Medical jurisprudence / by Alfred S. Taylor.

  • Taylor, Alfred Swaine, 1806-1880.
Date:
1850
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Medical jurisprudence / by Alfred S. Taylor. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by the National Library of Medicine (U.S.), through the Medical Heritage Library. The original may be consulted at the National Library of Medicine (U.S.)

    193/694
    often in his power to say whether a contused wound has resulted from the use of a weapon, from a blow of the fist, or from the deceased having accidentally fallen against some hard surface. This question is frequently put to medical witnesses, on those trials for manslaughter which arise out of the pugilistic combats of half- drunken men. One of the combatants is generally killed, either by a blow on the head, by a fall, or by both kinds of violence combined. The skull may or may not be fractured; and the person may die of concussion, inflammation of the brain, or from extravasation of blood. The general defence is that the deceased struck his head against some hard substance in falling on the ground; and the surgeon is asked whether the particular appearances might not be explained on the supposition of a fall. This, in general, he admits to be possible, and the prisoner is acquitted. A medical witness is rarely in a position to swear with certainty, that a contused wound of the head must have been produced by a weapon, and not by a fall. Some circumstances, however, may occasionally enable him to form an opinion on this point. If there be contused wounds on several parts of the head, with copious effusion of blood beneath the skin, the presumption is that a weapon must have been used. If the marks of violence be on the vertex, it is highly probable that they have been caused by a weapon, since this is not com- monly a part which can be injured by a fall. According to the medical evidence given on this question, an indictment may or may not be sustained. A case is reported in which a prisoner was indicted for striking the deceased, and fracturing his skull with a piece of brick. The evidence showed that the prisoner struck with his fist, and that the deceased in consequence fell upon the piece of brick, which caused the fracture and led to death. The judges held that this was a fatal variation. (Lata Times, Mar. 21, 1846, p. 501.) We may be often in doubt whether, in respect to lacerated or contused wounds, a weapon has been used or not. Contused wounds on bony parietes, as on the cranium, have somewhat the appearance of incised wounds, the skin being some- times evenly separated; still, when the wound is recent, a careful examination will generally enable the witness to surmount the difficulty. If some time have elapsed before the wound is examined, there will necessarily be great caution re- quired in forming an opinion. The following case, which was tried at the Chelms- ford Spring Assizes, 1837, was communicated to me by a pupil, who gave evi- dence on the occasion. The prosecutor, it was alleged, had been stabbed on the head with a knife. The prisoner struck the blow, and he certainly had a knife in his hand at the time; but whether the wound was or was not produced by the knife, could not be determined from the evidence of eye-witnesses. In the de- fence, it was urged that the prisoner had inflicted the wound with his knuckles, and not with a knife. When the surgeon was called to examine the wound, there was so much contusion and laceration about its edges, that it was impossible to ascertain, with the necessary legal precision, by what means it had been caused. There was suspicion, but no proof that a weapon had been employed, and the prisoner was acquitted of felony. Stabs and Gilts.—It has already been remarked, that the law attaches great importance to the clear proof of the use of a weapon; and a medical man has, therefore, a serious responsibility thrown upon him when, in the absence of a weapon, he is called upon to say, from an examination of the wound, whether one has been used or not. The statute on wounding makes no reference to the means by which wounds are inflicted; but the words are held by the judges to imply, in all cases, the use of some weapon or instrument. The following are the pro- visions of the law. Whosoever shall stab, cut, or wound any person, or shall by any means whatsoever, cause to any person, any bodily injury dangerous to life, with intent in any of the cases aforesaid to commit murder, shall be guilty of felony. (1 Vict. c. 85, s. 2.) The word stab is held to import a wound from a pointed instrument; the word cut, from an instrument having an