, while it shows the importance of bringing all the circumstances of the case into view, shows also the folly of trusting to the opinions of those who are ignorant and incompetent.

In February, 1818, an examination was held before two justices of the Peace, on a complaint against the master, mate, and supercargo of a ship, which had recently arrived from Calcutta, charging them with the murder of one Brown, a seaman. It appeared, that about four months before, there had been a disturbance, or meeting, on board the ship, in which, according to the testimony of the sailors, Brown received a blow in his side, from one of the officers, with a handspike. Whether this testimony was true or not, admitted of some doubt,—but that is not material to the case, as to the object now in view. The sailors testified that Brown, after this time, was unable to do any duty, and kept all the time below, except once, when he attempted to stand at the helm, but fainted, after standing about three quarters of an hour. The officers, on the other hand, uniformly declared that he was as able to do duty, and went aloft as well, after the meeting as before; that he was always a feeble man, and there was no change in his ability to labor at that time. In confirmation of this declaration, it was proved that he had been freely on shore, and had walked about town, during the three or four days from the time of the arrival of the vessel in port until the day of his death. A day or two before his death, he had applied to a physician for advice, who directed a plaster to his side.

On the 13th of February, he appeared to be as well as he